Thursday, October 1, 2026
In a strategic decision, the Olympia Sea Level Rise Response Collaborative Executive Committee has recommended refraining from pursuing levee accreditation from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), citing high costs and limited benefits.
At a quarterly meeting on Friday, Sept. 5, the collaborative reviewed options for seeking FEMA accreditation, which certifies that flood protection systems meet federal standards for design, operation,and maintenance.
Accreditation removes properties behind accredited structures from FEMA’s designated floodplain maps, potentially lowering flood insurance costs and loosening development restrictions for property owners.
However, City of Olympia Climate Resilience Coordinator Natalie Weiss explained that FEMA’s accreditation process is time and cost intensive, and its benefits would be limited in downtown Olympia.
According to Weiss, FEMA maps are based on historic flooding patterns, not future sea level rise projections. She said this would result in a very few properties in Olympia’s core seeing immediate relief from insurance requirements under the current mapping.
“There’s always the option of seeking accreditation after infrastructure is built,” Weiss said. “But right now, the priority should be constructing the physical flood protection measures that will actually protect more people, properties and infrastructure in the long term.”
Weiss said it has no impact on the city’s ability to apply for federal grants. The collaborative’s staff recommendation aligns with the analysis presented earlier this year.
While accreditation can provide insurance savings, it comes with ongoing administrative and certification costs for Olympia, Port of Olympia, and LOTT Clean Water Alliance, which would bear the financial responsibility.
Another concern is the potential “false sense of security” accreditation could create for property owners, since FEMA’s current standards do not reflect future sea level rise risks.
“Our recommendation is to focus on getting all of the infrastructure bill on a more future-focused, more protective approach than the current standards,” Weiss said.
Collaborative members opted to refrain from pursuing FEMA accreditation at this time, with the possibility of revisiting it in the future once adaptation measures are in place.
6 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
JnNwmn
And why was the setback from Salt Water reduced under Steven Buxbaum?? Why are more apartments being allowed on West Bay Drive near salt water. And why should tax payers pay for any infrastructure that should never been allowed??
Monday, September 15, 2025 Report this
CobraCommander
Before the haters say climate change isn't real:
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF11275
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Report this
BobJacobs
The city of Olympia started looking at the Sea Level Rise issue about 30 years ago. From the start, the mantra has been to defend current structures, not to retreat. And so levees and all sorts of protective measures have been discussed.
But at some point, the water level will be so high that retreat will be necessary. It is high time for our local officials to define that point. If I recall correctly, the current plans are to handle about 5 feet of sea level rise. Maybe that is feasible. But what about 10 feet or 15 feet?
This kind of analysis is not an academic exercise. We need to know when our actions change to allow retreat from the low-lying parts of our city, so that concrete plans can be developed in advance. Yes, it is far in the future, but it should be part of the discussion today. And the inflection point may be closer than we think today because of earthquake effects and the like.
Bob Jacobs
Tuesday, September 16, 2025 Report this
BevBassett
I strongly echo and endorse the comments of JnNwmn & Bob Jacobs.
A responsible City that truly cared about the welfare of it's citizens would not build at sea level because it is patently irresponsible and deeply corrupt. The Master Builders control discussions and decisions in Olympia as they become wealthier and wealthier buying City Council votes, but it is the property taxpayers who will bear the tremendous burdens of the costs.
Further, a responsible City would not develop so densely that future flooding events could impact neighborhoods devastatingly--where there's no FEMA protection.
Ultimately our collective basic quality of life will be deeply compromised.
Wednesday, September 17, 2025 Report this
TheVirtualOne
Mitigation of rising sea levels is an expensive undertaking. Is this worth the investment to save a few old buildings in downtown Olympia and the waterfront? And to make matters worse, the city has built a new HQ in downtown? I’d say we have a lot of people in government who are not very good at deciding what is the best use of taxpayer dollars. They are more than willing to spend money blindly in the short term rather than think about the future implications of their own misguided decisions.
Wednesday, September 17, 2025 Report this
PissAnt
Sea Level Rise? Is there any evidence of this actually being a thing? Can you point to water levels at percival landing as historically higher than previous centuries? Water shrinks when it thaws, so maybe the projections are way overblown? Land raises when it no longer has the burden of ice weighing it down. Also some Glaciers and Ice Sheets have gained mass in 2021 and 2023. So I remain unconcinced that there is actually any Sea Level Rise. Loosing mass at the north pole and gaining mass at the south pole may counteract each other completely, slow down "sea level rise" or mitigate it altogether.
Friday, September 19, 2025 Report this