THE NEW NATIONAL SECURITY: SEA LEVEL DEFENSE FOR U.S. PORTS & CITIES

BY STAS MARGARONIS

This sea level rise projection map is provided by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and shows the impact of a 2 foot sea level rise on the lower 48 United States. Areas shaded in light blue show permanent flooding. [1]

IN THIS REPORT

Sea Level Defense Investment for U.S. Ports & Cities Needed Now
The Growing Threat: U.S. Coast Guard Response
U.S. Sea Level Defense Initiatives
Warming Trends Threaten U.S. Coastal Communities and Ports
Sea Levels Are Rising Faster
Potential Impact of 2 Foot Sea Level Rise: Selected U.S. Ports
Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach
Port of Houston
Port of New Orleans
Port of Gulfport
Port of Mobile
Port of Jacksonville
Port of Savannah
Port of Charleston
Port of Wilmington, North Carolina
Port of Virginia (Norfolk)
Port of Wilmington, Delaware
Port of New York and New Jersey
Texas Plans Sea Level Defense Barriers
Port of San Francisco Builds New Seawall
The Netherlands Sea Level Defense System
I-STORM
Sea Level Defense Raises Environmental Concerns
Conclusion

Sea Level Defense Investment for U.S. Ports & Cities Needed Now

[2]

As a result of global warming, the most immediate and long-term threat to U.S. national security arises from the impending threat of higher temperatures triggering ice-pack melting, flooding, fires and drought.

One aspect of the global warming crisis is understanding how higher sea levels pose a threat to U.S. ports and cities as well as to coastal communities and ports around the world.

This poses a national security crisis.

An alliance of ports and cities is needed to support investments in sea level defense.

U.S. ports and cities have suffered from a rising tide of storm damage since Hurricane Katrina devastated the City and Port of New Orleans back in 2005:

* Hurricane Katrina caused $161 billion in damage to New Orleans and surrounding areas in 2005

* Hurricane Sandy caused $71 billion in damage to New York and New Jersey in 2012

* Hurricane Harvey caused $125 billion in damage Texas to in 2017 [3]

* Hurricane Florence caused over $38 billion to North Carolina, South Carolina in 2018 [4]

* Hurricane Maria caused $90 billion in damage when it devastated Puerto Rico in 2017

* Hurricane Irma caused $50 billion in damage to Florida in 2017

Worse is yet to come.

The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) warns that damage to ports and cities from storm surges related to higher sea levels is already creating serious long-term damage and costs: “The cumulative cost of the 16 separate billion-dollar weather events in the U.S. in 2017 was $306.2 billion, breaking the previous cost record of $214.8 billion (2005).”[5]

Without a major national investment in sea level defenses the damage to U.S. ports, cities and communities will continue to rise and may become prohibitively expensive, unless resources are allocated now.

The construction will require a vast network of sea level defense storm barriers and dikes to protect ports, cities and coastal communities around the United States. The level of economic mobilization will be similar to what the United States experienced fighting World War II.

A vast amount of data gathering will be necessary to predict how soon and where resources need to be allocated and what kind of structures need to be deployed and how to do so with respect to environmental factors and marine biology.

The United States can help set a standard for other nations in Asia, Europe, Africa and the Americas to follow in protecting their ports and cities.

There is an urgent need for the federal government to protect ports and coastal communities such as those in California, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Delaware, New Jersey and New York and other states.

Officials in the Netherlands are already updating the country’s sea level defense plans to assume serious impacts beginning as early as 2060 rather than 2100 as earlier projections had predicted: “the Dutch government is concerned that sea level rise caused by global warming will force the Netherlands to accelerate investments in new and bigger sea barriers and taller dikes: We had planned for a 2 millimeter (0.08 inch) increase in sea level per year but if the rise accelerates to 20 millimeters (0.8 inches) per year then we have to act now to anticipate sea level increases that we had only expected in 2100 occurring sooner – possibly by 2060.”

The Netherlands sea level defense philosophy is: “It is better to spend $1 billion now to avoid paying $10 billion later.”

Some scientists worry the danger point could come even sooner (see below).

Research needs to be conducted by the ports, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Coast Guard and other city and port stakeholders to assess the threat and provide solutions.

Higher global temperatures have already caused higher global sea levels.

In this report, selecting a sea level rise of 2 feet is designed to provide U.S. ports and cities with a near-term scenario. More research is needed to predict how much faster and at what level investments need to be made. Today, projections as to how fast and how high sea levels will rise vary. What is less in dispute is that sea levels are likely to rise at a faster rate than previously predicted. Many U.S. ports have built higher quays and terminals to factor in the potential for a moderate sea level rise. The benefit to port facilities is evident in the sea level rise maps of selected ports factoring the 2 foot rise. Even so, some U.S. ports will face a flooding exposure. Additionally, the maps show U.S. highways and roads linking the ports are vulnerable to flooding or an increase in land susceptible to flooding. This exacerbates the problem of the decaying U.S. highway and bridge network that is failing due to chronic federal funding shortfalls. Sea level rise will make a bad situation worse. Denial and delays in new spending for U.S. transportation will adversely impact U.S. ports and cities increasing congestion and delays in truck pick-ups and deliveries. Recent hurricane and storm surge damage already make this clear.

Ports in California and Texas are already working on improving sea level defenses, and other ports are upgrading ports facilities and transportation links.

It is vital that the American Association of Port Authorities takes a leadership role in sea level defense of U.S. ports and supports a national sea level defense initiative.

NOAA maps showing the impact of a 2 foot sea level increases on U.S. ports can be accessed from here:https://coast.noaa.gov/slr/#/layer/slr/0/-11066784.785637997/9516723.03199656/2/satellite/none/0.8/2050/interHigh/midAccretion [6]

The Growing Threat: U.S. Coast Guard Response

Climate change is raising sea levels, worsening the impact of flooding from storm surges and hurricanes. The result is increased port shut-downs that impact the sale and distribution of U.S.imports and U.S. exports and undermine economic growth as well as the national supply chain.

Following the damage suffered by New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina, the U.S. Coast Guard reported that a number of steps have been taken to help ports recover from severe storm damage:

“In 2006, Congress passed the Safety and Accountability For Every Port, or SAFE Port, Act, which included a provision for salvage response plans at the port level – essentially plans to promote rapid recovery after a security incident. The Coast Guard quickly met that requirement and has been improving the ability to promote port recovery and resilience ever since.

For example, the Coast Guard has:

Created a GIS (Geographic Information System) based system to track and display the status of waterways and port infrastructure after an incident.
Expanded salvage plans into all hazard port recovery plans
Established full time port recovery specialist positions
Developed port recovery training programs
Conducted workshops, exercises, and drills to improve our recovery skills

The Coast Guard also developed marine transportation system recovery units, or MTSRU. These are public-private partnerships that include a wide range of port stakeholders. They operate within the Coast Guard’s existing Area Maritime Security Committees and are dedicated to port recovery operations.”[7]

U.S. Sea Level Defense Initiatives

In the Netherlands, a major storm surge in January, 2018 did not cause flooding damage to the City and Port of Rotterdam, because the country makes major investments in sea barriers. When those barriers were shut Rotterdam and other parts of the Netherlands were spared.

Some states have taken notice of the measures:

Texas. The flooding and disruptions caused by Hurricane Harvey in 2017 have motivated state, port and business leaders to promote a sea level defense complex to protect the Ports of Houston, Galveston and nearby oil and gas facilities at a projected cost of $23-$32 billion.

California. Increased level of flooding from high tides and storm surges on port property and downtown San Francisco have motivated the City and Port of San Francisco to win passage of a new bond issue to construct the first stage of a new sea wall to protect downtown San Francisco and port facilities from flooding. The total projected cost is $5 billion.

Warming Trends Threaten U.S. Coastal Communities and Ports

The Fourth National Climate Assessment was produced by the U.S. Global Change Research Program in cooperation with 13 federal agencies. It projects that higher sea levels along the U.S coastline threaten $1 trillion in U.S. real estate.

The assessment, released in November 2018, states: “Climate-related risks to infrastructure, property, and the economy vary across regions. Along the U.S. coastline, public infrastructure and $1 trillion in national wealth held in coastal real estate are threatened by rising sea levels, higher storm surges, and the ongoing increase in high tide flooding … Coastal infrastructure provides critical lifelines to the rest of the country, including energy supplies and access to goods and services from overseas trade; increased damage to coastal facilities is expected to result in cascading costs and national impacts … High tide flooding is projected to become more disruptive and costlier as its frequency, depth, and inland extent grow in the coming decades. Without significant adaptation measures, many coastal cities in the Southeast are expected to experience daily high tide flooding by the end of the century.”

The assessment also points to the threat to coastal communities and the urgency for new infrastructure investments to mitigate the cost of future damage:

“Rising water temperatures, , retreating arctic sea ice, sea level rise, high-tide flooding, coastal erosion, higher storm surge, and heavier precipitation events threaten our oceans and coasts. These effects are projected to continue, putting ocean and marine species at risk, decreasing the productivity of certain fisheries, and threatening communities that rely on marine ecosystems for livelihoods and recreation, with particular impacts on fishing communities in Hawai‘i and the U.S.-Affiliated Pacific Islands, the U.S. Caribbean, and the Gulf of Mexico. Lasting damage to coastal property and infrastructure driven by sea level rise and storm surge is expected to lead to financial losses for individuals, businesses, and communities, with the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts facing above-average risks. Impacts on coastal energy and transportation infrastructure driven by sea level rise and storm surge have the potential for cascading costs and disruptions across the country. Even if significant emissions reductions occur, many of the effects from sea level rise over this century—and particularly through mid-century—are already locked in due to historical emissions, and many communities are already dealing with the consequences. Actions to plan for and adapt to more frequent, widespread, and severe coastal flooding, such as shoreline protection and conservation of coastal ecosystems, would decrease direct losses and cascading impacts on other sectors and parts of the country. More than half of the damages to coastal property are estimated to be avoidable through well-timed adaptation measures. Substantial and sustained reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions would also significantly reduce projected risks to fisheries and communities that rely on them.”[8]

Sea Levels Are Rising Faster

There is a correlation between global warming, wildfires, snow melt and rising sea levels and some scientists fear that recent projections by the United Nations and U.S. government agencies are too conservative and that sea levels are rising faster than expected.

In September 2018 a group of scientists explained their reasons:

“Dry and warm conditions increase the risk of wild fires, which damage the soil and set the stage for later landslides and flooding. Snow and ice melt earlier, altering the timing of run-off. This has extended the fire season by 20% around the globe since the 1980’s… With less snow and ice in the northern hemisphere, the cooling effect provided by the reflection of sunlight from Earth’s surface dropped by 10%-20% between 1979 and 2008…..

And these links now spread further; wildfires are occurring at ever-higher elevations and latitudes… where they remove the forest canopy and alter where and how snow accumulates. Soot deposited on the snow absorbs heat and speeds up melting.”[9]

The cumulative effect is that ice packs on Greenland and Antarctica are melting at an accelerated pace and these would be the prime contributors towards a sea level rise around the globe.

Potential Impact of 2 Foot Sea Level Rise: Selected U.S. Ports

To assess the vulnerability of U.S. ports, a modest 2 foot increase in sea levels based on NOAA maps, was used to show the impact on ports around the United States.

The NOAA maps show impacts to a number of U.S. ports including: Los Angeles/Long Beach, Houston, Galveston, New Orleans, Gulfport, and Mobile, Jacksonville, Savannah, Charleston, Wilmington North Carolina, Norfolk, Virginia, Wilmington, Delaware and New York/New Jersey.

Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach

The nation’s first and second largest ports face a threat from a 2 foot sea level rise threat to operations and transportation links primarily on Terminal Island. The higher sea level impact is shown in light blue and land more prone to flooding is shown in green:

The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach after a 2 foot sea level rise. (Source: NOAA)

Port of Houston

In 2017, Hurricane Harvey devastated the Houston, Texas area and caused widespread damage to adjoining counties and states:

Hurricane Harvey closed the Port of Houston for four days, causing major disruptions across the United States:

“The Port of Houston, which re-opened Friday after being closed for four days, has an economic impact on the United States estimated at $265 billion each year and is responsible for 1.2 million jobs all over the state” a study on the port published in 2016 said:

“Waco economist Ray Perryman said the cessation or interruption of receipt of goods at the Port Houston can have devastating effects on the country’s economy that could last for months.

‘It could have a huge impact,’ Perryman said.”[10]

Hurricane Harvey caused $125 billion in damage

The Balance, a personal finance website, summarized the impact:

“The storm affected 13 million people from Texas through Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Kentucky. By October 13, 2017, at least 88 people died from the storm.

Harvey made landfall three times in six days. At its peak on September 1, 2017, one-third of Houston was underwater. Two feet of rain fell in the first 24 hours. Flooding forced 39,000 people out of their homes and into shelters. Dallas created a mega-shelter for 5,000 evacuees out of its main convention center.

Harvey had a considerable economic impact. The Houston metro area is the nation’s fourth largest city with 6.6 million residents. If it were a country, it would be the world’s 23rd largest economy, larger than Poland or Sweden…

U.S. average gas prices rose from $2.35 a gallon before Harvey hit to $2.49 a gallon on August 31, 2017, six days after the storm first made landfall. Harvey affected the Northeast, since it relies on pipelines from the Gulf for its gas. To maintain supply, the Department of Energy released 500,000 barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Within ten days after the storm, gas prices had returned to pre-Harvey levels.”[11]

The Port of Houston and the Galveston Bay region of Texas face a dramatic increase in storm surge vulnerability as outlying island barriers become overwhelmed by a 2 foot sea level rise. The State of Texas seeks over $23 billion for a lock, dam and sea gate complex to restrain future flooding.

A 2 foot sea level rise would pose a serious high water and flooding hazard to Galveston Bay (Source: NOAA)

Port of New Orleans

The Port of New Orleans is located on the Mississippi River near the Gulf of Mexico — with access to 30-plus major inland hubs such as Memphis, Chicago and Canada via 14,500 miles of waterways, six Class I railroads and interstate roadways. [12]

Hurricane Katrina did $161 billion worth of damage to New Orleans and the region, but worse problems may follow. The Port of New Orleans and the City of New Orleans would be practically cut off from the mainland of the United States with a 2 foot rise in sea level based on the NOAA map below. Note the higher sea levels in light blue.

(Source: NOAA)

Port of Gulfport

The Port of Gulfport, Mississippi’s terminal operations are located on the map as the complex extending into the Mississippi Sound. The Port handles containers and other cargoes. Interstate I-10 is located approximately five miles north of the Port, and Class 1 rail service is provided by the Kansas City Southern Railway Company (KCS).[13]

The Port would not be directly impacted by a 2 foot sea level rise, but transportation links to the east and west of the port via the I-10 would face flooding threats as shown in light blue.

(Source: NOAA)

Port of Mobile

The Port and City of Mobile, Alabama face a threat from permanent flooding from the north, east and west and an increased vulnerability from low-lying areas in green.

(Source: NOAA)

Port of Jacksonville

The Port of Jacksonville is an international seaport located on the St. Johns River in Jacksonville, Florida. The port carries over 21 million tons of cargo each year and has an annual economic impact of over $19 billion, including 65,000 jobs. [14]

The Port’s Blount Island Marine Terminal is a major cargo-handling complex:

Located just nine nautical miles (16.7km) from the Atlantic Ocean, the Blount Island Marine Terminal has 7,094 linear feet (2,163m) of deep water berths.
It is the one of the largest vehicle import/export centers in the United States.
Leading auto processors – AMPORTS and Wallenius Wilhelmsen Logistics – combine for more than 250 acres of open storage and 300,000 square feet of auto processing facilities.
The newly rebuilt heavy lift cargo berth ranks as one of the nation’s highest weight-bearing capacity docks, offering up to 1,800 pounds per square foot of load capacity.

On this map, Blount Island is across the river and to the east of I-295 highway, which runs in a north-south direction to link up with the I-95. The I-295 appears to be facing a higher water threat from the east and west with a 2 foot rise. Meanwhile, the 105, which runs to the north of Blount Island in an east-west direction and intersects I-295, appears to be under threat from water at several points.

Port of Jacksonville cargo-handling facilities factored with a 2 foot sea level rise. (Source: NOAA)

Port of Savannah

The Port of Savannah, Georgia advertises that it is near the largest concentration of distribution centers on the U.S. Atlantic Coast. The Port faces a threat from flooding on some of its terminal space (in light blue) and an increase in low-lying areas vulnerable to flooding (in green) that could place transportation links at risk.

Port of Savannah terminals factoring a 2 foot sea level rise. (Source: NOAA)

Port of Charleston

The Port of Charleston terminal facilities, located on the north-east side of Charleston, would face some flooding with a 2 foot sea level rise (denoted by the light blue areas). The City also faces increased flood threats in low-lying areas as designated in green.

Port of Charleston (at the north-east corner of the map) with a 2-foot sea level rise. (Source: NOAA)

Port of Wilmington, North Carolina

The Port of Wilmington, North Carolina was shut for 14 days after Hurricane Florence brought widespread flooding to the region in September 2018:

“The impact of Hurricane Florence continues to reverberate through the country’s supply chains as North Carolina’s ports of Wilmington and Morehead City remained on restricted operations today, with spokesmen saying they won’t resume full commercial truck operations until Monday.

Those ports had originally closed to commercial truck activity on Wed. Sept. 12, as logistics operations throughout the southeastern U.S. braced for the storm’s arrival, so the schedule would ultimately mark a disruption of 14 days in truck service.

Fortunately, all major infrastructure—including the towering gantry cranes—at both locations have been assessed and weathered the storm with no damage, according to a statement from the North Carolina State Ports Authority. But as floodwaters linger throughout the region, recovery is taking time. The two ports are scheduled to reopen to employees on Thursday, and to begin handling vessel operations by the end of the week.

The delay in restoring service could have an impact on a broad array of goods, since the Port of Wilmington says it is North America’s largest banana port, the largest port of entry for Moroccan clementines, and a major gateway for imports of fresh fruit and juice concentrate. Altogether, the port says it is responsible for 5,900 direct, indirect, and induced jobs, producing $436 million in business revenue, $409 million in personal income, and $41 million in state and regional taxes every year.”15]

A 2 foot sea level rise would cause permanent flooding along the Port of Wilmington’s northern border.

Impact of a 2 foot sea level rise on the Port of Wilmington’s northern border in blue and light blue. (Source: NOAA)[16]

Port of Virginia (Norfolk)

Flooding poses a threat to one Port transportation link: the I-664/64 highway connection to I-95 as seen in light blue at the northern part of this map. There, a 2 foot sea level rise poses a flooding threat (in light blue) near the 164 (Western Freeway) located to the west of the Port of Virginia’s International Gateway container terminal. This is 291 acre terminal that handles 1.1 million twenty-foot containers units per year. Please see: http://www.portofvirginia.com/facilities/vig/specs/

(Source: NOAA)

Port of Wilmington, Delaware

The Port of Wilmington is a full-service, deep water port and marine terminal strategically located on 308 acres at the confluence of the Delaware and Christina Rivers. [17]

Port facilities could face a threat of partial flooding with a 2 foot sea level rise and flooding from the north and west would threaten transportation links to and from I-95 and the Port.

(Source: NOAA)

Port of New York and New Jersey

(Source: Port Authority of New York and New Jersey)

During 2018, the Port of New York and New Jersey handled more than 7 million teus (twenty-foot container units) for the first time in its history, which dates back to the 1950s. The 7,179,788 teus handled allows the port to maintain its position as the busiest on the East Coast and the third busiest in the nation following Los Angeles and Long Beach. The cargo growth was bolstered by an 8.2 percent increase in imported goods including clothing, furniture, electronics and other everyday products over the previous record for imports set in 2017. The Port handled one third of all containers on the East Coast of North America; an increase in market share of 2.8 percent over last year. In addition to cargo containers, the port also set a new all-time record for cargo handled by rail, moving 645,760 containers by rail, up 13.8 percent over the previous record set in 2017.[18]

On October 29, 2012, Hurricane Sandy hit the Ports of New York and New Jersey shutting the Port down from October 28until November 4, 2012 when it re-opened.

A 2013 assessment found that:

“Most participants were still assessing losses and rebuilding costs when interviewed for this study. However, the PANYNJ (Port Authority of New York and New Jersey) reported in March that they were estimating $170 million in costs – $130 million of which was capital (Rooney pers. comm. 2013). SECNY reported in January that repair costs for the sector and sub-units were estimated at $76 million (U.S. Coast Guard SECNY 2013). Despite these extraordinary impacts, nearly all participants described this response and recovery effort as a success given storm size and surge extent. There was no loss of life within the Port community and no real damage to vessels, and most participants agreed that the Port was reopened, and basic operations restored, within a very short period of time given the extent of damage and disruption.”[19]

The storm surge was so bad that “record storm tides (combination of storm surge and astronomical tide) reached 14.06 ft above Mean Lower Low Water at the Battery (the southern tip of Manhattan).”[20]

In October 2013, a press report noted that Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Deputy Executive Director Bill Baroni told Port commissioners that “Hurricane Sandy resulted in an estimated 2.2 billion dollars in damages and losses to our agency.”

The storm claimed more than 280 lives, including 40 in New Jersey, as it whipped through the Caribbean and up the East Coast.

Recapping the storm’s impact on Port Authority-related operations, Baroni said Hurricane Sandy had: “delayed or canceled flights for 900,000 airline passengers; diverted 25,000 shipping containers to other ports; spilled 125 million gallons of sea water into the World Trade Center site; and caused the “complete inundation of the PATH (subway) tubes from New York to New Jersey.”[21]

The container terminals are shown in the map above.

The threat of a 2 foot sea level rise can be seen in the map below. It shows an increase in low-lying areas in green that will be subject to flooding to the west of the container terminal complex along I-95. The complex includes the Maher, APM and Port Newark terminals at the center of the map. The impact would be to threaten I-95 transportation links to and from the marine terminals.

The impact of a 2 foot sea level rise on Port of New York and New Jersey marine terminals is shown in green. (Source: NOAA)

Texas Plans Sea Level Defense Barriers

City and state officials in Texas are looking to the federal government to help finance a system of seawalls and floodgates to protect the Ports of Houston, Galveston and oil and gas industry facilities:

“The “tentatively selected plan” calls for a network of physical barriers stretching from the west end of Galveston Island to the eastern end of neighboring Bolivar Peninsula. The project would include improvements to the existing Galveston seawall, along with the construction of new levees and/or “floodwalls” along the rest of the coastal area. The “largest feature” would be a system of surge barrier gates built in the water between Galveston and Bolivar Peninsula that would allow ships to pass through. …. Details of the plan, one of a handful that have been under consideration, are outlined in a lengthy draft feasibility study and environmental analysis released Friday by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Texas General Land Office. The plan is expected to cost between $23 and $32 billion….

The group Bayou City Waterkeeper has said the Corps’ plan, which the group had expected to focus on physical barriers, would “significantly change the nature of Galveston and Bolivar Peninsula, while continuing to leave many communities unprotected from future storms.”

The group is among a number of local environmental organizations who have called for a more nature-based approach that would focus on improving natural storm barriers, like wetlands and barrier islands, and minimize the use of physical infrastructure. They say protecting the coast should also involve stricter building regulations and requirements for industrial facilities to better protect themselves.”[22]

(Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/Texas General Land Office) This is a depiction of the plan for the Galveston Bay area.

According to a 2018 Bloomberg report:

“At stake (is) the welfare of $500 billion in industry, including the nation’s largest concentration of oil refineries and chemical plants. The dike could prevent countless homes and lives from being swept away in the 20-foot storm surge that would accompany a direct hit from a major hurricane –- a potentially worse cataclysm than (Hurricane) Harvey.

In 2017, Harvey flooded hundreds of thousands of homes and businesses, wreaking $125 billion in damages, a reminder of how vulnerable one of the nation’s most important economic centers remains. After a decade of indecision, officials have rallied around a plan for a seawall almost 60 miles long, fitted with massive floodgates at the center to protect Galveston Bay and the industry lining the Houston Ship Channel.

The Dutch proved long ago that … seawalls and floodgates can be effective. Much of the Netherlands would be swamped if not for its network of levees and floodgates holding back the sea. Houston’s plan is modeled after those engineering marvels.

The Coastal Spine, also known as the Ike Dike, is the largest civil works project under consideration in the U.S., according to the Texas General Land Office. It would be a landmark deal for financial markets, too. If Houston can bring together the public and private sector, the new financing model could be replicated to reinforce communities from Florida to California against Mother Nature’s wrath.”[23]

The ports of Houston and Galveston will need this sort of storm surge protection.

The Port of Galveston will face a serious flooding problem from a 2 foot increase in sea level, where it already has low-lying areas susceptible to flooding (in green). With a 2 foot sea level rise, there is flooding (light blue).

The Port of Galveston today (Source NOAA)

The Port of Galveston after a 2-foot sea level rise. (Source: NOAA)

The Port of Houston’s Barbours Cut container terminal at Morgan’s Point is located at the mouth of Galveston Bay and is 3.5 hours sailing time to open waters of the Gulf of Mexico. The terminal’s six berths provide 6,000 feet of continuous quay. The facility also includes a roll-on/roll-off platform, a LASH dock, 230 acres of paved marshaling area and 255,000 square feet of warehouse space. Intermodal rail service is available via the 42 acre near-dock rail ramp with four 2,700 working tracks and spurs connecting terminal warehouses. Plans are to increase current the capacity of 1.2 million twenty-foot unit containers to 2 million twenty-foot unit containers. Please see: https://porthouston.com/container-terminals/barbours-cut-container-terminal/

However, the Barbours Cut terminal faces the threat of more exposure to a storm surge:

The Port of Houston Barbours Cut terminal today. (Source: NOAA)

Port of Houston Barbours Cut terminal after a 2 foot sea level rise. (Source NOAA)

The light blue color shows a peripheral incursion of a 2 foot sea level increase along the pier at the terminal as well as from the protective barrier to the East.

As the map below indicates, the danger comes from the increased threat of a storm water surge when outlying barriers are partially submerged and less able to protect Galveston Bay following a a 2 foot sea level rise.

The light blue shows Galveston Bay after a 2 foot sea level rise. (Source: NOAA)

Port of San Francisco Builds New Seawall

In September 2018, Port of San Francisco executive director Elaine Forbes urged support for a $425 million bond issue by San Francisco voters to rebuild San Francisco’s outdated seawall and combat higher sea levels caused by global warming. She said the sea level rise is happening much faster than anticipated and that coastal areas around the United States including port properties and urban areas are at serious risk of erosion from the ocean. In San Francisco, she said, there is a growing problem of flooding that is impacting Port property, utilities, transit systems and downtown San Francisco. An additional problem is that an earthquake could cause serious damage without major seawall re-enforcement. [24]

The new seawall will protect 500 acres of downtown San Francisco (see above). (Source: Port of San Francisco: https://www.sfseawall.com/seawall-library/photos/2244)

In November 2018, a $425 million General Obligation Bond passed with 82% of San Francisco voters in support.

To date, the Port has secured $440 million for urgently needed immediate life safety improvements, and is currently pursuing local, state, federal, and private funding sources to fully fund infrastructure improvements anticipated to cost up to $5 billion. Potential sources of funding are:

Immediate seismic and ﬂood protection upgrades are targeted for completion by 2026. The project is currently in the early stages of planning, following an extensive Vulnerability Study.[25]

The Netherlands Sea Level Defense System

The closed Maeslant storm surge barrier protects the City and Port of Rotterdam January, 2018. (Source: Rijkswaterstraat)

Peter Persoon, technical information officer, Public Water Management Information Center, Maeslantkeringweg, Hoek van Holland is a 16-year veteran employed by the Rijkswaterstraat, the national agency which manages sea level defense and water management in the Netherlands.

In an interview, he said: “the Dutch government is concerned that sea level rise caused by global warming will force the Netherlands to accelerate investments in new and bigger sea barriers and taller dikes: We had planned for a 2 millimeter (0.08 inch) increase in sea level per year but if the rise accelerates to 20 millimeters (0.8 inches) per year then we have to act now to anticipate sea level increases that we had only expected in 2100 occurring sooner – possibly by 2060.

For example, the sea barrier protecting the City of Rotterdam, the Maeslant barrier, was planned to defend against sea level rises projected into 2100. Now, it is possible that we will have to replace these gates sooner. This is going to require a bigger budget for sea defense and water management.”

These sea barriers have eliminated the need to build a number of smaller dikes, because they protect a large area of land. It is a more efficient defense system. In 21 years, the gates were closed twice due to flooding threats – once in 2007 and once in 2018 when severe storms caused water levels to rise all along the coast. In 2018, for the first time ever, Rijkswaterstaat closed all 5 of the country’s storm surge barriers on the same day. There is an annual test of the system every year around October in anticipation of winter storms. The government also built a system of retention lakes which 1) controls river water flooding from rivers like the Rhine flowing into the North Sea which sometimes jump their river banks and 2) provides fresh water reservoirs for drinking water and for irrigating farmlands. [26]

In 2010, about 800 km of dikes out of a total of 3,500 km failed to meet newer standards. This does not mean there is an immediate structural risk; it is the result of the standard’s becoming stricter from the results of scientific research on, for example, wave action and sea level rise.

As recently as 2008, the State Committee for Durable Coast Development proposed measures based on a sea level rise of 65 cm to 130 cm by the year 2100. That is a range of 25 inches to 51 inches or a rise of 2 feet to 4 feet. [27]

Among its suggestions are:

to increase the safety norms tenfold and strengthen dikes accordingly,
to use sand replenishment to broaden the North Sea coast and allow it to grow naturally,
to use the lakes in the southwest river delta as river water retention basins,
to raise the water level in the IJsselmeer to provide freshwater.

These measures would cost approximately 1 billion Euro per year.[28]

Now, the threat of a higher rate of sea rise is forcing the Netherlands to accelerate new construction. The storm surge of 2018 provides a vivid example.

Netherlands: January, 2018 Storm Surge Response

On Wednesday 3 January 2018, a severe storm caused water levels to rise all along the coast. For the first time ever, Rijkswaterstaat closed all 5 of the country’s storm surge barriers on the same day. Harold van Waveren, a senior adviser in Rijkswaterstaat’s Water division, looks back on this historic day:

Closure of 5 storm surge barriers

The high water level along the Dutch coast was caused by a storm that occurred during the night and early morning of 2 and 3 January as a front crossed the North Sea towards the north of Germany. A storm developed on the southern edge of the front. ‘The wind picked up strongly in the early hours of the morning and only died down again towards the end of the evening. This caused water levels to rise,’ Van Waveren explains. The higher water levels ultimately forced the closure of all 5 storm surge barriers. ‘The storm surge barriers are designed to prevent water from reaching dangerous levels. The Maeslant storm surge barrier, for example, was closed when water reached 2.60 m above the Normal Amsterdam Level (NAP), in order to prevent the higher water from penetrating to Rotterdam. Of course the storm surge barrier could have been closed sooner, but we preferred not to because it would have had serious consequences for shipping and the port of Rotterdam and in terms of flood protection it was not necessary.’

Closure of storm surge barriers was essential

The question arose whether the storm surge barriers actually had to be closed. ‘The barriers only close when the predetermined water levels (closure levels) are reached. These levels differ from one barrier to another and depend on factors such as the strength and direction of the wind and the length of time the wind persists. For the barriers in estuaries, the water level in the river can also be a factor. It was absolutely essential to close the Oosterschelde and Hollandse IJssel storm surge barriers and the inflatable dam, the Balgstuw Ramspol, because of the risk of flooding’, says Van Waveren. ‘A reduced closing level applied for the Maeslant and Hartel storm surge barriers. It is impossible to ascertain with certainty during a test how the barriers will work when they are closed during a storm. To discover that, they have to be closed during a storm once every seven to 10 years. This storm was therefore an important and successful test for the barriers, but was also a training opportunity for the team that closes them.’

‘The Oosterschelde and Hollandse IJssel storm surge barriers and the Balgstuw Ramspol had to be closed because of the risk of flooding.’

Close cooperation in the event of high water

‘Rijkswaterstaat collaborates closely with the water boards when water levels are high. Together we protect the Netherlands against flooding’, Van Waveren explains. ‘During the storm we also communicated intensively with the port authorities of Rotterdam and Amsterdam and other stakeholders, including people living in areas outside the dykes.’ The communication was not confined to the Netherlands: ‘The locks at Terneuzen were shut on several occasions to allow excess water to be discharged so as to prevent flooding in Belgium.’

High water in the rivers

Although a lot of excess water is being discharged into the sea, there is still a huge volume of water arriving in the country from elsewhere in Europe via the rivers, which then have to discharge it. Can this cause problems? ‘The water level in the Rhine and the Meuse is rising rapidly at the moment, but the rivers can handle it easily.’ The floodplains of the rivers will be inundated, but that is what they are for. ‘But even if the volume of water were to double – which is certainly not going to happen – there would be no flooding.[29]

The Long-Term Investment by the Netherlands

The Zuiderzee Works (Zuiderzeewerken) are a system of dams, land reclamation, and water drainage works. The basis of the project was the damming off of the Zuiderzee, a large shallow inlet of the North Sea. This dam, called the Afsluitdijk, was built in 1932–33, separating the Zuiderzee from the North Sea. As result, the Zuider sea became the IJsselmeer—IJssel lake.

The Zuiderzee Works turned the Zuiderzee into a fresh water lake IJsselmeer, and created 1650 km² of land.

(Source: Wikipedia)

The Netherlands have taken the lead in building dikes and sea gates to protect the country from the rise in sea level. Beginning after catastrophic floods killed nearly 2,000 people in 1953, the Netherlands embarked on a series of projects in the southwest part of the country called the Delta Works. The Dutch government’s Rijkswaterstaat built the system “to protect the country against flooding from the North Sea. A large part of the Netherlands is below sea level and many large European rivers flow through the country to the sea. The large volume of water and the low-lying situation of the country exposes the Netherlands to the threat of flooding. Flood protection is therefore vital for the safety of millions of people in the Netherlands. Rijkswaterstaat started building the Delta Works in the year following the Great Flood of 1953. The massive project, with 13 storm surge barriers, was completed in 1997. Primary flood barriers, including storm surge barriers, now protect the country. ”[30]

The Room for the River’ project allows for periodic flooding of indefensible lands. In such regions residents have been removed to higher ground, some of which has been raised above anticipated flood levels. Rijkswaterstaat is taking measures to increase the capacity of rivers to cope with high water levels at 30 locations in the Netherlands. These measures will reduce the risk of flooding. [31]

A continuation of the Delta Works project was the most recently built Maeslantkering, a storm surge barrier that protects the City of Rotterdam from floods. Completed in 1997, the Maeslantkering consists of two 6,800 tons gates that close under the autonomous command of a set of computers that monitor the sea levels on an hourly basis. These computers are not connected to the Internet, making them invulnerable to cyber-attacks. At the construction cost of €450 million ($509 million USD today), the Maeslantkering protects Rotterdam’s 994,000 inhabitants.[32]

I-STORM

Storm Surge Barrier (SSB) professionals from the UK, Italy, USA, Belgium, Holland and Russia were among the 150 delegates at I-STORM’s 2016 conference. [33]

The Netherlands is now engaged in an international sea defense collaboration with many countries.

Many countries around the world have constructed storm flood surge barriers to manage the risks of coastal surges. These include:

United Kingdom
Netherlands
Italy
Russia
Germany
USA

Some of the storm barriers that have been built to protect against sea level rise:

Persoon noted that: “As experience of these unique structures is scarce and requires specialist knowledge, exchanging knowledge internationally is essential as countries learn more from each other. This is increasingly important as we account for the effects of climate change and sea level rise.”[34]

Founding members recognized the value of sharing knowledge and experience and decided to extend the network beyond just managers and to form I-STORM – the international network of storm surge barrier professionals, according to the I-STORM website. [35]

Sea Level Defense Raises Environmental Concerns

Environmentalists have sounded the alarm about the impact of sea gates and inflexible defense structures on marine biology and the environment.

The U.S. Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC) has warned about building a system of sea barriers to protect New York and New Jersey from higher sea levels and a repeat of a Hurricane Sandy:

“Offshore storm surge barriers are not a long-term climate resilience solution — they are expensive, inflexible, harmful to the environment, and harmful to communities located close to, but outside of, the barriers. There are more affordable, more localized, more dynamic, and more effective climate resilience solutions, such as the construction of onshore dunes, flood walls, levees, offshore breakwaters, wetlands, living shorelines, and reefs. These proposed solutions also address other climate change vulnerabilities, including sea level rise.“[36]

A Northern California official, with responsibilities for regulating development in the San Francisco Bay, said that her agency would have serious concerns about building a sea barrier to protect the Bay at its entrance adjoining the Golden Gate Bridge. The objection is that a sea barrier would also cause serious damage to marine life and the ecology that is dependent on tidal flows to and from the Pacific Ocean. The solution, the official said, was to find a means to protect against higher sea levels while also allowing the marine ecosystem to survive.[37]

A California port official said that constructing a storm surge or sea level barrier adjoining the Golden Gate Bridge would be a huge and expensive undertaking and was not even being considered as an option. The cost would be prohibitive, he said.[38]

Conclusion

The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) warns that damage to ports and cities from storm surges exacerbated by higher sea levels is already creating serious long-term damage and cost: “The cumulative cost of the 16 separate billion dollar weather events in the U.S. in 2017 was $306.2 billion, breaking the previous cost record of $214.8 billion (2005).”[39]

The threats of fire, storm surges and sea level rise are threats to U.S. ports, cities and to U.S. national security. Combating the effects of sea level rise and storm surges will require a World War II type mobilization.

There is an urgent need for the federal government to make major investments to protect especially vulnerable coastal communities including: California, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Delaware, New Jersey and New York.

The Netherlands’ leadership in sea level defense comes from its long-standing struggle to protect itself from storm surges, such as the 1953 storm and flood that ravaged the country and killed nearly 2,000 people.

The Netherlands is already planning on a faster sea level rise than had previously been predicted, according to the Rijkswaterstraat’s Peter Persoon: “the Dutch government is concerned that sea level rise caused by global warming will force the Netherlands to accelerate investments in new and bigger sea barriers and taller dikes: We had planned for a 2 millimeter (0.08 inch) increase in sea level per year but if the rise accelerates to 20 millimeters (0.8 inches) per year then we have to act now to anticipate sea level increases that we had only expected in 2100 occurring sooner – possibly by 2060.

The Netherlands sea level defense philosophy is summarized by Persoon: “It is better to spend $1 billion now to avoid paying $10 billion later.”

It is equally true that it is better to spend $100 billion now so as to avoid paying $1,000 billion later.

The exposure of U.S. ports, cities and coastal communities to storm surges, hurricanes, and sea level rise is no longer a distant threat: it is now an immediate threat.

FOOTNOTES

[1] https://coast.noaa.gov/slr/#/layer/slr/2/-10919495.141346408/5060141.458636494/4/satellite/520/0.8/2050/interHigh/midAccretion

[2] https://coast.noaa.gov/states/fast-facts/hurricane-costs.html

[3] https://www.thebalance.com/hurricane-harvey-facts-damage-costs-4150087

[4] https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/hurricane-florence-caused-up-to-50-billion-in-damage-report

[5] https://coast.noaa.gov/states/fast-facts/hurricane-costs.html

[6] Please find the NOAA maps by accessing this link and inputting the locality. Once there, adjust the marker on the left side and move from the current level to 2 feet or higher: https://coast.noaa.gov/slr/#/layer/slr/0/-11066784.785637997/9516723.03199656/2/satellite/none/0.8/2050/interHigh/midAccretion

[7] http://coastguard.dodlive.mil/2015/08/remembering-katrina-port-recovery-and-lessons-learned/

[8] https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/, see #10 Infrastructure and #11 Oceans & Coasts

[9] Amir AghaKouchak and Colleagues, “How Do Natural Hazards Cascade to Cause Disasters,” Nature, September 27, 2018. Also see: file:///C:/Users/Stas/Downloads/AghaKouchaketal.2018_cascadingNature.pdf

[10] https://www.kwtx.com/content/news/Consumers-may-feel-Harveys-impact-on-Texas-ports-for-months-442905183.html

[11] https://www.thebalance.com/hurricane-harvey-facts-damage-costs-4150087

[12] https://portnola.com/business/cargo

[13] http://shipmspa.com/doing-business/business/facilities-properties/

[14] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_of_Jacksonville#cite_note-2

[15] http://www.dcvelocity.com/articles/20180919-florence-flooding-keeps-port-of-wilmington–nc–closed-to-trucks-until-monday/

[16] https://coast.noaa.gov/slr/#/layer/slr/2/-8677612.63946532/4056036.667559516/14/satellite/520/0.8/2050/interHigh/midAccretion

[17] https://www.portofwilmington.com/

[18] https://www.panynj.gov/port/containerized-cargo.html and http://www.panynj.gov/press-room/press-item.cfm?headLine_id=3066

[19] “Assessing the Impacts of Hurricane Sandy on the Port of New York and New Jersey’s Maritime Responders and Response Infrastructure” Tiffany C. Smythe, Ph.D. Post-Doctoral Fellow in Maritime Policy Center for Maritime Policy & Strategy, U.S. Coast Guard Academy Quick Response Report No. 238: Final Report to the University of Colorado Natural Hazards Center Quick Response Grant Program (National Science Foundation grant CMMI1030670), May 31, 2013, p. 7

[20] Smythe, p. 6

[21] https://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/10/port_authority_sandy_22billion_outlines_recovery_measures.html

[22] https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/2018/10/26/309524/agencies-release-tentative-plan-for-storm-barrier-on-the-texas-gulf-coast/, http://coastalstudy.texas.gov/alternatives/index.html

[23] https://gcaptain.com/houston-eyes-exotic-bonds-to-pay-for-a-15-billion-dike/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Gcaptain+%28gCaptain.com%29&goal=0_f50174ef03-bf7c9a938c-169966254&mc_cid=bf7c9a938c&mc_eid=f4fd64d0a0

[24]) https://www.ajot.com/insights/full/ai-san-francisco-port-director-elaine-forbes-promotes-425-million-seawall-to-combat-higher-sea-level, https://www.sfseawall.com/seawall-program,https://youtu.be/P6n3GSkhzsE

[26] Interview with author, November 2018

27 https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&ei=WdVtXJzfIvPA0PEPx-yWmAM&q=65+cm+to+inches&oq=65+&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.35i39j0j0i67j0l7.33115.41187..44223…2.0..0.378.751.0j3j0j1……0….1..gws-wiz…..6..0i131.-ibfyxFToGA

[28] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_control_in_the_Netherlands#cite_note-13

[29] https://www.rijkswaterstaat.nl/english/water-systems/protection-against-water/delta-works/interview-the-dutch-are-proud-of-our-feats-of-hydraulic-engineering.aspx

[30] https://www.rijkswaterstaat.nl/english/water-systems/protection-against-water/delta-works/index.aspx

[31] https://www.rijkswaterstaat.nl/english/water-systems/protection-against-water/room-for-the-river.aspx

[32] https://dutchreview.com/culture/society/rising-sea-levels-in-the-netherlands/

[33] https://www.i-storm.org/

[34] Interview with author, November 2018

[35] https://www.i-storm.org/storm-surge-barriers.html

[36] https://www.nrdc.org/experts/rob-friedman/proposed-storm-surge-barriers-do-not-address-sea-level-rise

[37] Interview with the author, November 2018

[38] Interview with the author, February 2019

[39] https://coast.noaa.gov/states/fast-facts/hurricane-costs.html