[Senate Hearing 118-9]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                          S. Hrg. 118-9

                       RISING SEAS, RISING COSTS:
      CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE ECONOMIC RISKS TO COASTAL COMMUNITIES

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                        COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION
                               __________

                             March 1, 2023
                               __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on the Budget
           
           
                  [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                            www.govinfo.gov
                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                    
51-949                    WASHINGTON : 2023                              
                            
                            
                        COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET

               SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island, Chairman
PATTY MURRAY, Washington             CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
RON WYDEN, Oregon                    MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan            LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont             RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
MARK R. WARNER, Virginia             MITT ROMNEY, Utah
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas
TIM KAINE, Virginia                  MIKE BRAUN, Indiana
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland           JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico            RICK SCOTT, Florida
ALEX PADILLA, California             MIKE LEE, Utah

                   Dan Dudis, Majority Staff Director
        Kolan Davis, Republican Staff Director and Chief Counsel
                   Mallory B. Nersesian, Chief Clerk
                  Alexander C. Scioscia, Hearing Clerk

                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                        WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1, 2023
                OPENING STATEMENTS BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS

                                                                   Page
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Chairman.............................     1
    Prepared Statement...........................................    29
Senator Ron Johnson..............................................     3
Senator Charles E. Grassley, Ranking Member......................    21
    Prepared Statement...........................................    31

                    STATEMENTS BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Senator Patty Murray.............................................    13
Senator Tim Kaine................................................    16
Senator Alex Padilla.............................................    18
Senator Mike Braun...............................................    22
Senator Chris Van Hollen.........................................    24

                               WITNESSES

Mr. Matthew Eby, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, First 
  Street Foundation..............................................     5
    Prepared Statement...........................................    33
Dr. Sean Becketti, Principal, Elliot Bay Analytics...............     7
    Prepared Statement...........................................    56
Ms. Kate Michaud, Town Manager, Warren, Rhode Island.............     8
    Prepared Statement...........................................    58
Dr. Jessica Weinkle, Associate Professor, University of North 
  Carolina, Wilmington...........................................    10
    Prepared Statement...........................................    60
Dr. Marlo Lewis, Jr., Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise 
  Institute......................................................    11
    Prepared Statement...........................................    72

                                APPENDIX

Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record
    Mr. Eby......................................................    89
    Dr. Becketti.................................................    91
    Dr. Weinkle..................................................    92
    Dr. Lewis....................................................    99
Charts submitted by Chairman Sheldon Whitehouse..................   105
Documents submitted to the Record by Mr. Matthew Eby.............   107

 
                       RISING SEAS, RISING COSTS:
      CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE ECONOMIC RISKS TO COASTAL COMMUNITIES

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1, 2023

                                           Committee on the Budget,
                                                       U.S. Senate,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The hearing was convened, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 
a.m., in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room SD-608, Hon. 
Sheldon Whitehouse, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Whitehouse, Murray, Kaine, Van Hollen, 
Padilla, Grassley, Johnson, Braun, and R. Scott.
    Also present: Democratic Staff: Dan Dudis, Majority Staff 
Director; Kara Allen, Senior Energy and Climate Advisor, Energy 
Lead.
    Republican Staff: Matthew Giroux, Deputy Staff Director; 
Jordan Pakula, Professional Staff Member.
    Witnesses:
    Mr. Matthew Eby, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, First 
Street Foundation
    Dr. Sean Becketti, Principal, Elliott Bay Analytics
    Ms. Kate Michaud, Town Manager, Warren, Rhode Island
    Dr. Jessica Weinkle, (Via WebEx) Associate Professor, 
University of North Carolina, Wilmington
    Dr. Marlo Lewis, Jr., Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise 
Institute

          OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN WHITEHOUSE \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Prepared statement of Chairman Whitehouse appears in the 
appendix on page 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chairman Whitehouse. The hearing of the Senate Budget 
Committee will come to order. This is our first in our actual 
room and the second in a series of hearings looking at the 
effect of climate change on the federal budget. Senator 
Grassley cannot be here because the Attorney General is in the 
Judiciary Committee, and I will be spending some time there as 
well with the Attorney General and Senator Kaine will take the 
gavel from me when that takes place. And I want to thank 
Senator Johnson for being here to step in for Ranking Member 
Grassley.
    After our first hearing's high-level budget impact 
overview, today we begin looking at the specific ways climate 
change will burden and indeed is already burdening our economy 
and our federal budget.
    We'll start with a look at our coasts, important to Rhode 
Island. The U.S. has nearly 13,000 miles of coastline, 40 
percent of our population lives along that coast, more than a 
trillion dollars' worth of residential and commercial real 
estate is coastal, as is much of our infrastructure--ports, 
coastal roads, water treatment facilities.
    Climate change threatens to upend life as it's now lived in 
coastal communities and put immense burdens on government. 
Rhode Island may be the smallest physical state in the nation, 
but we have nearly 400 miles of coastline. In Warren, the 
smallest town and the smallest in our five counties, some homes 
have seen property values drop by one-third because of flood 
risks. Sea level rise is projected to permanently flood coastal 
portions of Warren over the next decade.
    In 2017, Zillow's real estate database identified over 4800 
homes in Rhode Island that would be under water with a 
projected six feet of sea level rise, which is projected for 
us. That's nearly $3 billion in Rhode Island home values. Our 
coastal communities turn into a Rhode Island archipelago.
    The situation is not unique to Warren or Rhode Island. For 
most American households, their greatest wealth is their home. 
As homes and businesses in coastal communities face more 
frequent sunny-day flooding and wetter and more violent ocean 
storms, insurance will become more expensive and harder to 
find. Mortgages depend on insurance, so lending will suffer.
    Coastal communities will become harder places to live and 
work. And real estate values and local tax bases will decline. 
Moody's is already looking at local municipal bonds in this 
light. In emergencies, coastal communities will turn to the 
federal government for financial assistance and federal flood 
insurance costs will rise.
    The consequences extend beyond real estate. Most of our 
infrastructure, roads, bridges, Military bases and ports sit 
along coasts. When critical infrastructure is lost to regular 
inundation or to storm damage, local economies can suffer and 
again the federal government has to foot the bill.
    Unfortunately, the cost of these climate hazards is 
projected to grow. First Street Foundation has a peer-reviewed 
flood risk tool that shows significantly increasing risks to 
residential properties over the next 30 years. Rhode Island's 
own flood projections show similar risks. A study published 
just two weeks ago estimates flood risks in real estate 
markets, showing them overvalued now by $237 billion. Spoiler 
alert. The worst property over evaluations are along our 
coasts.
    The study warns that coastal real estate values may plummet 
and cascade into systemic risks for the mortgage market. I'll 
interrupt my remarks here for one moment to point out that this 
phrase ``systemic risks'' you'll hear a lot of in these 
hearings. It was defined in the last one. It means when a risk 
is so serious in one sector of the economy that it cascades 
across the rest of the economy as we saw in the 2008 mortgage 
meltdown, which hurt a lot more people than those with bad 
mortgages.
    Freddie Mac has made similar warnings. So, let me close by 
quoting their former chief economist here today on the damage 
climate change is likely to inflict as coastal property values 
get hit. He said, ``The economic losses and social disruption 
are likely to be greater, in total, than those experienced in 
the housing crisis and Great Recession. A sobering warning for 
those of us who lived through that. The only good news here is 
that by acting now we can minimize the damage and costs to 
households, businesses, and our economy.
    Chairman Whitehouse. I'll turn to Senator Johnson for his 
opening remarks and then I'll introduce the witnesses.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHNSON

    Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it is true I 
was asked to stand in as Ranking Member here to replace Senator 
Grassley on Monday. So, I need to first state that the opinions 
I express are those of my own, not Senator Grassley. I don't 
want to get him in trouble. I also want to say I'm not a 
climate change denier. I'm just not a climate change alarmist, 
but I find the debate fascinating. I look forward to the 
hearing.
    I read a fair amount about it, a couple good books, The 
Climate Changed the Facts, edited by Alan Moran. Apocalypse 
Never is a more recent one. Subtitle there, Why Environmental 
Alarmism Hurts Us All, by Michael Shellenberger, and then 
anything that Bjorn Lomborg writes--and by the way, I think I'm 
saying this right. Mr. Lomborg completely acknowledges manmade 
climate change; just doesn't think we should spend anything 
with limited resources. There are far better ways of spending 
money to alleviate human suffering and I'm glad to see that Mr. 
Lewis is citing Mr. Lomborg in his testimony a number of times.
    But in my mind a good scientist is a very healthy skeptic. 
You know always questioning, always seeking the truth. And to 
me the term scientific consensus, I know there certainly is 
some, but it's a very unscientific terms in many ways, 
particularly when you're dealing with something that--you know 
I think there's a lot of legitimate disagreement in terms of 
climate change, but why am I skeptical? Now, I'm 67 years old. 
I've lived through decades of malfeasanceism, doomsayers, and I 
just asked my staff to get just a couple of the most delicious 
predictions.
    Not only were these individuals wrong, they were 
spectacularly wrong. In 1970, Harvard biologist, George Wald 
estimated that ``civilization will end within 50 or 30 years, 
by 1985 to 2000, unless immediate action is taken against 
problems facing mankind.'' January 1970, Life Magazine said 
scientists have solid evidence to support the prediction that 
by 1980 urban dwellers would have to wear gas mask to survive 
air pollution.
    In the spring of 1970, a issue of the Living Wilderness, 
Dennis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, declared that 
``It's already too late to avoid mass starvation.'' 1978 The 
New York Times reported that a team of climate specialists saw 
``no end in sight to a 30-year cooling trend in the Northern 
Hemisphere.'' In 1980, ecologist Kenneth Watt predicted the 
world would be four degrees colder in 1990 and 11 degrees 
colder in the Year 2000. That, by the way, didn't happen.
    1988 Maldives Director of Environmental Affairs predicted 
that rising sea levels threatened to cover the Islands in the 
next 30 years. In 1989, Noel Brown, a U.N. environmental 
official said the entire nation is going to be wiped off the 
earth if sea levels from global warming was reversed by the 
Year 2000. 2004 a Pentagon climate change report said that 
Britain will be Siberia by the Year 2020. I don't think that 
happened. 2007 had a view in climate panel claimed that it 
would be ``too late unless drastic action were taken by the 
Year 2012'' and in 2008, Al Gore--by the way, anybody know how 
much his wealth has grown off of climate alarmism? But he cited 
a claim from another climate researcher that the North Pole may 
be ice free by the Year 2013. That didn't happen either.
    So, you combine those spectacularly wrong predictions time 
and time again they're never held to account. Nobody ever fact 
checks them. But also just take a look at some data, so 
scientific data like the Vostok Ice Core Sample. More than 
400,000 years of geologic history, 22.7-degree variation in 
four to five cycles. Greenland ice core samples 6.7 degrees 
variation.
    This is one I always spring on crowds. Do you know much the 
sea level has risen in the Bay of San Francisco since the last 
glaciation period, 390 feet. So again, real or not, manmade 
climate change I don't see how mankind can make even a 
negligible impact with change in the climate which always 
changes. It always does. So, I'm concerned that the cure is 
worse than the disease and we would be wasting limited 
resources, mortgaging our kids future, especially when China 
and India are not exactly on board and they're going to 
continue to provide power to pull their populations out of 
poverty.
    What this Committee should be focusing on is $31.5 trillion 
worth of debt, a baseline budget that's gone from about $4.5 
trillion prior to COVID to it appears to about $6 trillion and 
nobody's even blinking an eye that we've increased that by 
staff function, of about $1.5 trillion. The fact that our 
interest rates are rising with every 1 percent increase in 
interest rates our interest expense will rise by $315 billion.
    If we just return to the interest rate we paid in the last 
three decades this last century that would add $1.2 trillion in 
interest expense to our annual budget. That's about what we 
spend on Social Security. So, Mr. Chairman, again I look 
forward to the hearing. I think it'll be interesting. I got a 
lot of questions, but I really think the Budget Committee ought 
to be focusing on the budget and focusing on that calamity that 
is roaring toward us. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Whitehouse. Well, thank you very much, Senator 
Johnson. And I think we are focusing on the budget by focusing 
on the sea level rise calamity that is roaring towards us. I'm 
pleased to have five witnesses here, including one from my home 
state.
    First is Matthew Eby the Founder and CEO of the First 
Street Foundation, which is a research and technology nonprofit 
that is defining America's climate risk. First Street began its 
work by looking at flood risks and just this week published a 
report on the rising cost of hurricane winds.
    Next, we'll hear from Dr. Sean Becketti, a Principal with 
Elliott Bay Analytics, which provides mortgage analytics, 
consulting and advisory services. In his prior role as the 
Chief Economist at Freddie Mac, Dr. Becketti wrote an article 
foretelling the many challenges facing coastal real estate.
    Following Dr. Becketti, Kate Michaud will testify. Kate is 
the town manager for Warren, Rhode Island where they are 
regularly dealing with the practical and immediate challenges 
of rising sea levels and flooding.
    After Ms. Michaud, we will be joined remotely by Dr. 
Jessica Weinkle, an Associate Professor from the University of 
North Carolina, Wilmington, who teaches coastal and ocean 
policy and environmental politics and policy.
    Finally, we'll hear from Dr. Marlo Lewis, Jr., who serves a 
Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an 
organization founded to reform America's so-called 
unaccountable regulatory state.
    Mr. Eby, you have minutes to begin your remarks. Please 
proceed.

STATEMENT OF MATTHEW EBY, FOUNDER AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 
                  FIRST STREET FOUNDATION \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Prepared statement of Mr. Eby appears in the appendix on page 
33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Eby. Good morning, Chairman Whitehouse, Ranking Member 
Grassley, and members of the Senate Committee on the Budget. My 
name is Matthew Eby and I'm the Chief Executive Officer and 
Founder of the First Street Foundation, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit 
headquartered in Brooklyn, New York that is dedicated to make 
climate risk information accessible, easy to understand, 
actionable for citizens, businesses, and governments. I thank 
you for your invitation and the opportunity to speak and 
describe how the First Street Foundation is quantifying and 
communicating climate risks for the United States and to relate 
our findings to the Committee.
    Today I will describe the highlight to the First Street 
Foundation models related to climate risk as a combination of 
the estimated exposure of each property and the vulnerability 
of buildings on those properties in dollars and cents. We've 
employed models of flood, wildfire, hurricane winds, and 
extreme heat to create probabilistic estimates of exposure for 
each of the approximately 143 million properties in the U.S.
    My oral testimony will focus primarily on our flood work. 
At the national level, the First Street Foundation flood model 
identifies 14.6 million properties as having a 1 percent annual 
risk of flooding. The same definition as the FEMA One-In-A-
Hundred Special Flood Hazard Area.
    While the definitions are the same, our findings are not. 
Our model identifies 5.9 million more properties across the 
country to have this risk in or outside the FEMA Special Flood 
Hazard Area. Of these properties, 4.3 million are single-
family, one-to-four-unit homes that are not built to a standard 
to prevent flood damage.
    These single-family properties face an estimated annual 
loss of $4,694 per property for a total of $20 billion in 
annualized damage today. These damage estimates are expected to 
grow by 61 percent over the next 30 years to an estimated 
annual loss of $7,563 per residential property, totaling $32.3 
billion nationally.
    Commercial properties are at risk of an additional $14 
billion in property damage today, growing to 17 billion over 
the next 30 years and account for a huge amount of indirect 
community economic risk through the disruption of supply 
chains, lost labor, and lost productivity. These indirect costs 
associated with commercial building flood risks are around 50 
billion today, growing to 63 billion in 30 years.
    Along with that, the First Street Foundation wind model 
finds around 18.5 billion in annualized property damage today, 
growing to around 20 billion in 30 years, which we have yet to 
calculate the downstream economic impacts of. Across the 
country we have found 14 percent of residential properties, 17 
percent of all social infrastructure, schools, places of 
worship, libraries, et cetera, 20 percent of commercial 
properties, 23 percent of all roads and 25 percent of all 
critical infrastructure facilities--utilities, hospitals, 
police stations that are all at risk of flooding and becoming 
impassible or not operational.
    All of these categories will face increased substantial 
flood risks over the next 30 years, adding an additional 3 to 9 
percent in exposure. The increasing exposure to the U.S. to 
flood perils has an observable impact on property value by 
looking at the universe of available real estate transactions 
from the years 2005 to 2017 in coastal counties. We found a 
quantifiable 15.9 billion in losses directly attributable to 
properties exposed to mere tidal flooding. The over evaluation 
of these properties is further exacerbated by the economic 
damage associated with unknown flood risks and ultimately 
amounts to approximately 200 billion in current real estate 
market overvaluation. If this overvaluation is ever realized, 
the impact would be dramatic.
    In closing, the First Street Foundation is grateful to the 
Senate Budget Committee to present our findings related to 
climate risks and their economic impacts on the nation, 
including our coastal communities. By creating property-
specific climate adjusted estimates of physical climate risk 
exposures and related economic losses across the entire United 
States First Street Foundation hopes to inspire informed action 
by citizens, businesses, and governments.
    We are proud to make our results publicly and freely 
available to individual Americans and to democratize access to 
key risk information that will support informed decision-making 
and can result in communities that are more resilient in the 
face of climate change. We remain optimistic by continuing to 
be informed by the science that we, as a nation, can find ways 
to address climate change and create more resilient communities 
today and in the future. Thank you.
    Chairman Whitehouse. Thank you very much, Mr. Eby, and 
thank you for the support and guidance that you provide to 
coastal communities to have access to your work. Let me turn 
now to Dr. Becketti.

           STATEMENT OF DR. SEAN BECKETTI, PRINCIPAL,
                   ELLIOTT BAY ANALYTICS \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Prepared statement of Dr. Becketti appears in the appendix on 
page 56.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dr. Becketti. Chairman Whitehouse, Ranking Member Grassley, 
and Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to 
address the way sea level rise and increasing flood risks 
affect housing.
    In 2016, while I was the Chief Economist at Freddie Mac, I 
co-wrote an article about the potential impact of flood risk on 
housing with a special focus on sea level rise. The article was 
called Life's a Beach. I believe that article is more relevant 
today than when it was published, and I would like to summarize 
the key points for you.
    Sea level has risen measurably over more than a century. 
Between 1901 and 2018, the global average sea level rose by 
between 6 and 10 inches and more precise satellite radar data 
for the period of 1993 to 2017, indicates the pace of sea level 
rise is accelerating. The rate of sea level rise varies 
considerably across regions.
    For instance, the sea level along the Eastern Seaboard of 
the United States has been rising three to four times faster 
than the global average. And in the Miami area alone, daily 
highwater levels have been rising almost an inch a year. Floods 
also have become more common and some cities on the East Coast 
have experienced a tenfold increase in the frequency of 
flooding.
    In the years since the publication of Life's a Beach, the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recorded 12 
floods that each caused more than a $1 billion damage. The 
primary source of flood insurance is the National Flood 
Insurance Program or NFIP. By subsidizing the premiums on the 
insurance offers, NFIP actually encourages development in the 
flood plan. Moreover, many of the NFIP flood maps are out of 
date. Independent research suggests that many areas tagged as 
outside the flood plan by NFIP, in fact, face a significant 
risk of flood.
    Finally, NFIP is expensive. In 2017, Congress forgave $16 
billion in order to keep NFIP within its $30.5 billion debt 
limit. And currently, NFIP accrues over a million dollars per 
day in interest charges on its approximately $20 billion in 
debt.
    The increases in sea level and flood risks pose challenges, 
both for homeowners and for the housing system, generally. Let 
me list just five of these challenges. One, most mortgages in 
the United States are 30-year loans. In areas where sea level 
rise may make homes uninhabitable in 30 years or less, lenders 
may become reluctant to offer 30-year mortgages.
    Second, private insurance contracts are annual. As flood 
risks increase, insurance companies may choose between steadily 
rising premiums or simply failing to renew policies when these 
risks become near certainties. Third, taxpayers may balk at 
covering the escalating costs of the NFIP in light of the 
predictability of the losses. Taxpayers may feel that the 
affected homeowners ignored decades-long warning of the risks 
they were bearing. Four, a large share of homeowner's wealth is 
locked up in the equity in their homes. If those homes become 
uninsurable and unmarketable, the values of the homes will 
plummet and unlike the experience of 2007 and '08, these 
homeowners will have no expectation that the value of their 
homes will ever recover.
    Finally, floods damage the infrastructure in the community. 
As a result, even homeowners on high ground who avoid direct 
damage may suffer losses as community services deteriorate and 
businesses are forced to relocate, taking employment 
opportunities with them.
    These are just a few of the challenges posed by sea level 
rise and flood risks. There are no simple solutions. 
Nonetheless, the sooner the nation grapples with these 
challenges the lower the costs and the lower the amount of 
human suffering. The sea level will continue to rise regardless 
of the course we choose. Thank you for your time and attention.
    Chairman Whitehouse. Thank you. We will now turn to my 
fellow Rhode Islander, Kate Michaud. I should say that my time 
in Judiciary is about to begin. Senator Kaine is here, who will 
Chair for me when I go down to Judiciary, which I probably will 
at the end of Kate's testimony. I want to thank our 
Appropriations Chair and President Pro Tempore, Patty Murray, 
for joining us. And if I'm not back for the first round of 
questions, I would let Senator Kaine and Senator Murray be the 
two lead offs since they are here and then the list is Van 
Holland and Padilla. With that, Ms. Michaud, thank you for 
being here. Welcome to Washington.

            STATEMENT OF KATE MICHAUD, TOWN MANAGER,
                    WARREN, RHODE ISLAND \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Prepared statement of Ms. Michaud appears in the appendix on 
page 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ms. Michaud. Thank you, Chairman Whitehouse and Ranking 
Member Grassley, and to the distinguished members of the 
Committee for allowing me to address you today. My name is Kate 
Michaud and I'm the Town Manager of the Town of Warren, which 
as Senator Whitehouse mentioned, is the smallest town in the 
smallest county in the smallest state in the nation.
    The Town of Warren is the location of the seat of the 
historic region of Solomons where the Massasoit-Narragansett 
once welcomed a delegation of Pilgrims, including Edward 
Winslow and Stephen Hopkins. Warren's prime location featuring 
18 miles of waterfront land allowed for a thriving shipbuilding 
industry, commercial shell fishing, and other marine-based 
businesses.
    Over time, manufacturing has taken over as the town's top 
employer with a diverse array of companies, including defense 
contractors, composite industry leaders, and consumer goods 
producers. Along with the rest of the state, housing density 
has increased to provide for the workforce that has followed 
job creation.
    In 2022, Rhode Island was the second most densely populated 
state with a majority of residents living near its 400 miles of 
coastline. Warren is no different, but Warren is changing. 
Warren's coastal proximity and flat elevation averaging seven 
feet or less in the most densely populated areas of town has 
rendered the town especially vulnerable to the effects of 
coastal flooding and climate change.
    What is happening and what is predicted to happen in our 
most vulnerable coastal areas is significant and while 
Warrenites are tirelessly self-reliant it is beyond our ability 
to simply cope. In 2017, the Town of Warren undertook a major 
wastewater treatment facility upgrade project to increase 
capacity and improve water quality.
    As the stewards of the taxpayers funds the town undertook a 
cost benefit analysis of the equipment that was to be installed 
to ensure that it would be viable for the life of the asset. 
With assistance from our engineers, state agencies, the 
University of Rhode Island, and utilizing NOAA data, a 
conservative estimate of three feet of sea level rise was 
adopted for the design horizon of 2065.
    Facility upgrades were completed in 2022 at a cost of $21.7 
million borne by the local taxpayers. Viability of the facility 
beyond three feet of sea overrise is unlikely. As a result of 
the study completed for the wastewater improvements, the town 
determined that there was a pressing need to calculate the 
future impacts of coastal flooding on our other critical 
municipal infrastructure and on the town's tax base. Efforts 
have focused on our Market Street area which is 184-acre 
district containing approximately 700 housing units, mostly 
multifamily rental housing as well as 30 businesses.
    The area currently has a total asset value of $138 million 
or just over 10 percent of the assessed value of the total 
town. A no-action scenario was developed predicting what would 
happen with no efforts to mitigate the rising waters. The data 
analysis concluded that by the Year 2100, 306 of the area's 400 
buildings could be lost permanently to the rising water with a 
loss in value of more than $85 million in today's dollars or 
more than 60 percent of the total assessed value of the area.
    A 24-inch storm surge on top of the predicted sea level 
rise, not extreme for a coastal hurricane or Nor'easter could 
result in additional $52 million in flood damage and $126 
million in lost business revenue. For reference, the hurricane 
of 1938 brought to 10 to 12 feet of storm surge to Rhode 
Island. With just three feet of sea level rise predicted to be 
experienced locally within the next 30 years, three of the 
town's major roads, including the primary evacuation route 
would be flooded with salt water and impassible every day at 
high tide.
    These roads are already experiencing significant effects of 
sunny day flooding occurring during the seasonal high tides in 
the spring and fall. Storm water systems intended to drain 
precipitation away from the populated areas are instead 
operating in reverse, bringing tidal water into the inland 
areas flooding roads, parking lots, and even homes. Underground 
tidal action has washed out the road base on at least one local 
road causing a partial collapse and hundreds of thousands of 
dollars of damage to underground utilities.
    While we are just starting to fully understand the 
potential cost of damage to public assess, we know we will need 
additional resources beyond what we can make available and we 
are looking to federal resources to help us to assess and 
prepare, including FEMA's Building Resilient Infrastructure and 
Communities Program and the National Coastal Resilience Fund.
    I've been invited here today not because Warren is unique 
in its vulnerability, but because it is a microcosm of the 
hundreds of small coastal communities in this country all 
populated with hard-working residents and business owners. 
Warren is not a playground of the rich. It is not a tourism 
hotspot. The homes that line our shores are not vacation homes 
of little consequence.
    I am here not because I am trying to taking a cutting-edge 
approach to local governance, but because one of my most basic 
duties is to prepare my community for the realities of the 
future. I am concerned about financial limits of the taxpayers. 
I am concerned about the bonding agencies. I am concerned about 
what happens when the financial industry that a 30-year 
mortgage in my town is too great a risk to take.
    I thank you for this opportunity to address you today and I 
look forward to answering any questions that you may have.
    Senator Kaine. Thank you, Ms. Michaud. The next witness is 
appearing virtually and it's Dr. Weinkle. Please proceed and 
correct me if I got your name mispronounced, please.

    STATEMENT OF DR. JESSICA WEINKLE, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, 
          UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, WILMINGTON \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Prepared statement of Dr. Weinkle appears in the appendix on 
page 60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dr. Weinkle. No, that was fine. Thank you. Good morning. 
Thank you, Chairman Whitehouse, Ranking Member Grassley, and 
members of the Committee, for enabling me to visit with you 
today. It is a great honor.
    Today I share my perspective of the interface of climate 
change science, economics of coastal risks, and policy. As one 
born and raised on Miami Beach and now living in coastal 
Wilmington, North Carolina, coastal risk is a personal and 
professional concern of mine.
    What I have found in my nearly 20 years of research on the 
interface of climate change science and policy is what most 
people find in protracted areas of policymaking: money, power, 
and a system of social relationships that creates a community 
of mutually beneficial shared assumptions. Climate change 
science is big business and big politics and it's used to 
advocate for new ways of shaping the foundational components of 
our economy.
    And today it does not just engage with the biggest names in 
finance, it engages with decision-making on the scaffolding 
that is the institution of finance. This is not inherently 
problematic. Expertise is invaluable for decision-makers to 
understand public problems and develop a range of actionable 
options to alleviate those problems. What is problematic, 
however, is when scientific integrity is undermined in pursue 
of financial and political gain. This is indeed what has 
happened in the field of climate change science.
    The most commonly used emission scenarios in climate change 
research are grossly implausible or at the upper bounds of 
plausible. By implausible, I mean that CO2 emissions 
projections embedded in the scenarios do not reflect 
observation or the state of knowledge about energy markets in 
the global economy.
    Today it's not easy to separate the going ons of climate 
change research from the special interests of financial 
institutions. As an analogy, we can say, and indeed we know, 
much the same about the relationship between biomedical 
research and the pharmaceutical industry. The landscape of 
climate change research is made complicated by an out-copying 
of a nonprofit advocacy organizations that double as analytic 
consultants, hold contracts with private companies and 
government entities, and engage in official government advisory 
roles all while publishing in the peer reviewed literature and 
creating media storms.
    This is not really an issue of any one entity, though. It 
is pervasive. And again, much like other areas of research, 
such as pharmaceuticals, it's not inherently unusual. It is not 
unusual, but it does require policymakers to take a step back 
to understand what they were really looking at when they 
receive information about the economics of climate change 
risks.
    Disclosure practices must be improved across the board from 
climate science journals to scientific professional 
organizations to the development of national climate assessment 
reports and other places climate sciences are used in official 
advisory positions to policymakers.
    I have five points to share with the Committee. Number one, 
at the outset, I affirm that climate change is real, and it is 
important. Policies that reduce human impacts on local, 
regional, and global climate demonstrate a commitment to the 
well-being and security of our communities and future 
generations.
    Number two, social factors are the leading cause in 
historical increases in the cost of coastal loss events related 
to weather and climate extremes. Growth and population along 
the coast, the associated concentration of wealth and inflation 
explain the historical increases in the cost of coastal loss 
events.
    Number three, practical policy responses for reducing the 
cost and human suffering associated with coastal disasters 
would directly address underlying vulnerabilities in the built 
environment and within the most vulnerable communities. This 
approach also offers robustness and resilience to future 
climate change. The decision to use climate change as a focal 
point for discussing coastal disasters is a decision to deflect 
attention from the social and political causes of vulnerability 
and loss.
    Number four, reducing coastal risks makes good sense and it 
is also difficult. It is imperative that policymakers are 
working with plausible scenarios of future risks. This is a 
very basic rule of policy analysis. And finally, to reiterate, 
climate change science demonstrates an underappreciated dynamic 
system of conflicts of interests among climate change 
researchers, advocacy organizations, and the financial 
industry. Thank you.

 STATEMENT OF DR. MARLO LEWIS, JR., SENIOR FELLOW, COMPETITIVE 
                    ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Prepared statement of Dr. Lewis appears in the appendix on page 
72.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dr. Lewis. Okay. Thank you, Senators, for inviting me to 
testify today on behalf of the Competitive Enterprise 
Institute. We're a nonprofit research organization with a focus 
on regulatory policy and we are dedicated to promoting economic 
liberty and free enterprise.
    I was really impressed with the testimonies I've heard so 
far and one theme that I think I heard in comments in all of 
them, which was in my testimony and I'm quite pleased with this 
because I'm not a professional civil engineer of any sort or 
urban planner. It is the importance of adaptation. A lot of 
attribution has been placed on climate change for these risks 
to coastal communities by most of the witnesses. And I was 
surprised, but also pleased that nobody decided to promote 
emission reduction as a cure.
    In fact, Mr. Becketti said the seas are going to rise 
regardless of what we do. I guess I would qualify that just a 
little bit in saying that when it comes to sea level rise 
damages what's really more important than global sea level 
rise, which as one of the previous witnesses said, I think it 
was Dr. Becketti, has only been about 6 to 10 inches over the 
last century, is relative sea level rise. The relationship 
between the sea level and the coastline and this can be 
massively influenced by changes in the level of the land, water 
withdrawals, the withdrawals of fossil fuels from coastal 
areas, all of those can result in a sinking or subsidence of 
the land.
    So can the rebound from the disappearance of the glaciers. 
All of that can also raise the land level in relation to the 
sea. But if it is, in fact, the case that sea levels, say, in 
Rhode Island are going to rise by three feet in just the next 
30 years that is not due to global climate change. Only a small 
part of that would be. That would be due to more local factors.
    One point I want to stress that is in my testimony is the 
marvelous power of adaptation. Human beings have this 
remarkable capacity for adaptation. And I would hope that this 
would extend also to protection against the property damages 
from relative sea level rise primarily, but also to some extent 
just from global sea level rise.
    What I'm talking about, for example, is that since the 
1920s the average mortality, the average number of deaths 
globally by decade from all kinds of weather-related hazards, 
storms, snowstorms, heatwaves, drought--drought's the biggest 
killer, but that has declined by 96 percent over the last 
hundred years. That's really quite phenomenal.
    And if you consider that there has been a four-fold 
increase in global population, it actually means that the 
average person in the world today has 99.4 percent less risk of 
being killed by extreme weather than the average person in the 
1920s.
    Now, some people say, not at this panel, but I think we've 
all heard people say that, well, the weather's becoming more 
destructive and that explains why property damages are rising. 
And in fact, usually that's due to a failure to normalize the 
loss data for changes in population, for changes in property 
values. For example, the Florida coastal population has 
increased by something like 67 times since 1900. So, it stands 
to reason that a hurricane that hits in Dade or Browder County 
today would do a great deal more damage than one that hit say 
only 40 years, the same hurricane, that is.
    But this, I think, is a fascinating study that----
    Senator Kaine. And Dr. Lewis, you're over your time, so if 
you could try to summarize and conclude.
    Dr. Lewis. Yes, I will. That there has been basically a 
five-fold decrease since the 1980s in the relative impact of 
extreme weather of all kinds, globally, and that also is a 
testament to this amazing power of adaptation. And really to 
sustain that adaptation we need to keep the economy growing. We 
need to keep it dynamic. We need to keep therefore what moves 
the economy, what powers it available and accessible and 
affordable. Thank you very much.
    Senator Kaine. Thank you. We will begin with questions, and 
I will ask Senator Murray to start us off.

                  STATEMENT OF SENATOR MURRAY

    Senator Murray. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 
Appreciate that and I want to thank the Chairman and Senator 
Grassley, Ranking Member, for holding this hearing and also to 
our witnesses who are here today to talk about this.
    I really do appreciate this hearing today. It's given us 
the change to dive deeper into the budgetary costs related to 
climate change because this is costing billions if not 
trillions of dollars a year. Because let's be clear that 
climate crisis is here. It's expensive. And that's just the 
plain truth.
    In my home state of Washington more than 65 percent of our 
population lives in coastal areas and these communities are on 
the frontline of this crisis. We've already seen in my state 
rising sea levels, increased flooding, and storm surge risks 
and it does real damage to our working waterfronts, to our 
community infrastructure, to our housing supply, and the 
coastal ecosystem that support our fisheries. And we know this 
will be felt unevenly depending on where you live and what 
resources you have available.
    So, my first question is for you, Ms. Michaud, and thank 
you for your testimony. Can you talk about the types of 
investments that your town has already had to make to respond 
and prepare for this coastal flooding and how those assessments 
are impacting your current infrastructure decisions?
    Ms. Michaud. Sure. I think that the biggest impact so far 
has been to our wastewater system. I referenced the wastewater 
treatment facility upgrade project, which was a $21.7 million 
project, which may not sound like a lot of money, but our total 
annual budget is just around $25 million and the debt service 
on that debt for that wastewater project is approximately 18 
percent of our annual operating budget, which is considerable.
    We have recently entered into a public/private partnership 
with a housing developer to upgrade one of our pump stations. 
The cost to elevate and refurbish that pump station was right 
around $4 million. We have 10 pump stations in total, so we 
have some work still to do. And we are also performing a number 
of what are called in-of-road retrofits, so we have roads that 
formerly went to the coast, straight down the coastline. 
They're now flooding frequently at high tides, so what we are 
doing is working with engineers to pull the pavement back from 
the edge of the road, create kind of a soft barrier to 
eliminate the erosion that we're seeing.
    So, those are costly projects and there are many of them. 
We've completed I believe four and we have many more to go. So, 
that's just a sample. We have a lot more infrastructure 
projects that we need to take a look at and they do 
significantly impact our budget and it's a budget that is, like 
I said, very small. We're a small town, just over 11,000 
residents and those residents are already bearing the burden of 
that cost.
    Senator Murray. Well, thank you for that. And as an 
example, about most of this is actually straining communities 
in Washington State and the difficult decisions that are having 
to be made, the Quinault Indian Nation on the Olympic Peninsula 
on my state has already begun to experience the effects of sea 
level rise and those intense storm surges we're seeing.
    They've had damaging floods and landsides and did a climate 
vulnerability assessment and as a result of that the Tribe 
developed a very comprehensive relocation plan and it involves 
relocating the Tribe's lower village of Taholah to higher 
elevation because of the impacts they're seeing. That's going 
to involve an emergency evacuation center. It's going to move a 
significant portion of the Tribal infrastructure inland away 
from the Quinault River and the Pacific Ocean that the Tribe 
has always depended on for their subsistence as well.
    Last year they did get $25 million through our bipartisan 
infrastructure law to begin this costly process and they are 
not alone in having to take a really hard look at what the 
current sea level risk is happening to communities around our 
country. And I think a lot of people are asking how are we 
going to be able to avoid the loss of life and property and be 
able to make these investments.
    So, Mr. Eby, my question actually I want to direct to you. 
Talk to us about the budgetary impacts that such large-scale 
relocation efforts in the future could have for our communities 
and for our economy?
    Mr. Eby. Thank you for your leadership on this question and 
for the question, Senator. Unfortunately, as you mentioned, the 
Quinault Indian Nation is not unique in this situation. The 
managed retreat that's happening where they're moving to higher 
land and the relocation of critical infrastructure and assets 
is something that we're seeing in multiple states and something 
that has to unfortunately take place when we look at the cost 
benefit ratio of staying in certain places and the overall risk 
that is faced.
    Unfortunately, as this is not unique, it's extremely 
costly. When we look at the critical infrastructure that's 
involved as was talking about with Ms. Michaud and what's going 
on in different counties and states across the state, it is 
extremely costly to undergo these versus just building in the 
first place to a standard that allows us to understand what 
will happen from risks today and into the future.
    So, while unfortunately I can't give you a specific number 
on how managed retreat in these typical situations will cost us 
as a country, I can tell you that it's much, much more 
expensive to try and do these things retroactively, than to 
actually manage these things from the beginning and use climate 
adjusted forecasts and change building code standards or to 
make these decisions forthcoming.
    Senator Murray. Well, thanks very much. And again, Mr. 
Chairman, thank you.
    Senator Kaine. Absolutely. Senator Johnson.
    Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Is it Mr. Eby or 
Eby?
    Mr. Eby. It's Eby.
    Senator Johnson. Mr. Eby or Mr. Becketti, now, Mr. Eby 
particularly, you've gone to great lengths of making all kinds 
of cost estimates, pretty high detailed. Do either of you know 
how much we've already spent in the U.S. and globally to combat 
climate change, do you know what that number is?
    Mr. Eby. I do not, Senator.
    Senator Johnson. Anybody on the panel have any idea how 
much we've already spent, how much we've committed, either in 
the U.S. or globally? My point being is wouldn't that be an 
really important number to know to compare to what the damages 
might be?
    Again, going to adaptation, Dr. Weinkle, I think you're the 
only environmental scientist on the panel here. I mean I've 
seen estimates that if we were to reduce or eliminate CO2 in 
the U.S. or in the West you would have a negligible impact on 
average temperatures over the next hundred years or so; is that 
true?
    Dr. Weinkle. That specific question goes well beyond sort 
of my area of expertise in coastal risks. The cost of emissions 
scenarios and all that.
    Senator Johnson. Dr. Lewis has raised his hand, do you have 
a----
    Dr. Lewis. Yes, I do. Yes. In fact, in my testimony I 
referenced a study done by Kevin Dayaratna of the Heritage 
Foundation. He's a Ph.D. data scientist, a statistician. And 
what he did is he just took the EPA's climate policy calculator 
model, it's acronymed MAGIC, and decided to take a look at what 
happens to global temperatures at various assumed climate 
sensitivities. He went all the way from the assumption.
    Senator Johnson. Can you get to the bottom line here?
    Dr. Lewis. Okay. And basically, if you instantaneously and 
completely eliminate U.S. CO2 emissions today and basically if 
you take the middle range sensitivity assumption then you avert 
about 2/10th of a degree Celsius of global warming by the Year 
2100.
    Senator Johnson. So again, I believe we've probably spent 
hundreds of billions. I think we're contemplating spending 
trillions of dollars to do something that we can't do. Again, 
we recognize that in just 20,000 years or less, I mean it's a 
blink of the eye in terms of geologic time, the sea level's 
increased by 390 feet in the Bay of San Francisco. We can't 
spend enough--we can't hold back the tides. So, this is where 
the Bjorn Lomborg approach comes into effect. We're far better 
off spending resources adapting as opposed to this insane quest 
to conquer climate change, which we can't do again. Climate has 
always changed; always will. So, let's spend the resources 
properly.
    I also want to talk a little bit about how the cure is 
worse than the disease. I didn't get it done in time, but I had 
a photo I was going to show of I don't know how many hundreds 
of miners in the Congo mining cobalt and a lot of these are 
children. Does anybody here have any estimates of how much more 
copper we're going to have to mine, how much more cobalt we're 
going to have to mine, how much more lithium we're going to 
have to mine, how may rare earth minerals we're going to have 
to mine? What's the impact to the environment of that? What 
about the unreliability of our grid? Mr. Eby, have you done 
calculations of that? Because wind and solar are not reliable 
and you need backup, have you done any cost calculations of how 
much it's going to cost when a grid shuts down because of 
unreliability?
    Mr. Eby. We focus on the economic damages of physical 
climate change, so not the reliability of the grid or reliable 
energy.
    Senator Johnson. So again, we are ignoring the main factors 
here. There's nothing we can do, literally, to combat climate 
change, particularly when China and India aren't on board and 
they never will be onboard. So, we could spend hundreds of 
billions, have no impact, waste hundreds of billions, trillions 
of dollars. We're far better off spending that money to adapt 
and we also have to fully realize the cost, the environmental 
cost of all the additional mining and understand that it's just 
not possible to meet these climate--I mean you can't end fossil 
fuels in 10 years. It's impossible. It would impoverish our 
nation. Why are we even talking about it? Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Chairman Whitehouse. Well, for the record, let me just say 
I have a different view than those statements and I think most 
people do. Let me turn now to Senator Kaine and then we'll turn 
to Senator Padilla. Senator Kaine is living with this as the 
Navy looks at Naval Station Norfolk and the flooding in that 
area and what it portends for his base, so I'm grateful to him 
for being here.

                   STATEMENT OF SENATOR KAINE

    Senator Kaine. Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Chair and to all 
the witnesses for being here. And I want to talk about Norfolk. 
Before I do, though, I have a question for Dr. Weinkle.
    I was reviewing your written testimony as well as your 
verbal testimony, and your fifth point is a dynamic system of 
conflicts of interest among climate change researchers, 
advocacy organizations, and financial industry anchors the use 
of implausible emission scenarios, and you have a quote in the 
written testimony that I think all of us would agree with. 
``Researcher conflicts of interest, especially when undisclosed 
undermines scientific integrity and threatens public trust in 
science.''
    But as I read your testimony and listened to it, you didn't 
mention anything about the fossil fuel industry. You focused on 
the financial industry and advocacy organizations. Is there 
some reason why you've omitted reference the fossil fuel 
industry which often is involved in research that is frequently 
undisclosed?
    Dr. Weinkle. Yes. Thank you for that question. So, I do 
link to that I have a reference to it in my written testimony 
and one of the most notable works on that area, Merchants of 
Doubt became a movie. It's not that I omitted it. What I said 
and what I believe is that we've done a very good job in 
pointing out these conflicts of interest in that area, but we 
have a tendency to turn a blind eye to it when it's coming from 
other areas.
    Senator Kaine. All right. Well, I'm going to move onto 
Norfolk now, but I just found it striking that your testimony 
focused on the financial industry and climate advocacy 
organizations and in my view omitted--you could characterize 
differently--omitted reference to fossil fuel research which 
has frequently undisclosed and has, I think, vastly dominated, 
outnumber some of the other research, but let me move to 
Norfolk.
    The Hampton Roads area in Virginia there are 1.7 million 
people. It's the second largest metropolitan area in our 
Commonwealth. Historic area, very diverse, Jamestown Island 
where English settlement of North America, no offense to the 
pilgrims, the biggest Navy base in the world, Norfolk Naval 
Base, the Chesapeake Bay, very dynamic economy and yet the sea 
level effects in Norfolk are not future effects. We're seeing 
them every day.
    We have communities in the Chesapeake Bay like Tangier 
Island, that could well disappear, but I have a question for 
you, Dr. Becketti. According to a recent report by the Hampton 
Roads Planning District Commission, the low estimates of sea 
level rise indicate that approximately 59,000 residential homes 
in the Hampton Roads region will be permanently or regularly 
inundated by the end of the century.
    And if you look at the high estimates of sea level rise 
that are consensus in Virginia, including the Virginia 
Institute of Marine Science, about 175,000 homes will be 
permanently or regularly inundated. Your former employer, 
Freddie Mac, has estimated that the total losses to coastal 
real estate ``are likely to be greater in total than those 
experienced during the housing crisis and Great Recession. What 
would a drop in property values of this magnitude mean for the 
financial situations of families living in these homes? And 
this is just one metropolitan area in the United States.
    Dr. Becketti. Well, obviously, it would be a very 
catastrophic event. I think Mr. Eby presented some evidence 
about property overvaluation, current overvaluation of coastal 
properties where people are not realizing the risk that they're 
facing in the future. And the question that stimulated me to 
get involved in this area at all is we had just lived through 
2007 and '08 and the many years of recovery in which we haven't 
completely recovered from that yet and we had many years where 
we said these house price rises can't be sustained.
    People are starting to believe that they're printing money 
and there's no risk and eventually for whatever reason that 
triggered it, all of a sudden, the house of cards collapsed and 
there is a fear that something similar could happen in this 
area.
    Senator Kaine. If I could, I have one more question I 
wanted to get into Mr. Eby if I can.
    Dr. Becketti. Sure.
    Senator Kaine. So, with respect to our naval base, the 
estimates on the Virginia Coastal Resilience Coast Masterplan 
suggests that under NOAA's intermediate risk scenarios 25,000 
acres of DoD facilities in the Commonwealth of Virginia will be 
in the hundred-year flood plan of risk year and by 2080 that 
number climbs to 31,000 acres of DoD facilities in Virginia.
    Has the First Street Foundation undertaken an assessment of 
flood risks for our nation's Military assets?
    Mr. Eby. Thank you very much for the question, Senator 
Kaine, and thank you for your leadership on the topic. 
Unfortunately, the naval base and the assets in the region are 
not unique in the sense that there's already 3,044 properties 
that have a 1 percent annual chance of risk are greater today 
in your state and that's growing by over 13 percent in just 30 
years. And so, when we look at the actual infrastructure of the 
Military, a lot of the things that we need to look at to 
understand the inoperability or risk are confidential. So, 
things like at what height would the docks be for the ships to 
be able to actually be manageable and be able to go out to sea.
    But what we can see are things like the single road that 
goes to our naval base that becomes unpassable under certain 
events today, let alone on how that's----
    Senator Kaine. Yes. Not even during storm surge, just your 
normal tidal action it's frequent and it's growing more 
frequent. I'm over my time. Thank you very much. Yield back, 
Mr. Chair.
    Chairman Whitehouse. For what it's worth, the former 
commander of Naval Station Norfolk, the naval officer who was 
in charge of it, has actually predicted that that base will 
have to go out of service for this very reason and that's 
coming from the United States Navy. Senator Padilla is next.

                  STATEMENT OF SENATOR PADILLA

    Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning to the 
witnesses. My home state of California has one of the longest 
coastlines stretching 840 miles from the Oregon border to 
Mexico. And of the nearly 40 million people who live in 
California, 26.3 million of them live in what are considered 
coastal communities. And according to Coastal, California 
employs more than 12 million people annually, which translates 
into $2 trillion in GDP.
    Those are big numbers, but I share that because all of that 
is at risk with rising sea levels. And it's not just the 
economic impact that we must grapple with. A recent study by UC 
Berkeley and UCLA mapped the more than 400 facilities with 
hazardous materials that will experience flooding events by the 
end of the century, including powerplants, refineries, 
industrial facilities, and hazardous waste sites, many of which 
are located not just in coastal regions, but specifically in 
disadvantaged communities in the coastal regions.
    A three-foot sea level rise will flood 15 wastewater 
treatment plants in California. Facilities in the San Francisco 
Bay region are particularly vulnerable with rising groundwater 
levels magnifying flood risks.
    With all that being said, the question is for Mr. Eby. What 
does your modeling demonstrate about the particular risk for 
low-income or disadvantaged communities located near aging 
facilities and infrastructure?
    Mr. Eby. Thank you very much for the question. And as you 
noted, California is particularly at risk with over a million 
properties that have that similar 1 percent risk that I was 
talking about, growing another 5.5 percent over the next 30 
years. And unfortunately, with that comes the assessments of 
those that are at risk.
    So, to your question of are we seeing a higher instance of 
vulnerabilities around the LMI population the answer is yes. 
One of our partners, Redfin, a real estate company, used our 
data in partnership to look at this exact question and found 
that there's $107 billion in home value at risk of flooding in 
formerly redline districts compared to $85 billion in home 
value at risk from those that were deemed just kind of more 
desirable for lending.
    And what you're able to see when you look economic impact 
per square foot or value of the home when you see lower value 
homes and the cost of flooding that goes against them, you see 
a higher percentage of the home value that is at risk than the 
more affluent areas across the country. So, we see this time 
and time again by looking at our data that the LMI population 
is much more at risk and much more exposed and much less likely 
to be insured, unfortunately, from these events as well.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you. Welcome your input and feedback 
as it pertains to as a result federal investments in some of 
these areas to address, not just the issues of physical impact 
to sea level rise, but the equity lens that should accompany 
it.
    We've also had our fair share of natural disasters in 
California in recent years. The recent California flooding and 
severe weather lead to anywhere between five and $7 billion in 
total U.S. economic losses according to new estimates from 
Moody's. [0:58:59.8#] a special kind of weather whiplash in 
California where we cycle back and forth from the worst mega 
drought in 1200 years, followed by storm events and extreme 
flood impacts. You all heard about the blizzard warnings in 
southern California this last weekend under scenarios of three 
feet to six feet of sea level rise, up to two-thirds of 
southern California beaches may become completed eroded also by 
the end of the century.
    The Army Corps of Engineers plays a particularly important 
role in protecting communities from extreme floods and rising 
sea levels, but also in beach nourishment projects that are 
ongoing and require sustained federal investments.
    Back to you, Mr. Eby, can you speak to the way your climate 
modeling looks at risks collectively across fire, heat, 
flooding, and wind, given that many parts of California 
experience all of the above?
    Mr. Eby. Again, thank you for that question. And with our 
models we've created individual versions, so high resolution 
models to be able to look at these exact questions. So, what is 
the exposure to extreme heat, what is the exposure to hurricane 
winds, what is the exposure to wildfires and flooding. And in 
California, specifically, each one of those is represented 
across the state as current and increasing risk from climate 
change.
    We haven't combined these into one overall score or risk or 
quantification for the state, but I can tell you that 
individually each one poses a risk overall. Similarly, with 
flooding, especially with things like atmospheric rivers and 
severe precipitation that we've seen this year that impacts all 
of these homes that are outside the FEMA flood zone and the 
FEMA special flood hazard area. These are just some of the 
things that we're seeing today that we know are going to be 
exacerbated in the future from all of these different perils.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you very much for your expertise and 
for your participation this morning. Look forward to following 
up. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Chairman Whitehouse. Thank you, Senator Padilla. I'll take 
a few moments myself. And if you don't mind, I'm going to start 
with Dr. Weinkle.
    Dr. Weinkle, you live in North Carolina, I gather?
    Dr. Weinkle. Yes, I do.
    Chairman Whitehouse. And North Carolina's Coastal Resources 
Commission has estimated a decade ago that the sea level along 
the North Carolina shore would raise 39 inches in coming years. 
Do you challenge that finding by your state Coastal Resources 
Commission?
    Dr. Weinkle. I'm not challenging their finding, but I am 
saying that the emission scenarios that they've used in the 
past, and they've been used by a lot of people and they are 
commonly used, face a lot of challenges in that they've been 
found to be largely implausible to really----
    Chairman Whitehouse. But clearly, they've used other data 
that you have confidence in if they've decided that they've got 
39 inches of sea level rise and you're not challenging their 
finding, right? So, you're challenging a segment of the data 
that they used, but you're not challenging the 39-inches 
finding; is that correct?
    Dr. Weinkle. I'm challenging the wisdom of using the 
emission scenarios that they used to find it.
    Chairman Whitehouse. Some of them, the ones that you 
contend are exaggerated.
    Dr. Weinkle. Yes.
    Chairman Whitehouse. Why is it that in 12 pages of 
testimony in a hearing on the impact of sea level rise on local 
communities and on the economy does your testimony never use 
the phrase ``sea level rise'' or admit that your own state is 
looking at 39 inches of sea level rise?
    Dr. Weinkle. That's a good question and I----
    Chairman Whitehouse. I know.
    Dr. Weinkle. The reason is, is because it's--I know enough 
to know that the science of sea level rise is nuanced. It is 
increasing, but it--largely understanding it and understanding 
its impacts on different areas requires a level of expertise 
about sea level rise and the dynamics to do that.
    Chairman Whitehouse. Do you think the Navy has that level 
of expertise? Do you think the United States Navy had adequate 
expertise to make determinations about the safety and future of 
its own coastal bases?
    Dr. Weinkle. I'm sure they have very intelligent people.
    Chairman Whitehouse. Yes. Okay. To go back to Senator 
Kaine's questioning, and just to be clear about this, would 
funding of research or expert opinion by fossil fuel interests 
implicate your concerns about conflict of interest?
    Dr. Weinkle. It would, of course.
    Chairman Whitehouse. Okay. And would the concerns about 
conflict of interests be worsened if the fossil fuel funding of 
the research or the expert opinion was undisclosed?
    Dr. Weinkle. Yes.
    Chairman Whitehouse. Okay. So, with that, let me turn to 
Mr. Lewis, who is here on behalf of Competitive Enterprise 
Institute. This is at least the fourth time, Mr. Lewis, that 
you've appeared to bring climate skepticism on behalf of 
Republican colleagues to hearings.
    You have said in the past that climate change could 
actually be a net good for people. You've also said, and I'm 
quoting you here from an NPR radio show where the host asked 
you in response to questions about climate change and sea level 
rise the question to you was, ``So, you're saying move New 
York, move Miami, move southern Florida, move Boston?'' And 
your response was ``Yes.''
    So given the kind of eccentric nature of your testimony, 
I'm interested in following up on your other Republican 
witness's advice and finding out how much fossil fuel funding 
goes into the Competitive Enterprise Institute?
    Dr. Lewis. Sure. Well, let me address that question first, 
which is I don't know that.
    Chairman Whitehouse. And you don't know that because it 
comes through a group called Donors Trust, which hides the real 
donor and screens who the original donor is, but if Competitive 
Enterprise Institute wished to it could have a policy of 
requiring that the actual donor be disclosed rather than the 
identity laundering shop of Donors Trust. Correct?
    Dr. Lewis. But our policy is that we protect the privacy of 
our donors, whoever they are.
    Chairman Whitehouse. Which runs right into the public 
interest problem, right?
    Dr. Lewis. You're asking us to violate our policy, which is 
based on Supreme Court decisions.
    Chairman Whitehouse. Seemingly convenient policy. My time 
is up and it's now it's Senator Braun and then Senator Van 
Hollen. Oh, I'm sorry. Senator Grassley. My apologies. And then 
Van Hollen.

               STATEMENT OF SENATOR GRASSLEY \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Prepared statement of Senator Grassley appears in the appendix 
on page 31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Senator Grassley. Dr. Weinkle, you're an environmental 
scientist. A few questions for you. Have you found climate 
change to be the primary cause of natural disaster damage on 
our coast?
    Dr. Weinkle. The primary drivers of loss along the coast is 
the increasing population, the wealth that they bring with it, 
and inflation.
    Senator Grassley. Have you found--go ahead.
    Dr. Weinkle. I would just add that those coastal areas are 
engines of U.S. GDP. They're very valuable to us, but with that 
comes a lot at risk.
    Senator Grassley. Have you found an upward trend in extreme 
weather events over time?
    Dr. Weinkle. So, my personal analysis has been limited to 
hurricane landfalls and over the long record, 1900 to today, 
there is no long-term increasing trend in frequency or 
severity.
    Senator Grassley. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt 
you.
    Dr. Weinkle. No, that's okay.
    Senator Grassley. Well, headline costs for extreme weather 
events appear larger, to what extent is that attributed to more 
buildings and wealth continuing to migrate to coastal 
communities and have local governments exacerbated the problem 
by encouraging that sort of development?
    Dr. Weinkle. So, on the development issue, it's 
complicated. Housing, development, all that is a very important 
component to the U.S. economy, so we have a tendency to protect 
it and pursue it. As we know, somebody had mentioned the crisis 
in 2007, the housing crisis. When housing collapses for an area 
or the state or the nation, it's a problem large scale, so we 
support it.
    And then as far as the rules around development there's a 
lot of reasons why we develop as we do. There's a lot of 
private property right protections that limit the ability for 
the state to interact and restrict building, as well it's very 
difficult to hold local planners accountable to national level 
objectives because of our federalism system. And while it's 
very valuable to us and while we hold that close to who we are 
as Americans, it does create challenges in a system of 
accountability.
    Senator Grassley. Dr. Lewis, this Committee has heard from 
proponents of instituting a carbon tax to address the 
emissions. Could you share your perspective on a carbon tax and 
its effect on Americans, the economy, and whether or not helps 
the environment?
    Dr. Lewis. Yes, well a carbon tax is either all pain for no 
gain or it's a cure worse than the disease. There was a paper 
in Nature Climate Change that came out last year by Pang, et 
al., and this is not a fossil fuel climate skeptic. This is 
someone who actually likes emission control policies and very 
stringent emission controls, but he calculated that even if you 
had a carbon tax in excess of $1500 a ton, you could only get 
about 80 percent of the way to net zero emissions. And so, he 
recommended a carbon tax that was even higher even though this 
would represent basically a cost of 11.9 percent of GDP. It 
would be a $4.4 trillion tax bill by the time you got to 2050, 
which would translate into a burden on the average person of 
something like $11,300. And so, that would definitely harm the 
economy, which would harm our standards of living and basically 
cripple the United States economically so that we could not 
duplicate the marvelous feats of adaptation that has reduced 
the average person's risk of dying from extreme weather by 99.4 
percent over the last century, which was chiefly fossil fuel.
    And just for the record, I'd like to point out that that 
yes that I gave on MPR was not what I think Senator Whitehouse 
understood me to say, which is that cities could just sprout 
wings and fly. My point was that cities are dynamic 
organizations, and they change and parts of the cities grow 
where other parts can contract or can just be in terms of 
population or where industry is located. They're quite organic 
and so there's a lot of internal movement within cities and 
around cities. That's what I was getting at.
    Senator Grassley. I will submit the rest of my questions 
for answer in writing.
    Chairman Whitehouse. Thanks. Now, I messed up and jumped in 
when I came back from the Judiciary hearing and I took your 
spot, Senator Grassley, so my apologies. But that means that 
it's now Mike Braun's turn for questions, followed by Senator 
Van Hollen. My apologies for stepping in out of line.
    Senator Braun. Mr. Chairman, you're forgiven. Okay.
    Chairman Whitehouse. Thanks Mike.

                   STATEMENT OF SENATOR BRAUN

    Senator Braun. Thanks for having the hearing. So, this is 
the Budget Committee and I've got a couple questions. One for 
Dr. Lewis and then for Dr. Becketti. But this is analogous to 
other conversations we've had here in the Budget Committee, 
which would not be directly related to our jurisdiction, and I 
do what to cite that whatever we discuss here I'm very 
interested in being in the climate conversation.
    I think if we aren't on our side of the aisle that you're 
probably just avoiding the issue. I've lived the life of a 
conservationist and I think it's important, but I'll refer to 
one of my favorite quotes I've ever heard here and it's 
unrelated to this today, but it comes from Admiral Mike Mullen, 
when he so succinctly said I'm more afraid of the red ink than 
the red menace, okay. And that's got applicability right now as 
we're looking at other issues out there.
    The CBO, who I've gotten to know pretty well, worked with 
them whenever I think they're not being forthcoming on how 
things are trending. All I can tell you is we were five 
trillion in debt I think in 2005. After the Bush stint, we were 
10 trillion in debt. After the Obama Administration we were 16 
trillion in debt and that takes us to 2016. 2018 we added 
another trillion each year and now literally the wheels have 
fallen off the budget train and it's said to think that we're 
31 trillion in debt and there is actually a government estimate 
in 2033 that we're 46 trillion in debt.
    What I'm saying is regardless of what we talk about here we 
ought to say we're borrowing it from our kids and grandkids if 
we want to do anything on climate, we want to do anything on 
anything in this government when each year we're borrowing now 
close to 30 percent of what we spend in an operating budget. 
Anybody could do that.
    No other entity operates that way and I think that is going 
to be the big issue in the long run because let's just say we 
do nail down something where we'd need to invest some money, 
we're going to have a balance sheet that's going to be 
increasingly difficult to do it. And if you're good at math, 
take 1 percent of 30 trillion, 300 billion, take 4 percent of 
30 trillion, 1.2 trillion. That is what we're going t price 
into the carrying cost of this dereliction of duty.
    We need to keep that in mind and I do wish, Mr. Chairman, 
that we would probably get back to some budget mechanics, some 
type of regular order so that the end result each year isn't a 
400-page bill that gets dropped into our lap with two days to 
look at it or the just one-third of what we spend each year 
that's even subject to a budget that we don't do.
    So, my question now is on this subject, which I'm very 
interested in. We're doing good things in this country. I think 
we set the example. The EU is and maybe Australia and maybe 
Japan. What sense does it make for us to do any of this which 
does have an economic consequence when China, India, most of 
the underdeveloped and undeveloped world is paying on attention 
to it.
    Doesn't make sense, especially when you can't nail down the 
particulars of when all this is going to come in and have great 
impact. We know it may someday, but the one thing that's 
absolute we know is that if you do these kinds of things it is 
our cost to our own economy. Please comment, Dr. Becketti, and 
then Dr. Lewis, on why this makes sense when over half the 
world, China, India, building coal-fired plants nearly weekly?
    Mr. Becketti. Thank you for the question. Part of what 
you're asking is outside my range of experience. And in fact, 
the points that I was making in my testimony was how to adapt 
to climate change that is going to occur over the next 30 
years.
    So, we know how costly the housing finance crisis was in 
2007 and 2008, multiyear costs, many, many people suffered a 
lot of damages. And as I look at the situation, you can predict 
where stresses will occur in the housing finance system. 
Housing finance system is a very complex way of making sure 
that risks are allocated to the firms that can handle them 
correctly and these are risks that they're not ready for.
    So, from a budget point of view, the sooner we figure out 
how to have a successful adaptation to something that we can't 
avoid will save us money.
    Senator Braun. Mr. Lewis.
    Mr. Lewis. Hi. I think that's a very good answer. I would 
say you've painted a picture that scares me more than climate 
change, which is the unsustainability of----
    Senator Braun. And that should be the point because it's an 
absolute in the present.
    Mr. Lewis. And it seems to me that, given the difficulty in 
scaling back government programs, because as soon as you create 
a program you create dependency on the program and that just 
results in more lobbying for the program. That the only 
solution, if there is one that eventually in the long term 
prevents us falling off a financial cliff, a fiscal cliff is 
economic growth.
    And so, the government's top priority, top domestic 
priority, I would suggest, is to economic growth, sustained 
economic growth by trying to find every conceivable impediment 
enterprise there is and abolishing it, deregulating it, 
whatever has to be done. You can't do that if you're top 
priority is reducing emissions by attacking the fossil fuel 
industry.
    You can't combine those things and I think it's a fool's 
hope that somehow if we subsidize renewables enough they'll 
become so competitive on their own that they will drive the 
economic engine of this country.
    Senator Braun. Thank you. And not to mention that the rest 
of the world's not on the same page we are, and a few other 
countries troubles me. Thank you.
    Chairman Whitehouse. Thank you, Senator Braun. And a moment 
of Chairman privilege. I do look forward to working with you 
and Senator Van Hollen and Senator Kaine are also here and have 
been very interested and helpful in trying to figure out we 
reform the Budget Committee process to more clearly address the 
concerns that you have at the moment. We simply are forbidden 
to get the arithmetic right of the deficit and debt problems 
that we face. We need to fix that and I intend to. Thank you. 
Senator Van Hollen.

                STATEMENT OF SENATOR VAN HOLLEN

    Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And just 
listening to the conversation, a couple points. I look forward, 
to Senator Braun's point, to having a budget debate. President 
Biden's budget will arrive here in Congress soon. He's 
indicated that his budget will reduce deficits over ten years 
by $2 trillion, so I look forward to alternative proposal from 
the House or otherwise on that important issue.
    Second, I was listening to some of the comments by Dr. 
Lewis. I think it would be important to know that in the most 
recent hearing we had in the Budget Committee on climate change 
it was some of our Republican colleagues who said that they 
didn't like the Inflation Reduction Act because they wanted to 
approach the issue of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 
putting a price on carbon.
    Something that I too support and of course that puts the 
burden on those who are the polluters in dealing with what 
economists calls externality that impacts everybody, as you 
know. So, those were statements from some of our Republican 
colleagues just in the last hearing.
    I would like to say a word about China, who actually has a 
ten-year lead on the United States when it comes to investment 
in the batteries that are used for storage for electric 
vehicles. They process more of the critical minerals that go in 
electric vehicle batteries. The produce a lot of them. And 
given the fact there's a growing market for that, I would hope 
that we wouldn't want to fall behind China, who more than 10 
years ago said that one of their number one priorities was to 
be the dominant world player when it comes to clean energy.
    So, we're talking about having to address the cost now of 
doing nothing, right? The cost of emissions that are having 
impacts in sea level rise and other areas and so I want to 
start by thanking you, Ms. Michaud for sharing your experiences 
about how you in Rhode Island have been navigating issues of 
sea level rise.
    In my state of Maryland, we're experiencing lots of costs 
and impacts form climate change and sea level rise. There's a 
small town in Kent County which is on Maryland's Eastern Shore. 
It's called Betterton. It was once a really thriving little 
town. The Baltimore to Betterton's beach fairies went back and 
forth from the City of Baltimore to this town.
    But right now they're having to spend a million dollars to 
protect just 10 homes from literally falling into the Bay. And 
the homeowners are putting in some, so were public entities 
putting in some because this cost was no fault of the 
homeowners. That's expensive. Can you just talk to the issues 
you're facing when it comes to a small town trying to fight the 
growing cost of climate change?
    Ms. Michaud. Sure. Thank you for the question. I mean I 
believe Warren is similar to many small towns around the 
country in that we have increasing needs, not just climate 
related, but also social related and economic development 
related and it's very tough competition for the small amount of 
funds that we have.
    So again, we are spending considerably to protect our 
coastal features and our coastal facilities, but sometimes it 
is at the expense of other items, such as social services or 
education or other infrastructure improvements that are needed 
that aren't in the coastal areas. So, it's certainly a concern. 
As I said, we are very small. The town hall in Warren we have 
14 employees from the custodian to myself and think that we are 
not dissimilar to many other communities that have limited 
resources and limited staff to deal with those problems.
    Senator Van Hollen. It sounds like the same challenge being 
experienced by a lot of these towns on Maryland's Eastern 
Shore.
    Dr. Becketti, in your article entitled Life's a Beach, you 
note that ``A large share of homeowners'' wealth is locked up 
in their equity in them homes.'' And that the Union of 
Concerned Scientists have also published a report called Under 
Water, which I know you're familiar with.
    That report, the Union of Concerned Scientists Report, 
estimates that nearly 2500 homes in Somerset County, Maryland, 
which is another county on Maryland's Eastern Shore, the 2500 
homes with a market value of 200 million are at risk of chronic 
flooding in 2030. Can you just speak to the impact of lost 
property values in coastal communities like Somerset?
    This is just one mall area. You magnify that across the 
State of Maryland, across the country, can you just speak to 
the magnitude of this challenge?
    Dr. Becketti. Well, it's a particularly difficult challenge 
because if we look back the housing crisis of 2007 it was a 
long time before property values came back, but they did come 
back, but this is a different type of dynamic where property 
values are probably physically not able to come back and this 
is equity that's lost forever.
    It is extremely difficult to estimate all this nationally. 
I'm not sure I have enough zeros to do it, but there's a real 
struggle and a real challenge in figuring out for the most 
severely impacted properties that are not savable what would be 
the appropriate policy?
    Senator Van Hollen. I appreciate that. I see my time is up, 
but I think one of the purposes of this and other hearings is 
just to underscore the cost of inaction and doing nothing, 
which was why it was so important that we got started with 
things like the Inflation Reduction Act with much more work 
ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Whitehouse. We have some time for another round if 
any senator wishes to stay for another round. I'd like to ask a 
few questions. First, since it's been mentioned in this hearing 
that some of us actually support carbon pricing legislation, 
I'll take it just as a point of personal privilege that I'm one 
of those. In fact, I'm the author of a carbon pricing bill and 
essentially nothing of what Dr. Lewis said about carbon pricing 
is true as regards my bill, so you don't have to follow 
whatever his path is if you actually look at my legislation and 
I want to make sure that's clear in the record of this hearing.
    Dr. Lewis, I also want to make clear your doctorate is in 
government, right, not in science?
    Dr. Lewis. Correct.
    Chairman Whitehouse. Are you familiar with scientific 
research related to climate tipping points?
    Dr. Lewis. Yes.
    Chairman Whitehouse. Do you understand that particularly as 
regards sea level rise reaching certain climate tipping points 
can dramatically increase the risk and the rate of sea level 
rise?
    Dr. Lewis. Yes, I'm familiar with that.
    Chairman Whitehouse. I don't see that reflected anywhere in 
your testimony. Your testimony makes no reference to hitting 
tipping points, is that correct?
    Dr. Lewis. No, it does not.
    Chairman Whitehouse. Okay.
    Dr. Lewis. If you recall, the----
    Chairman Whitehouse. No, that's okay.
    Dr. Lewis. I was gong to explain why I didn't think it was 
particularly pertinent.e risk and the rate of sea level rise?
    Chairman Whitehouse. If you keep it brief, go ahead, but 
you're into my time and I have limited time, so go ahead 
briefly.
    Dr. Lewis. All right. In the fifth assessment report the 
IPCC said it was exceedingly likely that we would see any kind 
of ice sheet crack up in the 21st Century. So, we were dealing 
with issues in the next couple of decades, I thought, and I 
didn't see that it was entirely relevant. I did talk about tail 
risk at some point.
    Chairman Whitehouse. I'm going to reclaim my time here so I 
can talk to Ms. Michaud, who's my Rhode Island friend here. If, 
you could just speak into a little bit more detail because I 
know a lot of people are listening to this who live in coastal 
towns and have the experience that you're dealing with. You're 
dealing with very specific and practical things.
    You're dealing with Warren's waterfront economy, which for 
anybody in Rhode Island is a really wonderful waterfront 
economy with terrific restaurants and access points. You're 
dealing with flooded roads and infrastructure. You're dealing 
with emergency evacuation issues in other towns where the road 
that would get you out of Warren in an emergency are themselves 
likely to be compromised by that emergency.
    And your biggest thing has been probably the water 
treatment plant which because of gravity in a lot of places 
along the coast is located down low right at the coast. Give us 
a picture of how that all fits together for you and those will 
be our closing words.
    Ms. Michaud. Sure. So, thank you for the question. We are 
dealing with a lot of those issues, especially the wastewater 
management system is of grave concern. As you mentioned, due to 
gravity it is located on the coast in the lowest point of the 
town which is the case in many towns or most towns and the 
situation that we're encountering is that we've just done this 
major upgrade which has been very costly, but it's only 
resilient to three feet of sea level rise.
    And unfortunately, when we look at the projections long 
term, looking at 2100 or even beyond then, once we get past 
that three feet of sea level rise there really is no saving the 
facility. You can't build an island in the middle of the ocean. 
So, we're looking at some major changes in the future to what 
our community looks like, not only moving that facility, but 
also potentially buying out properties and moving the people 
away from harm, which is going to be a significant change for 
the town.
    I think the great thing about living in a town like Warren 
is the sense of community and I would say that there's 
definitely a difference between surviving and living and people 
want to live and they want to live in a community where they 
can enjoy their neighborhood, they can enjoy their neighborhood 
business and their schools and their houses of worship and 
climate change is really a threat to that. It's the threat to 
the sense of community that has existed in Warren for centuries 
and we really want to see if there's anything we can do to 
preserve that sense of community going forward while preparing 
for the eventuality of climate change.
    Chairman Whitehouse. Well, those are about as good a 
conclusion as I could hope for, so I'll end the hearing there. 
I want to thank the witnesses for appearing. The full written 
statements of the witnesses will be included in the record.
    For senators who wish to file questions for the record, 
they're due by noon tomorrow. With signed hard copies delivered 
to the Committee Clerk in Dirksen 624. Email copies will also 
be accepted. And we ask the witnesses to respond to any 
questions for the record within seven days of receipt.
    Without further business before the Committee, the hearing 
stands adjourned. Thank you.
    [Whereupon, at 11:32 a.m., Wednesday, March 1, 2023, the 
hearing was adjourned.]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 [all]