Up First from NPR - The Sunday Story: Time To Leave

Episode Date: January 7, 2024

Extreme weather driven by climate change is affecting housing across the country. Millions of homes are at risk of flooding, fire or drought. Increasingly, local municipalities are facing hard decisions about whether to tear homes down or ban new construction altogether. Today on The Sunday Story, a visit to three communities in America trying to balance the need for housing with the threat of climate-driven disaster.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

I'm Ayesha Roscoe, and this is a Sunday Story. There's a big fight happening across the country. It's a fight about one of the most basic ideas in our society. Who gets to decide where we live? And city council meetings are getting tense. Because if we're going to be real about this, let's be real about it. There's a lot to be frustrated about. On one hand, there's

not enough affordable housing in the U.S. How are we going to afford to live in the city if we don't build housing? On the other hand, there's a growing risk that homes could get hit with a disaster as the climate keeps changing. People are going to die. People are going to die. As floods and droughts and wildfires get worse, cities and towns are facing a tough question. Are there places where new homes shouldn't be built? Rebecca Herscher and Lauren Sommer from NPR's Climate Desk have been digging into what this means for where we live. Rebecca, Lauren, welcome to the Sunday Story. Hey, it's good to be here. Yeah, thanks. Climate change is driving more extreme weather on all ends of the spectrum. It just

seems like, you know, every other day there's some sort of weather record being broken and you're just hearing about it more and more. Yeah, and you know, there are millions of homes at risk from climate change. But then there's the question of where to build new homes. Right. So on that sort of new home building front in city council meetings and planning board meetings and other, you know, frankly, kind of boring public forums where these decisions actually get made about where to build homes. we are hearing people on opposite sides of the country expressing really similar concerns and fears and hopes. Yeah, it's happening in California with wildfires.

I don't care what you build, it'll burn. It's happening with droughts and lack of water in Arizona. We need to get the water. And it's happening with flooding. So please, you have to think ahead. What is the increase in rainfall that we can anticipate will happen? And in some places, you know, these debates are just beginning. In others, residents have started to figure out some solutions and policies that can guide these building decisions? I mean, so this is one of those things where you can see where people are coming from on all sides of it.

There is a massive housing shortage in this country, and it is very difficult for many people to buy a home. But then, on the other hand, you have all of these homes that have been lost and people that have died in these disasters. Right. Yeah. And because building decisions are mostly local decision, it really means that local governments are making some of the most important climate change decisions out there. But you went to three communities that are in the middle of this. So where are we going to go first in this conversation? What community are we going to hear from? Yeah, it's a place with some of the most expensive housing in the country.

You can see how close these homes are sited together. So this is Van Collinsworth. He lives here in Santee, California, which is kind of east of San Diego. And it's, you know, the suburbs. It's kind of at the edge of the whole metropolitan region. And we were walking through rows of homes on the outskirts of town. There's not enough space between them. So if one home ignites, it's likely to ignite the next home and the next one ignite the next. And pretty soon you have a cluster burn like you've seen in some of the other larger fires around the state. Yeah. So Collinsworth, he's the kind of guy who sees fire danger everywhere. His day job is doing wildfire inspections at homes around San Diego.

He actually makes sure they've cleared flammable brush. Yeah, I see things. He also runs a local environmental group called Preserve Wild Santee. And for years now, he's been focused on this huge piece of land on the edge of town. Right now, it's open space. It's rolling hills and they're kind of covered in dry grass. And it's where a new development for about 3,000 homes is being proposed. When you say a whole bunch of dry grass, I would think that he may see some fire danger in this area.

Yeah, exactly. And this area has burned before. About 20 years ago, the Cedar Fire came right through here and destroyed more than 2,000 homes around the area. That really hit me because we know that a disaster in the past is a good indication that another one could happen in the same place in the future, right? So that's true for wildfires.

It's also true for floods. So that's pretty scary. Yeah, exactly. And this new development, which would be called Fenita Ranch, it concerns Collinsworth because it would be difficult to evacuate. So if a wildfire hits, people wouldn't be able to get out in time. Yeah, yeah. And that's how people have died in other wildfires. And there would only be two roads into this development.

Essentially, they're betting the farm, so to speak, that those homes are not going to burn. He pointed out, you know, wildfires are getting more extreme. And he thinks that should change the way people think about where to live. I don't think developers and decision makers are willing to acknowledge that we are living in a new era of extreme weather and really grapple with what that means for the desire to just build and build and build. So he actually joined with some other environmental groups and they sued to stop the development in 2020. And a judge actually agreed, saying the developer needed to analyze how long a wildfire evacuation would take. What does the developer have to say about that and the fire risk? Yeah, yeah. That's a question I put to them. We're not building, you know, wood shingled homes. We're basically doing the opposite. We're developing what's known as a defensible community.

So this is Kent Aiden. He's a senior vice president at Home Fed Corporation, and that's the developer of Fenita Ranch. He says this community would be built with wildfire in mind. So the homes would be built out of fire resistant materials. And the more buildings that are built like that, the safer a community is. And then there's a bunch of other stuff Aiden says they're planning to do. There would be a dedicated fire station built. Residents would get inspections twice per year to make sure their flammable vegetation is cleared out. The vegetation would also be cleared, you know, on the outskirts of the development, so that kind of protects it, it makes a buffer. None of this, to be clear, would be a guarantee that the community wouldn't burn, but Aiden says, you know, they've worked with fire experts to

reduce the risk. We've learned through those tough lessons from the other fires the things we need to do and believe that we can create a great community and help solve the California's housing shortage. But that doesn't address evacuation, right? Like, wasn't that one of the biggest concerns? Yeah, right. That's what the judge said. Aiden says they've developed a phased approach. So everyone just doesn't leave all at once and clog up the streets with traffic. So they will identify certain streets and then use the reverse 911 and other tools to evacuate those streets, you know, one at a time on an orderly basis. Yeah. And if you haven't heard of reverse 911, which I hadn't before I started reporting about

this, it's used in a lot of disasters. It's how authorities can send an alert to your phone based on where you are saying, like, there's a wildfire, you need to get out. And that's what Aiden and his company worked on after the lawsuit. They changed the project a little, they did more analysis, and then they brought it back to the community and the city council to vote on it again. So whether they're going to build or not build, That's what we'll find out next. Now Our Change will honor 100 years of the Royal Canadian Air Force and their dedicated service to communities at home and abroad. From the skies to Our Change,

this $2 commemorative circulation coin marks their storied past and promising future. Find the limited edition Royal Canadian Air Force $2 coin today. We're back with the Sunday story talking about home building in the age of climate change with NPR's Rebecca Hersher and Lauren Sommer. So a city near San Diego is weighing a big choice. They need more housing for residents, but the area is at risk of being hit with a big choice. They need more housing for residents, but the area is at risk of being hit with a wildfire. So Lauren, what did they decide? Yeah, so... Item number eight is a public hearing

for the development of Fenita Ranch. So the Santee City Council members, they heard a lot from both sides. And then they had a chance to speak to kind of say how they were going to vote. Like Council Member Laura Koval. Frankly, I'm tired of Santee's greatest export. from both sides. And then they had a chance to speak, to kind of say how they were going to vote, like Council Member Laura Koval. Frankly, I'm tired of Santee's greatest export being our young talent and our families. Rent in San Diego is the fifth most expensive in the country. And when it came to the vote? Motion carries with four ayes. Council Member McNellis.

It passed. So the need for housing won out in this case. Yeah. And most of the city council members said they were satisfied with all the fire prep that was proposed. You know, this is something we've seen across the country, like the need for housing winning out. It's really, really hard for city councils to even consider limiting growth under these conditions. That makes sense. Like if you're an elected official, you may not win an election saying that you want to stop building, especially when people are like, we need houses. And you also need those taxes. And, you know, when you look around,

there really aren't easy choices about where to build. Because like in California, for example, about a quarter of the land is at high risk of burning. And, you know, that's a lot of land. And that question, you know, how do we build in California? Cities are really making that choice on their own. State legislators have tried to step in. There have been a number of bills to create restrictions about building in high risk areas. But, you know, those bills have failed in the last few years because of pushback from the building industry. Next year, they're actually going to consider another bill that would require developers to create these wildfire and evacuation plans before they break ground. But, I mean, California is

really an example of where these conversations are just getting started. I mean, there's still not a lot of guidance and support about how to do this for each city. But there are other states that are more involved in that planning process about where people can live. Okay, so where are we going to head next? Okay, next to the desert outside of Phoenix, Arizona. And that's where there's one topic

that always comes up in government meetings. Is there water for it? I was there over the summer. It was during this record-breaking period of heat. I mean, the temperatures were like around 112. Yeah, I remember this because every single day heat records were falling in the Southwest. Phoenix had 31 days in a row where the temperature was over 110 degrees. That's a lot of heat, even if it's a dry heat. That's too much. When you're over 110, it don't matter whether it's dry or humid.

And the heat made a lot of headlines, and so did drought. So what is the water situation like now? Yeah, there's a long running drought. It's still going more than 20 years now. And it's really affecting Arizona's water supply. It's being tested like never before. And that's why it's on the mind of one person I met there, Craig McFarland. He's the mayor of Casa Grande.

It's hard. Yeah. Water is hard. So Casa Grande, or a lot of people say Casa Grand. It's kind of like one or the other there. It's about 45 minutes south of Phoenix. And you drive through some serious desert to get there with these big saguaro cactuses everywhere. The town is in Pinal County, which is the fastest growing county in Arizona.

And McFarland, when you talk to him, he's really quick to list all the companies that have moved in. We have Frito-Lay, we have Abbott, we have Hexel. We also have Lucid, which is the newest electric car manufacturing plant here. That means there's a lot of jobs opening up. As the industry is really rushing into the community, we have a huge need for housing. But where to put the housing? That's the issue. So he unrolls this big map of the city and it actually kind of looks like a patchwork quilt. Some of the land is white and some of the land is blue. And those blue parcels, that means there's water. So these are all areas that single family homes

can be built in. So how does some land have water and some land doesn't? The blue squares are really about a promise of water. So to build a subdivision here, builders have to show the project has a water supply for 100 years. So on that map, all the blue squares have that. It's part of a consumer protection law that says that in Arizona, if you're a consumer, we're going to guarantee you have 100 years worth of water. So then does that mean that the white squares are out of luck and you can't build there because there's no water? Right now, yes. And that's because four years ago, state water regulators had to look at how that water supply is doing in the area.

The water mostly comes from these really big aquifers under the ground. And what regulators do is they have to add up all the demands over the next 100 years, and they have to see if the supply can keep up with that. And they found the demand had grown so much, water is going to run short over the next century. So they stopped issuing those water guarantees for new subdivisions. It's those promises that make you go from a white square to a blue square, which is what you need to build something. But McFarland, he actually isn't very discouraged about that.

Casa Grande will continue to grow. It's just we have to manage it. We have to be frugal with the water we have. And because building hasn't actually stopped in town. So I went by a new development going up in town. Construction workers there were putting on the siding for these single-story homes before it got too hot later that day. It'll be more than 300 units. And even with the water situation, this project didn't have to worry about a water supply. Why not?

Yeah. So I asked the developer, Greg Hancock, who is the president of Hancock Builders. This is a great product to rent. So the requirement to have 100 years of water kicks in when a developer takes a big piece of land, subdivides it into smaller lots, you know, to build homes, and then sells those homes. But Hancock didn't do that here because these will be rented, not sold. We don't need an insured water supply because it's one lot. Although it is 331 units, it's one lot. So it sounds like then if you build rental units instead of selling the homes, you get out of the requirement for the water. So it's like a

loophole. Yeah, exactly. And these are called build-to-rent projects. They've been booming in Arizona lately. We have finished 3,000. We have 3,000 more in the construction and 5,000 more in pre-development. I mean, the drought and the water challenges, they really don't faze Hancock. People will not stop moving here. There's 12,000 employees at the chip plant in North Phoenix that is one-sixth built. People are going to keep coming here. They want to live here. So the question is, if there's still a lot of building going on, does that defeat the purpose of the rules that are supposed to limit the building, you know, with respect to the water supply issues? Yeah, exactly. That's the question that, you know, this is growth that's unaccounted for, and that could strain the water supply even more. So earlier this year, state legislators tried to pass several bills that would have closed that loophole, you know, and it would have required those build-to-rent projects to actually have a water supply.

But I spoke to Kathleen Ferris of the Kyle Center for Water Policy at Arizona State University, and she said legislators just couldn't get enough buy-in to get the bills passed. Different interest groups, the realtors, the home builders, the Department of Water Resources, they all had different ways they wanted to structure the bills, and it just never came together. So really, Arizona seems like an example of somewhere where there's a law that requires cities to think long term about the risk of climate change when they're thinking about building, but then there are these loopholes and these ways to get around the rules that they have in place. Yeah, exactly. It's just that cities have to think about that long-term future and how it affects their growth. I mean, that's kind of the power behind Arizona's law. And as a result,

a lot of cities are planning ahead. They're looking seriously at water conservation, at water recycling projects, things that will help boost their supply. So, you know, it's incomplete, but it really is forcing that conversation. So what I'm hearing from all of this is that it sounds like it is really hard for local and state governments to keep people from living in places that aren't going to be safe or that may not have the supplies that they need because of the changing climate. But is there anywhere that is just knocking it out the park? They got it. You know, they got that climate change under control. I don't know about having climate change under control. I wish I could just be like, yeah.

But sort of, sort of. There's a place that experts kept telling us is an outlier in a good way. So that is the third place that we visited. And it's New Jersey. People are going to die. People are going to die. They will be me and my neighbors, and I don't want that to happen, okay? So that's Catherine Riss, and I know that doesn't sound like success, but bear with me. She is testifying at a public hearing about a state regulation that would make it a lot harder to build homes in places that are prone to flooding. New Jersey is one of the most flood-prone states in the country. And Riss said her apartment building is at risk. She's scared about what will happen as extreme rainstorms get more common in her state. And you can hear the emotion in her voice. So please, you have to think ahead. What is the increase in rainfall that we can anticipate will happen? We need to plan for

that now. So the proposal that the state came up with in the face of these feelings coming from their residents was to basically make it really hard to build new homes in places that are prone to flooding. You know, coastal areas, also inland areas near rivers, and also to require that homes that are renovated in those areas be protected. That was the proposal. So based on what happened in Arizona and California, I guess my guess would be that this proposal to limit building, that it either failed or there was this big loophole that people were able to drive a truck through and do whatever they wanted. Yeah, that would fit the pattern, yep.

Yeah, you're right, actually, that it faced a ton of opposition, especially from developers. But in the end, there was no loophole, and it was enacted. I mean, how did they do that? Was it money on the side? Or, like, was usually some money involved? I mean, this is what do that? Was it money on the side? Or like, there's usually some money involved.

I mean, this is what I wanted to know, right? Because it's what sets New Jersey apart from other parts of the country. And New Jersey is arguably the national leader in reducing flood risk as the climate warms, which is a big deal because a lot of states in the country have a lot of flood risk. So it says something that this state is way out front. Well, now a lot of people don't know this about me, but I actually was born in New Jersey, even though I'm a Southern girl. So I'm in New Jersey often. That's where I got family up there. So I'm glad to hear they're doing well. So what is working in New Jersey?

Yeah, I also was intrigued, actually, and kind of surprised. But yeah, I drove up and I spent some time there and I visited this one town. Woodbridge, New Jersey. I've been there. I've been to Woodbridge. I know Woodbridge. Sunny Woodbridge, beautiful Woodbridge. I'm glad we all agree on Woodbridge. Lauren is like, I've never been to Woodbridge. I'm a West Coast girl. But one of the first thing that happened when I arrived in Woodbridge is that the town's mayor, John McCormick, started bragging to me about how great the highway access is, which, not to stereotype, but that is pretty Jersey. We're right where the two major highways in the state cross, the Parkway and the Turnpike. 1-9-27-35-287-440, all in Woodbridge.

Yeah, it's very Jersey. It's very Jersey. But all joking aside, Woodbridge is definitely a crossroads kind of place. It's right outside New York City. It's got train lines and highways. There's a lot of water. The ocean is on one side of the town. And then on the other side, there are rivers and creeks.

It's very marshy. And in recent years, they've had a huge flooding problem. It's not just, you know, rain events. It could be a minimal rain event with the high tide and you're in trouble. So a decade ago, Hurricane Sandy devastated this town. Hundreds of homes were underwater. And this is why I visited, because after Sandy, McCormick did something that was kind of controversial. He actually advocated for hundreds of flooded homes to be permanently removed.

Not something we wanted to do, but we had to do it. So how did that work? Yeah, so basically the government bought the houses and knocked them down. But, you know, it's controversial for all the reasons you can imagine. You're actually purposefully eliminating tax base. And elected officials do not love that. But, you know, McCormick is an elected official, been elected many times over. And he said when he really sat down and thought about it, he realized that it was actually more expensive and dangerous to keep the houses because these houses were going to flood again.

And the town would have to pay for emergency workers to rescue people. They'd have to pay for extra trash removal to get rid of all destroyed belongings and construction debris. And that's all before you consider the mental and physical toll that it would take on the people who are actually living in these homes. So to him, it made more sense to try to move people out of harm's way. But a home buyout, it is voluntary. And people were not immediately sold on the idea. McCormick told me he still remembers this excruciating town meeting that he presided over in the high school auditorium right after Sandy. I mean, standing up there on the auditorium stage looking out at 400 people whose lives were just upended is not easy.

People were angry. People think we can do something about everything. So people expect the mayor to be able to solve their problems. And in this case, we did, but it wasn't an easy process. You know, someone is talking to you about moving out of their home that they've been in for 60 years. And it's their biggest investment in their life. So how did the government convince people to leave? You know, there were a few things that I found in my reporting that seemed to have helped this difficult conversation. So the first is that McCormick thinks it really helped that the city government vocally supported these home buyouts in flood zones. I think that psychologically meant something to them.

Say, wait a minute, there must be something to this if the mayor's telling me it's OK to go. The other thing that probably helped is that New Jersey assigns case managers to families that are considering selling their homes to the government. So you have somebody to call, right, or somebody who follows up with you throughout the process because the process can take years. And in other states, there's been research that shows that a lot of people who might be interested in this kind of thing don't end up actually taking it all the way to the finish line and selling their house because the process is so convoluted, there's so much paperwork, it gets confusing, and so you give up. So, I mean, what ended up happening in Woodbridge? How many houses did they remove? They ended up removing about 180, which is not a small number for a single town. And statewide, New Jersey has removed

about a thousand homes in the last decade. And they're trying to make sure that the ones that remain are safer. Obviously, safer is better. But it's still kind of sad when people have to leave their homes that they've lived in all their lives. Yeah, it is sad. You know, that's one of the lessons that I took away from this reporting in New Jersey is that there is no perfect solution. You know, I talked to a family in New Jersey who took a buyout and those feelings can be so complicated. The couple that I talked to, their names are Nicholas and Stephanie Ceprulo, and they had been living with their two kids in a home that had a lot of history in Stephanie's family. My family had been on the property for over 100 years. So we were pretty comfortable in that sense, thinking that we were safe. But then there

was this huge rainstorm a couple years ago, and it caused a flash flood that destroyed their house. The family barely evacuated in time. It was really, really scary. Our one-year-old daughter's room took the brunt of it. You know, her light fixture was there and that was it. Our son's bedspread was hanging from a tree. So obviously that was really traumatic. And they told me that all they wanted to do after that flood was leave, just get out and make sure no one else ever lived there because they knew it was dangerous. And so they were actually relieved when a local government official in their town suggested a buyout. We were both like, yes, yes, we'll sign up for that. You know, you see your children's beds break up and never find their mattresses. And you're like,

no, we're never going to do that again. They live about 15 minutes away now in a house that's on a hill, which is not surprising. It has no water nearby. And they said they really miss their old home, but they also told me they feel grateful to be living in a safer place. That makes total sense. But it does feel like it is a very personal decision for each family and each person.

Absolutely. And I think like one lesson that I saw in New Jersey is that doing this well means making room for it to be a personal decision and not sort of pushing people to do things that they don't want to do. I talked to the chief resilience officer for New Jersey about this. His name is Nick Angarone. And he said this work, it's really, really hard. Right. You're talking about, you know, some of the basic principles of right of the country is kind of, you know, where and what you can do with with your property. And he said New Jersey still has a really long way to go, even if they're a national leader, because flooding is only getting more severe as the planet keeps getting hotter. Yeah, and I think that's the thing that really struck us in all three places is that the intensity, the urgency of these decisions is just getting worse, right?

The population is growing, housing prices are going up, but the disasters are getting worse, too. And it's really hard to have these conversations in a community. It's hard to plan thoughtfully and to respect everyone's decisions when the choices are so hard. But, you know, that's what climate change does. It forces us to really think long term. And locally, this is where it's really playing out in a big way. Well, it seems like you either think long term or then the long term comes and smacks you in the face. Like you either deal with it or it's going to deal with you, right? Yeah, totally. Well, thank you both so much for bringing your reporting to us and going all over the country with this.

I really appreciate it. Thanks so much. Yeah, thanks for having us. This episode of The Sunday Story was produced by Andrew Mambo and edited by Neela Banerjee and Jenny Schmidt. Special thanks to Ryan Kelman. The mix engineer for this episode was James Willits. Our team includes Liana Simstrom, Justine Yan, and our executive producer Irene Noguchi. We always love hearing from you, so feel free to reach out to us at thesundaystoryatnpr.org.

I'm Aisha Roscoe. Up First is back in your feed tomorrow with all the news you need to start your week until then enjoy the rest of your weekend