

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Ashley Siefert Nunes at UCS, asiefert@ucsusa.org, 952-239-0199
Accelerating sea level rise in the lower 48 states, primarily driven by climate change, is projected to worsen tidal flooding, putting as many as 311,000 coastal homes with a collective market value of about $117.5 billion today at risk of chronic flooding within the next 30 years--the lifespan of a typical mortgage--according to a new report by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released today. Roughly 14,000 coastal commercial properties assessed at a value of roughly $18.5 billion also are at risk during that time frame. By the end of the century, homes and businesses currently worth more than $1 trillion could be at risk: as many as 2.4 million homes--roughly the equivalent of all the homes in Los Angeles and Houston combined--valued at approximately $912 billion and 107,000 commercial properties assessed at $152 billion.
The analysis uses property data from the online real estate company Zillow combined with a peer-reviewed methodology developed by UCS for assessing areas at risk of frequent flooding. Using three sea level rise scenarios developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), UCS determined how many residential and commercial properties along the entire lower 48 coastline are at risk of becoming chronically inundated from high tides, flooding an average of 26 times per year or more, in the coming decades even in the absence of major storms. The core results in the report are from the high sea level rise scenario--an appropriately conservative projection to use when estimating risk to homes, which are often the owner's single biggest asset.
"What's striking as we look along our coasts is that the significant risks of sea level rise to properties identified in our study often aren't reflected in current home values in coastal real estate markets," said Rachel Cleetus, an economist and policy director for the Climate and Energy Program at UCS, as well as a report co-author. "Unfortunately, in the years ahead many coastal communities will face declining property values as risk perceptions catch up with reality. In contrast with previous housing market crashes, values of properties chronically inundated due to sea level rise are unlikely to recover and will only continue to go further underwater, literally and figuratively."
The consequences of chronic flooding of properties in specific communities could translate not just into eroding property values, but also into unlivable houses and falling tax revenues that fund schools, roads and emergency services in those places. The properties at risk by 2045 currently house roughly 550,000 people and contribute nearly $1.5 billion toward today's property tax base. These numbers jump to about 4.7 million people and $12 billion by 2100. Municipalities are looking at even deeper revenue declines when commercial property, sales, and other business tax losses are factored in.
"For some communities, the potential hit to the local tax base could be staggering," said Kristy Dahl, senior climate scientist at UCS and report co-author. "Some smaller, more rural communities may see 30, 50, or even 70 percent of their property tax revenue at risk due to the number of chronically inundated homes. Tax base erosion could create particular challenges for communities already struggling with high poverty rates."
According to the analysis, states with the most homes at risk by the end of the century are Florida, with about 1 million homes or more than 10 percent of the state's current residential properties, New Jersey with 250,000 homes, and New York with 143,000 homes. States that could lose the most in home property values by 2100 are Florida at $351 billion, New Jersey at $108 billion, and New York at nearly $100 billion. Decreases in property values also mean a lower property tax base. Florida, New York and New Jersey will see the biggest hits to their annual property tax revenue with municipalities losing about $5 billion, $1.9 billion and $1.7 billion total respectively.
"Not all affected communities will share the same experience," said Erika Spanger-Siegfried, senior analyst in the Climate and Energy Program at UCS and report co-author. "Some may see sharp adjustments to their housing market in the not-too-distant future; some could see a slow, steady decline in home values; and others could potentially invest in protective measures to keep impacts at bay for a few more decades. In any case, by knowing how much time they have before a significant number of properties will be regularly flooded, communities can start planning and implementing responses now, while they still have a range of options from which to choose."
Economic consequences could also hit some communities harder than others. Nearly 175 communities would expect to see 10 percent or more of their homes at risk of chronic flooding by 2045, with nearly 60 of those communities experiencing poverty levels above the national average. Additionally, of the roughly 75 communities with 30 percent or more of their property tax base at risk, about one-third of these have poverty rates above the national average. The places that could be hit hardest in this way include communities in: Louisiana, Maryland, New Jersey, and North Carolina. Similarly, communities with large African American or Hispanic populations--many located in California, Florida, Louisiana, New Jersey, New York, South Carolina and Texas--could also be at an inherent disadvantage in taking steps to prevent or recover from chronic flooding, due to longstanding social and economic inequities.
"While wealthier homeowners may risk losing more of their net wealth cumulatively, less-wealthy ones are in jeopardy of losing a greater percentage of what they own," said Cleetus. "Homes often represent a larger share of total assets for elderly or low-income residents. Renters too might find themselves in a tight market or having to put up with decaying buildings and increased nuisance flooding. Hits to the property tax base in low-income communities, which already experience significant underinvestment in critical services and infrastructure, could prove especially challenging."
Meanwhile, the loss of coastal property values will have reverberations throughout the economy--affecting banks, insurers, investors, and developers--potentially triggering regional housing market crises or a more widespread economic crisis. Homeowners whose properties become chronically inundated could find themselves with mortgages that exceed the value of their homes, face steeply rising flood insurance premiums, or even default on their loans. Lenders carrying large numbers of these risky mortgages could lose money or eventually become insolvent, with smaller banks concentrated in regions with high flood risk being especially exposed. Coastal real estate investors and developers may similarly experience financial losses in some coastal areas.
"Actions today, especially the amount of global warming emissions we release, will help determine what our coasts will look like at the end of the century," said Astrid Caldas, senior climate scientist at UCS and report co-author. "If we manage to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement by keeping warming to between 1.5 and 2 degrees Celsius and if ice loss is limited, 85 percent of all affected residential properties--valued at $782 billion today and currently accounting for more than $10.4 billion in annual property tax revenue to municipal governments--could avoid chronic flooding this century. The longer we wait to drastically reduce emissions, the less likely it is that we will achieve this outcome."
There are currently many well-intentioned federal, state and local policies that mask risk and create incentives that reinforce the status quo or even expose more people and property to risk. The market's bias toward short-term decision-making and profits can also perpetuate risky investment choices. These flawed policies and incentives include inaccurate flood risk information, subsidized insurance, lax zoning and building codes, incentives for business-as-usual building and re-building, and incomplete credit ratings.
"Targeting improvements to the policies and market drivers of risky coastal development is essential to better protect communities and move the nation toward greater resilience," said Shana Udvardy, climate resilience analyst at UCS and report co-author. "Short-sighted policies and market drivers will need to be phased-out to discourage risky behavior and to ensure changes won't be too jarring on homeowners and the real estate market."
To view the report PDF, click here.
Spreadsheets with data about the chronically inundated properties are available and can be sorted by state, by community (delineated by the Census Bureau as county subdivisions), and by ZIP code.
To use the interactive mapping tool, click here. The map allows you to learn more about the impact of chronic inundation on properties, people, home values and the tax base in specific states, communities or ZIP codes. When you zoom in, the maps become more detailed. You can also click on a specific state or community for more details about it.
For all other materials, including our methodology document, a compilation of interviews with additional experts on this topic, and Spanish-language materials, click here.
Data provided by third parties through the Zillow Transaction and Assessment Dataset (ZTRAX). More information on accessing the data can be found at https://www.zillow.com/ztrax.
The results and opinions presented in this report are those of the Union of Concerned Scientists and do not reflect the position of Zillow Group. See full disclaimer at www.ucsusa.org/underwater.
The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS combines independent scientific research and citizen action to develop innovative, practical solutions and to secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices.
"The only thing Trump has made great again is inflation," said Rep. Brendan Boyle.
Data released by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics on Wednesday showed continued upward pressure on prices, caused in large part by President Donald Trump's war with Iran.
The Producer Price Index (PPI), which measures wholesale prices paid by businesses, posted a year-over-year gain of 6% in April, the largest yearly increase since December 2022.
Energy prices, which have surged since Trump launched an unprovoked war with Iran in late February, played a large role in raising wholesale costs, as the report finds "more than three-quarters of the broad-based increase in April can be traced to a 7.8% jump in prices for final demand energy."
However, energy prices aren't solely responsible for rising wholesale prices, as the so-called "core" PPI, which excludes the costs of food and energy, posted a yearly increase of 4.4% in April, the largest since February 2023.
PPI is seen as an important gauge of future inflation for consumers, as companies typically pass the costs they pay for inputs onto consumers in the form of price increases.
As explained by Groundwork Collaborative in a social media post, the wholesale costs measured by PPI "are what companies pay before they jack up prices on the rest of us."
"What's in the pipeline now is headed straight for your grocery bill and gas tank," Groundwork Collaborative added. "The pain isn't over. It's just beginning."
CNN economics reporter Elisabeth Buchwald similarly predicted more hurt for US consumers in the coming months, arguing in a Wednesday article that a 6% increase in PPI shows "the pain will not be short-lived."
"Even if the United States were to reach a deal with Iran today, it would still take months for shipments of oil held up by the blockade of the crucial Strait of Hormuz to reach American soil," Buchwald explained. "And even then, it would likely be months—or potentially years—before Americans see gas prices return to levels before the war."
Wednesday's PPI report came one day after the Consumer Price Index showed that consumer prices in April rose by 3.8%, the largest yearly increase since May 2023.
Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.) reacted to the latest inflation data by ripping into the president's policy decisions, including the Iran war and the global trade war he started shortly after returning to office last year.
"The only thing Trump has made great again is inflation," Boyle, the ranking member of the House Budget Committee, wrote in a social media post. "His disastrous policies—from his tariff taxes to his war in Iran—are making life even more expensive. We shouldn't be surprised the guy who managed to bankrupt a casino isn't an economic mastermind."
Rep. Maxine Dexter (D-Ore.) linked the increased prices to Trump's desire to have Congress spend $1 billion of taxpayer money on his proposed White House ballroom.
"Oregonians need real relief from these high costs at the store and the pump," wrote Dexter. "We must stop the war in Iran and refuse to pay for presidential vanity projects. Oregon families want peace. They need a break, not a ballroom."
"We believe Dan Osborn... represents the best opportunity to defeat Pete Ricketts and deliver real results for working families," said the chair of the state Democratic Party.
The winner of the Democratic US Senate primary in Nebraska has no expectation that she'd be able to win the general election in November, and her official website alludes to a plan to drop out of the race—which could ultimately help the party in its goal of wresting control of the chamber from Republicans.
The campaign website of Cindy Burbank, a pharmacy technician who jumped into the Democratic primary race after hearing the Republicans were plotting to place a right-wing "plant" on the ballot, suggests Burbank did some maneuvering of her own to secure a favorable result—even if she has no intention of actually going to the US Senate and instead aims to help Independent candidate Dan Osborn win.
Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.) "knows he’s losing to Dan Osborn and this is his plan to cheat his way to victory. We can’t let that happen," reads Burbank's website. "Support me—and I’ll make sure Pete Ricketts’ stooge never gets anywhere near our November ballot!"
Osborn, a former organizer who came within seven points of beating Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) in 2024, has been endorsed by the state's Democratic Party, which poured money into Burbank's campaign before Tuesday's primary.
In March, state Democratic Party Chair Jane Fleming Kleeb said William Forbes, an anti-abortion rights pastor who has voted for President Donald Trump in recent elections and attended a training run by a right-wing group, had joined the Democratic Party to "deceive Nebraska voters."
"The Nebraska Democratic Party made a deliberate, principled decision not to field a candidate in the US Senate race," said Kleeb. "We believe Dan Osborn—a veteran, a mechanic, a Nebraskan, and an independent voice—represents the best opportunity to defeat Pete Ricketts and deliver real results for working families."
Forbes has denied being a "Ricketts plant," as Kleeb has called him, and Burbank on Tuesday denied she had joined the race with the intention of dropping out to help Osborn win in a state where a Democrat has not won a Senate race since 2006. She told NBC News that "some people" she had worked with on previous political campaigns had spoken to her about running, but said they were not connected to Osborn's campaign or to the state Democratic Party.
But she added that following her overwhelming win, with 89% of primary voters supporting her, that Osborn is "a great guy, and we have to keep in mind that he might be able to be on [the ballot].”
“For me to stay on the ballot and take votes away from Osborn, it’s not fair,” she told the outlet.
Burbank added that she "will drop out when and if the time comes that I cannot win in November. And I think anybody with any dignity should do that."
David Dayen, executive editor of The American Prospect, said Burbank's resounding victory "suggests a well-educated [Democratic] electorate" and a well-organized push by Kleeb.
Osborn, who has emphasized that he would caucus independently if elected to the Senate, came closer than expected to beating Fischer in 2024, when Trump carried Nebraska by 20 points.
Polling has been limited so far, but Tavern Research found ahead of the primary election that 47% of likely voters were supporting Osborn while 42% backed Ricketts. The same survey found Ricketts 16 points ahead of Forbes, 9 points ahead of Burbank, and 7 points ahead of a generic Democrat. Earlier polls sponsored by Osborn's campaign found Ricketts just one point ahead of the Independent.
Tavern Research said the polls pointed to "an Independent problem in Nebraska" for Ricketts, whose wealth and financial industry ties have earned him the nickname "Wall Street Pete."
The state has long been a stronghold for Trump and the GOP, but Cook Political Report currently rates the state's Senate race as "likely Republican," downgrading it from "solidly Republican," ahead of the November election.
Osborn, a US Navy veteran and mechanic, became president of his union while working at the Kellogg's plant in Omaha and led a successful strike there in 2021, securing benefits for his fellow union workers. He has called his platform the Nebraska Fairness Plan and is vowing to "take on the corporations and their chosen political lapdogs to restore economic liberty and fairness for the working Americans who make this country run."
He has called to overturn the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling that allowed unlimited corporate spending in elections, refuses corporate political action committee donations, and has demanded an end to corporate practices like "shrinkflation" and surveillance pricing.
"We deserve a government that is truly of the people, by the people, and for the people," reads Osborn's platform. "But for decades, career politicians in both parties have been bought and paid for by the corporate cronies and lobbyists pouring money into our political process to bend the system to their will. When I’m in the Senate, I will champion the strongest anti-corruption platform Washington has ever seen."
"Unlike Graham, who rejects corporate PAC money and refuses to sell out, Sen. Collins has never met a corporate PAC check she didn't like," said the head of End Citizens United.
Graham Platner, the presumptive Democratic candidate to challenge Republican Sen. Susan Collins in Maine, continues to rake in endorsements, and on Wednesday won support from End Citizens United, which advocates for reversing the US Supreme Court decision that opened the floodgates to unlimited corporate spending in elections.
The oyster farmer and military combat veteran launched his campaign last August with an advertisement declaring that "billionaires" and "the oligarchy" are "the enemy." He has run on campaign finance reform, taxing the rich, Medicare for All, ending "pointless wars" and President Donald Trump's "deportation machine," tackling the childcare crisis, supporting public schools, boosting unions, raising wages, and defending democracy as well as "our air, our water, our land, and our climate."
"Graham Platner understands that people in Maine are fed up watching the same politicians make promises while life keeps getting more expensive and nothing changes," said End Citizens United president Tiffany Muller in a statement. "He's running a campaign rooted in the belief that Washington will never work for working families as long as billionaires, corporations, and special interests are able to buy access and influence at the highest levels of government."
Platner has joined End Citizens United's "Unrig Washington" program, which advocates for a ban on congressional stock trading, refusing corporate political action committee (PAC) contributions, and cracking down on dark money.
"Unlike Graham, who rejects corporate PAC money and refuses to sell out, Sen. Collins has never met a corporate PAC check she didn't like," Muller said of the five-term senator. "She has spent decades rewarding her biggest donors in exchange for campaign contributions. We’re proud to endorse Graham, and we look forward to helping expose Sen. Collins' corruption."
Platner collected $4.1 million from small donors in the first quarter of 2026, and polling has given him an edge over both Collins and Democratic Maine Gov. Janet Mills, who suspended her primary campaign late last month, citing a lack of financial resources.
"The race has never really been about me or any one person," Platner said after Mills' exit. "It's about a movement of working Mainers who are fed up with being robbed by billionaires and the politicians who own them. We are now taking back our power."
The Democrat delivered a similar message about building "a movement to get money out of politics" and "a government that represents working people" in a Wednesday statement welcoming support from a group that's long worked to overturn the 2010 decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
"We don't take a dime of corporate PAC money, and we're going to keep it that way, because our politics has been bought and paid for by billionaires for far too long," Platner said. "It's long past time to overturn Citizens United and take on establishment politicians like Susan Collins, who have enriched the ultrawealthy and themselves on the backs of working people in this country. I'm grateful to be endorsed by End Citizens United and to have their support in this fight."
In addition to taxing billionaires and getting money out of politics, Platner has taken aim at the Supreme Court—which has had some turnover since 2010, and since then faced rising public scrutiny for justices' ethics concerns as well as recent decisions from the right-wing supermajority.
Platner said last month that "if we held Supreme Court justices to the same standards that we held federal judges, there is a compelling case for the impeachment and removal of at least two"—likely referring to Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, who have come under fire for covertly accepting gifts from billionaires.