Thursday, October 1, 2026
The Sea Level Rise Response Collaborative Executive Committee approved a work plan and budget for 2027-28 to advance efforts to prepare for rising sea levels, flooding and related climate risks around Olympia.
The $320,000 work plan, which was presented by Olympia’s Climate Resilience Coordinator Natalie Weiss at a meeting on Sept. 4, focuses on implementing near- and mid-term adaptation strategies identified in the Olympia Sea Level Rise Response Plan.
During the meeting, members voted to approve the proposed work plan and budget following the presentation.
One of the primary projects in the work plan aims to evaluate long-term public financing mechanisms for sea level rise response efforts.
Weiss said the work will build on a report finished in 2024, and is expected to be the collaborative’s main project in 2027.
The collaborative also plans to model peak flows related to the strategic separation of combined sewer systems and develop a flow reduction strategy. The project stems from grant funding received last year and will be led by the City of Olympia’s Storm and Surface Water Utility.
Another major initiative involves the long-term monitoring of sea level rise. Following completion of the collaborative’s monitoring strategy, staff will collect data, calculate sea level rise metrics, and publish the group’s first monitoring report at the end of the 2027-28 work cycle.
The work plan also calls for a level-loop survey to measure potential land subsidence in downtown Olympia, and additional groundwater assessments involving surveys of key stormwater systems.
Other activities include pursuing state and federal funding, supporting emerging opportunities, conducting community education and outreach, and providing administrative and staff support for the collaborative.
Under the proposed funding structure, the City of Olympia would contribute an estimated $80,000 annually, representing 50 percent of the total cost of the work plan. LOTT would contribute $40,000 annually, or 25 percent, while the Port of Olympia would contribute another $40,000 annually, also representing 25 percent.
Each participating governing body must separately approve its contribution before the work plan can be implemented as proposed.
According to a staff report, the projects are intended to help participating agencies better “adapt to sea level rise while reducing risks to community assets and critical services.”
The collaborative also aims to incorporate equity considerations into its work. Staff will consider how data collection and analysis can improve understanding of which communities may benefit from, or be affected by, future sea level rise projects and funding strategies.
11 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
TheVirtualOne
Move to higher ground. Save tax dollars. Done.
Wednesday, September 9 Report this
olyhiker
It makes no sense to me that permits are given for buildings that will flood.
Wednesday, September 9 Report this
jimlazar
Retreat from low ground is he only possible solution here. We cannot stop sea level rise (it's baked in to melting that is underway in glaciers from Mt. Rainier to Mt. Erebus.
Yet Olympia continues to allow building in the inundation zone. I'm sorry this article did not show the inundation map. Basically everything north of 5th Avenue is going to be underwater at high tide. And a dike won't help much, because the sea level will simply rise through the soil behind the dike.
The sea level rise map is here: https://www.olympiawa.gov/services/water_utilities/storm___surface_water/sea_level_rise.php
Wednesday, September 9 Report this
Scooter
Ok...let's remove the 5th street dam and wait for a King tide to dampen your feet in Sylvester Park...
Wednesday, September 9 Report this
BevBassett
Enlightened Olympians such as Jim Lazar who previously commented above have, for MANY years, tried to get through to thick-headed politicians that building at sea level is insane. Unfortunately, those developer-influenced and corrupted politicians have turned a deliberate deaf ear to all the many rational perspectives on this issue.
It's insane to build at sea level in Olympia! Yet our corrupt electeds continue to plan and approve huge developments at sea level! Irresponsible!
At what point will our elected officials in the Olympia City Council and the Port of Olympia stop enabling development at sea level when we KNOW that the water is rising and sea walls are not going to fix the problem.
And just WHO DO THEY EXPECT TO PAY FOR THESE SEA WALLS AND OTHER MITIGATING STRATEGIES??? Will it be the developers? Maybe not. Will it be the Federal Government? Maybe not. Will it be the elected officials who enabled this insane development? Maybe not. Will it be the ordinary taxpayers who will pay? Probably yes.
If you're an Olympia or Thurston County property taxpayer or resident, are you willing to ante-up the kind of money it will cost to deal with sea level rise in the not-too-distant future? Will you have any choice?
Thursday, September 10 Report this
CobraCommander
VirtualOne, didn't you say climate change and sea level rise were 'just a hoax'?
https://www.sustainability.gov/pdfs/dod-2024-cap.pdf
https://serdp-estcp.mil/newsitems/details/76e6179d-abd9-4dea-9aa8-24b8f0529cae
https://www.usgs.gov/publications/a-framework-sea-level-rise-vulnerability-assessment-southwest-us-military
It's not just glacial melt - thermal expansion from rising ocean waters worldwide is creating more volume. The greenhouse effect is real, and it doesn't care about your politics.
Thursday, September 10 Report this
Tractor1
This information needs to be included in the West Bay proposal to build that questionable use of the property for multilevel structures.
Thursday, September 10 Report this
Southsoundguy
climate change is a scam.
Thursday, September 10 Report this
Wesley
What a make-work waste of money. Talk about feather bedding!!
Friday, September 11 Report this
CobraCommander
VirtualOne - dismissing peer reviewed information isnt a Me problem, thats a You problem.
Saturday, September 12 Report this
Yeti1981
There is a lot of confidence in some of these comments, particularly the statement that "retreat from low ground is the only possible solution." But confidence is not the same thing as being correct, and that statement is not even consistent with Olympia's own Sea Level Rise Response Plan.
Sea level is rising. Olympia has legitimate flooding vulnerabilities, and we should plan for them. But Olympia's plan specifically evaluated retreat and concluded that wholesale retreat from downtown is not a pragmatic strategy and is unnecessary for the foreseeable future. So the claim that retreat is the "only possible solution" is someone's opinion, not the conclusion of the science or the City's technical analysis.
The same problem exists with saying everything north of 5th Avenue is "going to be underwater." An inundation map showing a particular sea-level and flood scenario is not a prediction that everything within that area will be permanently underwater. Olympia's underlying analysis projected roughly 11 to 13 inches as the most likely sea-level rise by 2050, while approximately 24 inches represented the high-range scenario. The City is planning around the higher number as a matter of risk management. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, but we should be honest about the distinction.
Even the groundwater argument is more complicated than suggested here. The City recognizes that groundwater could rise behind barriers, which is precisely why it is studying groundwater and land subsidence and evaluating whether different types of barriers or cutoff systems would be necessary. Declaring beforehand that those engineering solutions cannot work rather defeats the purpose of doing the science.
I spend a considerable amount of my professional life working on land use, housing and infrastructure issues in this region, and one thing I have learned is to be skeptical whenever a complicated technical issue is presented as though there is only one possible answer. We should follow the measurements, understand the probabilities, build appropriately, protect critical infrastructure and adjust as conditions actually develop. What we should not do is take the highest planning scenarios, present them as inevitable, and then use that certainty to argue that a significant portion of our urban core should no longer be developed.
Monday, September 14 Report this