(The Center Square) – As Tuesday afternoon fell across Western Washington, the skies darkened and heavy rain again poured down on a saturated landscape unable to handle even more precipitation, which had already resulted in historic flooding throughout the region.
Large swaths of low-lying river valleys ended up buried under feet of water, including much of the Auburn and Kent valleys, where homes, businesses, industrial areas, and farmland were rendered unrecognizable.
The Center Square toured the flooded region on Tuesday and spoke with a man who came to check if his car hauler truck, parked at a lot off of South 277th Street – where new vehicles are stored before being transported to dealers – was still dry.
He said his rig appeared to have been spared, but others were not so lucky.
“I wish the manager had given us more warning to move our rigs,” the man, who declined to identify himself, told The Center Square, noting the fast-rising water from Saturday.
A nearby gas station was inundated with several feet of water, and several surrounding homes and agricultural properties were submerged or partially submerged.
And while the debate over the impacts of climate change on flooding will undoubtedly continue, some people suggest that the focus should be on flood mitigation, or the lack thereof.
Todd Myers, vice president for research at the free-market Washington Policy Center think tank, spoke with The Center Square on Tuesday.
“When the Climate Commitment Act passed – in the very first paragraph, they were talking about why we need to have this CO2 tax – and it specifically mentions flooding,” he said. “Flooding is one of the things you hear all the time, and flooding is going to get worse because of climate change. There is some merit to that as warmer air holds more water, so there’s going to be more moisture, more rain, and so obviously the potential for more floods.”
Myers noted more than $1.5 billion was spent in the first two years from the CO2 tax on various programs, with a very tiny fraction dedicated to flood mitigation.
“Since we’re blaming these floods on climate change, did we use the money to fight climate change, to prevent flooding?” he asked. “Out of that $1.5 billion, just over $7 million was spent-which is about one half of 1% [on flood mitigation]. “I looked at some other things that we spent more on during the first two years, and we actually spent more than double that, $15 million for bicycle education programs for elementary and middle school students.”
In a recent article on the subject, Myers highlighted specific CCA flood mitigation spending.
“The largest single expenditure on flooding listed in the state’s spending list is $1.5 million to the Whatcom County Public Works Department for their Floodplain Integrated Planning process,” he wrote. Another $406,797 went to training “young adults to implement ecological restoration and flood prevention projects in the south Puget Sound region.” And another $900,000 went to “staff costs to administer the Transboundary Flooding grant program… Flood control projects can take many years to complete, so some projects funded by CCA money now will be completed in the future.”
The Center Square spoke with Rep. Mary Dye, R-Pomeroy, who is the ranking minority member on the House Environment & Energy Committee, about the lack of prioritizing flood concerns when it comes to CCA priorities.
“We are not directing the CCA dollars towards actual policies that would help that,” she said. “We claim that there are these terrible public risks of fire and floods and droughts, and we have not spent anything since we have been bringing revenues in. And so, we need to think about what our priorities are. We know that there have been places where the levees are not adequate. Fix the levees.”
Dye noted the number of lower-income families living in flood-prone areas.
“We have a very high flood risk that disproportionately affects local income areas,” she said. “So, you know, it’s the way we’re spending the money that’s making the trauma in these communities worse.”
The Center Square reached out to the Department of Ecology for comment on the CCA and flood mitigation.
“It’s up to the Legislature to decide how to spend CCA dollars,” Caroline Halter, communications manager with the Department of Ecology’s Climate Pollution Reduction Program, replied via email. “Ecology’s only role is to account for how the revenue has been spent each year.”
Myers’ article suggests the state Legislature should reconsider how it prioritizes CCA spending.
“We have consistently recommended a concept introduced by Jay Inslee in his first climate legislation in 2013, ESSB 5802, which said climate expenditures ‘must be prioritized to ensure the greatest amount of environmental benefit for each dollar spent and based on measures of environmental effectiveness,"” he wrote. “That is not being done. The result is that even as political leaders point to flooding and other weather events as evidence of climate change and the need for the CCA, there is little spent to address those risks.”
