thank you very much. >> this year marks the 21st anniversary of the september 11 attack. join us for life coverage starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern saturday, september 11 on c-span. watch online at c-span.org, or listen on the c-span radio app. >> coming up, today's white house briefing. the press secretary will be joined by the deputy national security adviser for cyber and emerging technology. she is expected to talk about ransomware awareness for holidays and weekends. life coverage when they get

underway. >> the assistant professor at the university of delaware's disaster research center to talk about the federal disaster response and the cost of that disaster response. professor, welcome to "washington journal." tell us about the research center at the university of delaware. what is your underlying mission? >> the disaster research center is the oldest center focused on the social science of disaster. our mission is to produce research that looks at the cutting-edge of how to manage disasters, recovery, risk reduction, and how people experience disasters. >> you had a recent piece looking back at 2020 and we will get to hurricane ida soon enough. the headline piece was after a record 22 billion dollars of disasters in 2020, it is time to

overhaul u.s. disaster policy. here is how. with that figure, what made you say that it's time to revise u.s. policy? are we spending too much? spending it in the wrong places? >> we are seeing so many disasters occur and we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars and frankly we don't have good evidence to say that the money is helping, that we are reducing risk. we see the number of disasters growing and the cost growing. the government accountability office came out with a report showing that the amount of homes experiencing repetitive flooding has grown. despite spending billions of dollars we are adding new homes in these areas. are we doing any good with this funding? >> how much of that responsibility is on the federal government in terms of recovery and the people who move into the

more vulnerable areas for hurricanes or fires? >> the federal government plays the primary role in funding the recovery after disaster, but it's local and state governments who have the authority over deciding where new development occurs and the standard that it builds to, so building codes and zoning at the local level. it is one reason why we see so much variety. some states and communities are very good with high standards for building codes, safety, zoning, and are thinking carefully about we are not to build new housing so that it's not exposed to these types of hazards, and other communities where maybe they don't have building codes at all. we see new development occurring in areas where we know the homes will be exposed to floods, wildfires, and other disasters. >> what is the law that provides for the federal government to respond to disasters, and give us the range of disasters that the government response to.

>> the stafford act is the main legislation that authorizes the u.s. government to respond to major disasters. it covers a wide variety. from hurricanes, floods, wildfires, drought. one of the challenges, especially in the light of climate change, is that we are seeing new types of disasters that may be the stafford act was not designed for. slow onset like coastal erosion and nuisance flooding. things that aren't in the original set of disasters that were contemplated. the government does give pretty broad authority to fema and other agencies to deal with disasters, but climate change, like with everything, it is challenging that. >> how much does political pressure play in getting the government to respond to disasters? >> there is research looking at this. federal aid becomes available primarily after presidential declaration of a disaster.

there has to be a governor's decision, the state to say that this is a state-level disaster, and then a presidential declaration. this can be politicized both by the party of the president and the party of the governor or city that is being affected. it can also be politicized in terms of thinking about disasters in terms of property damage. we think about, has this become a major disaster primarily by the number of buildings destroyed rather than the people affected. >> our guest is the university of delaware disaster research center professor and we welcome your comments. here are the lines. in the eastern central time zones, (202) 748-8000. mountain and pacific, (202) 748-8001. if you have been affected by hurricane ida in any way -- overnight new york city was flooded out with record rainfall -- that line is (202) 748-8002.

we look forward to hearing from you. professor, back to your piece. i want to show a map included on the disasters in 2020 the government responded to. the western wildfires, the drought in the central west, and numerous hurricanes along the gulf coast and the east coast, including hurricane isaac which struck south carolina. in that piece you write, and you are calling for a revisiting of federal recovery aid, when public buildings or infrastructure is damaged in a disaster the federal government will pay for 75% of the recovery cost if the damage exceeds a certain threshold. the ideas for federal assistance to kick in when state or local governments are overwhelmed.

however, you write that that threshold is $1 million plus $1.55 per person in the state. an extremely low threshold. how did that get set? is that stipulated in law? guest: that threshold is set and can be changed by the federal emergency management agency, and they have a proposal now to increase that threshold. they recognize that that does not account for increases in cost of living and of the expense of the disasters that people are experiencing. that number is calculated based on -- trying to approximate at what point do we think that state and local resources are overwhelmed. the idea is that state and local should be first responders and the federal should be there to help when areas are overwhelmed. how do we understand when a state is truly overwhelmed? that is difficult to put a dollar value on, but fema had to try. host: you mentioned your

research center is one of the oldest in the country. what is the first instance of the u.s. government responding to a regional or state disaster? guest: there are isolated incidents through the 1800s. 1950 was one of the first times that the u.s. passed a law that said that the federal government would respond to disasters in a systematic way will stops so relatively recently within the lifespan of some people living today is when the federal government started taking this over. over time we have seen more and more of a shift towards federal responsibility for disasters rather than state and local. sen. booker: i want to ask about the use -- host: i want to ask about the program that provides flood insurance issued by fema, five million-dollar flood insurance policies providing $1.3 trillion in coverage as of october of last

year. in your piece, or otherwise, how do you think that the national flood insurance program is performing, or does it need to be changed? guest: the program needs to be reformed. this has been known for a while. the national flood insurance program is reauthorized periodically by congress to make sure that it's working. it last expired in 2017 will stop congress knows it's broken and that they need to make reforms. since 2017 they have reauthorized it 16 times with short reauthorization's. the next one will expire at the end of september. in the next month we will likely see more discussion over how it should be reformed. the major tension when we think about reforming the program is on one hand we will want to increase the cost of policies to reflect the amount of risk that people are experiencing when they live in flood-prone areas,

and on the other hand do not want to price out low income neighborhoods from being able to live where maybe that is the only affordable housing. trying to reconcile that tension is what makes it difficult to reform. host: we mentioned the line impacted by those impacted by hurricane ida in particular. overnight the new york times reporting the latest update at least 8 dead as ida swamps new york city. flash flooding led to at least 8 deaths and disrupted transit. let's get to calls for the professor on the federal money spent in federal disaster response. lancaster, california. glen. caller: good morning. i wonder if you did studies on the orville dam and the paradise fire while the orville dam was still being rebuilt.

it was caused by edison. the orville dam was caused by the neglect of our democratic governor. our governor, gavin newsom, was meeting with lobbyists from a place called the french lobby. they got $23 billion in aid and they gave shares to pg&e. they haven't made the people whole. they haven't paid the people for our forests that were burned down. we have more fires now caused by neglect and pg&e. they've been bailed out by our governor. host: ok. guest: the challenge with the dam in particular is major. infrastructure across the united states is aging. when we look at levees the average age of the levees in the united states is 50 years old.

many of them were built to an older standard. some are being maintained but others are not. sometimes people who live behind these pieces of infrastructure that they think are protecting them, they are not as safe as they think. the american society of civil engineers thinks it will cost $21 billion only to repair levees in the high risk category. wildfire, when we start looking at wildfire it is a major challenge now. many wildfires are started by human activity. there is an estimate of 85% to 90% are started by people, pg&e or someone whose camp fire gets out of control. trying to prevent those in the first place by understanding which systems are malfunctioning that would cause those to start. host: texas, you were affected -- we lost emma in texas and we will go to bob in baldwin

ville, massachusetts. caller: i would like to know if this bill is over $20 billion in 2020 -- you know, katrina cost whatever it cost when it happened. is inflation in there? can we actually say that we are being more damaged? it seems like everyone is making more storms than the storms really are. we have forest fires because they are not taking care of the land. the co2 levels in the ice age were higher than today and during the dinosaur time they were 10 times higher. they are lower than any time in history and climate change comes from 1950. i want to know what the prices are and how it changes. host: how do you factor climate change into your work? guest: climate change is at the core of my work. to the point on cost, we talk

about the cost of these billion-dollar disasters calculated by noaa. they do account for inflation. 2017 was the most expensive year . 334 billion dollars in disasters from the major disasters alone will stop climate change is making the disasters worse. it is not the only factor where we develop new infrastructure that we are putting into new places exposed hazards. we can see things like hurricanes and flood storms. anyone who has experienced a humid summer knows that hot air carries more moisture. it will carry more water, we will have more torrential rainfall and stronger storms. when we think about disaster response, my work is how do we think about disaster response that isn't just preparing for the last disaster, but thinking about how they will be in the future and how to adapt

long-term for a future that doesn't look like the past. host: you have been an advocate for the policy of manage, retreat. guest: managed retreat is the idea that in some places we have buildings located in areas that are extremely high risk, and at some point it makes sense not to have the buildings there. let's have a supported coordinated movement to remove buildings from places that are high risk. for example homes in the floodway . basically in the river because the river has changed course or building upstream has change the way that it flows. those homes are unsafe. the federal government has had a program since 1989. in order to purchase flood-prone homes who no longer want to experience that flood, voluntary homeowners. the local government demolishes or relocates the house and makes

the land open space.i am an advocate because there are so many people who are trapped. we see this in hurricane ida, but other storms where you hear from residents who say i don't want to deal with this anymore, and i don't want to sell my house to another family who will have to experience this all over again. one of the best things that we can do is take the house off the market so that no one lives in a place that is that unsafe. host: what if you are saying some of the things we heard from the former fema director who was our guest yesterday and he talked about some of the decisions that we should make in terms of deciding where to build, if to build, and risky locations. [video clip] >> in the state of louisiana governor edwards and his team had identified that there may be parts of the coastal areas they either need to relocate or they may not be able to rebuild. this will be on a case-by-case basis. is not as simple as yo

shouldn't build in the areas because of the oil industry and seafood industry. these are areas that we cannot abandon, but we need to make decisions about how we rebuild, where we should rebuild, and make sure that we are building it for future impacts, not just back the way that was. guest: would you agree -- host: would you agree? guest: absolutely. there has been a shift in the way that countries are responding to disasters. that we cannot just build back exactly what was there before the disaster, because that sets us up to experience the same disaster again. when people say build back better or more resiliently, or any term that you want, the idea is we have to do something different. we will experience more hazards and need to do things differently to be safer in the future.some of that is likely to involve areas where we say yes, we will put a sea wall around that or elevate

the home if you are willing. or we may relocate if you are willing to relocate this town or neighborhood or home somewhere else that is safer. all of those options will have to be used. host: tony from florida, i suspect a number of people are in a similar situation, he says, " i have a house that is outside of the floodplain, close enough that if insurance was cheap i would buy. it. it is currently so costly that since the bank does not require it i will not purchase it. how does that help the program if i opt out?" guest: flood insurance is sometimes not available to people. the fact that it is even available in your community is a good sign, it means that your community is trying to address flood risk, but it can be so expensive. if the program is reformed flood

insurance may be more expensive. this goes back to the challenge of how to be on one hand make flood insurance affordable and on the others if we make it to affordable people won't have the same market signal about the risk they are facing when they live in very risk prone areas. it is the tension between wanting to provide a signal and wanting to support people living where they are. host: edward in ohio. good morning. asheville, ohio. caller: how are you? host: fine, thanks. caller: thank you for taking my call. here's the thing that i don't understand. here we are, quibbling over money in the middle of a national urgency. the thing is is we need to do what's right. we need to build back better but make sure that everyone is secure. we need to do with the right way. as you said before, we can't

build it back the way that it was because evidently that didn't work. we need to make it better and make it flood proof. as far as the cost of flood insurance, this is basically legalizing the insurance company to gouge you any way that they can because everyone should be able to afford it. it doesn't matter what it is, it should be covered. you should have that in your mind, that peace of mind that you are covered through your insurance company. host: professor? guest: this is a great point that flood insurance in the united states very rarely runs through a flood insurance company. most often in the united states flood insurance is provided by the federal government through the national flood insurance program and is for this reason. in the 1960's flood insurance company said that they are too risky and we can't make money off of you because it is so

exposed. they started to withdraw policies. the federal government said we will offer flood insurance instead at a reduced rate so that everyone can afford it. one of the challenges is over the last 60 years we have seen that offering flood insurance at low prices might give people some peace of mind, but maybe too much peace of mind. it might make them feel safe when they are not living in a safe place.we want people to recognize that maybe where you are living is not safe so that you take action, elevate your home or are prepared when the floodwater come so you know what's coming. we need to take more action. we are seeing a similar pattern in the wildfires out west. company saying this is so risk prone we will stop offering insurance for fire prone homes. the government is saying we need to make sure this is available. we have the same balancing act of wanting it to be available, but not wanting people to have an incentive to be exposed to

risk. this is one of those challenges with flood insurance and trying to balance that. host: knock on wood that we haven't had to talk about major earthquakes for some time, but what about earthquake insurance? has that gotten too expensive for those in fault line areas? guest: earthquakes at the moment, most of the discussion is around raising awareness.san francisco had a raising awareness campaign where they tried to make tenets in san francisco aware. are you living in a rental property built to earthquake standards or not? trying to raise awareness about that. even before they get to insurance just do you know how risky the building you're living in is? maybe it was built last year to the major building code, or maybe 30 years ago and not to the codes. same about floods. how do you raise your awareness about risk exposure so that people can make decisions using

that information? host: on the building codes, are they mandated by the states and localities? guest: yes. often at the state level, sometimes at the county level, and sometimes at the town level. there can be a variety. host: paul from new bedford, massachusetts. caller: i was on a planning board and number of years ago and i learned quite a bit about this kind of dilemma between the verticality of the way that the zoning laws worked. one of the big challenges i thought was how to plan. the planning boards are more or less rubberstamps to existing codes and laws but cannot really steer the operations towards better solutions. you can only mildly nudge them around.

the legal questions were around, for example -- one question that i would have is how state constitutional laws per state, and you touched on how there is a myriad of different aspects, how that can interfere with the way that we plan. there are so many personal liberty issues, and lawyers get involved, and it gets complicated quickly. one example that comes up is arable land in flood areas. how can we preserve arable land for food supply instead of it being sold off to 50 lot of housing? maybe you can touch on some of these things, but it is a real dilemma. guest: it is a major challenge. with planning boards, some have a lot of legal authority and others don't. we talk about that there are two different types of states broadly categorizing.

some provide talents of lots of legal authority so that the planning boards can be very strong, home-ruled states with communities with a lot of power. other states say that the state will maintain most of the power and local governments don't have control. i'm thinking about a town in nebraska who wanted to relocate their town. they found a farmer that was willing to sell and they wanted to move their town away from the river to be safe. nebraska said you can't do that because we have the authority and you as the town don't have the authority. it depends state by state and that can get complicated. often planning boards can be given more legal tools. we are looking at tools in zoning laws that can be used to protect wetlands, open space, or arable land for agriculture. all of those lies that help planning boards and zoning boards to defend those and guide

development to areas that are less risky. >> jennifer -- host: jennifer sent this text from new jersey. i am an insurance agent and we sell private flood insurance. it is new coming into the market and is pretty affordable, just not backed by the government. guest: i think it's great private insurance companies are getting involved. thank you for pointing that out. i don't want people to think that they don't offer this, but so many homeowners are not aware. they assume that their homeowners insurance will cover floods when it does not. it often has to be a separate policy. if you're counting on homeowners insurance to cover flood damage, don't count on that. have a dedicated flood policy. host: let's hear from michael in morris, illinois impacted by the hurricane. caller: i have a piece of property down there that is i

guess underwater. i cannot get there to look at it . here's my question for the professor. we can't even get people to wear a mask with covid because they don't feel we can decide. the science tells us that there are areas that will probably flood because they are low. there are areas that are going to be subject to wildfires, and so forth, and so on. i don't think you will get people to cooperate. wouldn't it be better to eliminate totally these flood protection and fire protection programs? and if people want to build in these areas, go ahead. but when you are wiped out don't come to the rest of us looking for money. i am in a blue state that sends more money to washington then we get back.

the republicans are always telling us you don't want to be giving money to these blue states that have pension problems. well, louisiana is not very blue. host: tell us about your property. is it in louisiana? caller: an uncle of mine used to go hunting down there so it is rural and i never even thought of building anything. we have had shacks over the years so that you could sleep for a night or two out hunting. host: we will hear from the professor. guest: i agree with this response. it sounds really 10 thing say let's let property owners do whatever they want on their property and deal with the consequences. the challenge is that so many people live on risk-prone properties not because they chose or they wanted to be exposed to risk, but because in

some places it is the only place that their ancestors were allowed to build if we look at historic racism and discrimination. some, it is the only place that they can afford. 10% of government subsidized housing is in the floodplain. sometimes it is communities where their family is or their job is and they need to be close most of it is tempting to say that these people should deal with the consequences, but that's often not the case was that they are not really making a choice to be exposed. we need to change the system that has exposed people to this risk. it's also why i think we need to deal differently with new developments being built now that we understand the risk exposures than the development that was put in place 50 years ago when the flood risks and climate change were not as apparent. host: orlando, florida, philip. caller: good morning to both of you. the guest obviously to me as a

breath of fresh air in terms of providing valuable information regarding the times we are living in. 1.i want to make, then i want to make a statement. i just feel like we are not really adequately looking at the reality as a group of citizens on this planet, working together to try to control what's going on with the changes of these intensities of storms. it is frightening to think -- i live in florida. after watching north carolina, the storm that moved up the coast, the and then the latest one, ida, what can happen to this state. all i see is that people are in denial of everything down here. mask wearing and climate change. for several years when rick scott was the governor there was a denial totally by the

government to allow people to talk about climate change, as if it didn't exist. the former president was talking about denying climate change will stop it happens anyway naturally. i'm curious in your mind as a young woman, very intelligent and scientific minded, what do you think will be the outcome of citizens on this planet in the near future? i give it five months to five years if we don't get it together. guest: i am not that pessimistic but it's a major challenge. educating people about climate change and having these conversations is difficult partly because our society is so divided. we cannot have a conversation about things that appear to be facts because we no longer believe in facts. we think that there are alternate or fake facts when there are things that are true and things not supported by evidence. it has been a major challenge making policy when we cannot get

people to agree on basic facts like, are storms getting worse? how do you prepare if you have to start a conversation with let's establish they are getting worse? it is a challenge. i am heartened that over history the truth and science wins out. the challenge is not are we going to deal with climate change, the question is are we going to deal with it quickly enough to prevent massive suffering -- massive suffering that will occur every time we don't deal with one of these disasters. host: 2 million in louisiana without power. how has the utility, energy industry responded in recent years in terms of working to harden their infrastructure to protect against storms, such as ida? guest: utility companies are preparing for climate change, trying to prepare for storms. i was in new york during hurricane sandy and immediately afterwards working with a team

working with edison on how to storm-harden their system and prevent another sandy from knocking out power. and they do not want an incr >> how does the company bale out the need to protect infrastructure from where does the money come from. that is likely to be a so transition, only because you do not want to recruit -- increase rates too quickly, too high. prevent overpricing electricity for users. host: back to your piece, the chart tells the story. billion-dollar disasters. . "over the past few decades, costs have exceeded $1 billion

each for disasters including wildfires, droughts and other severe storms." the chart shows it all, the real increase. and as you pointed out, these were adjusted for inflation. guest: the seven major disasters , the billion-dollar disasters per year over the last 20 years, but over the last five years we are averaging 16 billion-dollar disasters. in 2020, that was an anomaly. but this year we have had eight already, not counting ida. so we are all part to get up towards 15. and when you start thinking about that -- when i say a billion-dollar disaster, it is a disaster that costs at least $1 billion, so they could end up costing multiple billions of dollars. host: you are a professor at the university of delaware, what got you interested in this field in

terms of looking at natural disasters? guest: i was a fellow with the u.s. navy, the navy got me interested in thinking about climate change because at the time admirals were thinking about how the navy should be preparing for climate change and for national security issues. i had a law degree and biology background, so they said you should be working on climate change issues. and that started me on this. and i was living in new york when hurricane sandy happened and it helped me realize how we need to prepare for the next disaster we don't see coming. host: you are not far from new york city, did you get walloped by ida coming up the east coast? guest: we have had tornado warnings and flash flood warning's. i have been fortunate that my home and office have been unscathed. my thoughts go out to those who have had it much worse.

host: a caller in california, go ahead. caller: i would like her to answer my question as i stay on the line. i'm calling in reference to a call from four or five calls ago, when you talked about the temperance dam. and how the money -- is temperance dam built? guest: i have not been following that dam specifically. caller: then why did you comment on it? you said how much money, but we funded it for about 15 or 20 years now, to stop all of the wildfires and to keep some of our water. but you mentioned it and you did not even say, well, it is not even built. host: thank you for the call. guest: that is a great point.

what i mentioned is levees around the u.s. need to be rebuilt, those are old, like infrastructure in general. infrastructure in general, not specifically that dam, needs billions in maintenance. but you raise a point that even if the money is allocated, we do not have good evidence of the money is being used in the way that we need it to. federal agencies often take years to spend the money given to them after a major disaster. the accountability office has called onhud and other organizations to improve their ability to spend money on these kinds of disaster responses and mitigations. so the fact that you are saying a dam has had money allocated and has not been built is not surprising. although i do not know the details specifically, i can say that example resonates with what we see around the country. host: let's hear from alan. good morning. caller: thank you. in all the discussion about the

costs of the losses to public infrastructure, private property increasing because of climate change, we already have a debt posture in this country that is pretty outrageous from earlier financial and covid related problems. and in the course of that, the government, under some administrations, has still cut taxes on the income of the wealthy and on states, whatever industries they are involved in. there is a big gap in discussing who should be burying the cost of the increased climate damages. and there has been little public discussion, probably because politicians do not want to lose donations, media that does not want to lose ads, of addressing the need to place these costs more at their stores with people who have caused the climate problems, who knew about it and denied it, who actively confused

at the public about it. even in the last few years, without talking about climate science per say, people in the government have tried to cloud the idea of science in general, the idea of evidence as opposed to fantasy. and i believe some of these people are actually financed by carbon interests who want to create a climate where the public does not trust the evidence based process. and i am wondering how we will get this discussion courageously placed in the area where it needs to be to draw the resources from people who have been enriched by causing the climate problem, and they should be taxed not only on current income, but for the damage they have caused and on assets they have been unjustly enriched by while deceiving the public. host: thank you, alan. guest: that is a great point,

who is going to pay for these things? how do we distribute the costs? it is a major challenge in the united states. if you think is a challenges for the u.s., for the united nations, the conference of parties they talked about which country should pay, where the money should come from to deal with the effects of climate change around the globe. so these conversations are really difficult. and you raise an excellent point about we will need political courage in order to have those difficult conversations. host: i want to ask about water. a front page story recently from the wall street journal, "severe drought has there and do public supply in the west. the water elevation at hoover dam is at its lowest since league mead was first filled. the opposite problem is happening in the east with too much water, but not enough drinking water." the new york times on their front page, "in drenched louisiana, a survival level and

the hunt for drinking water." on the longer drought going on in the u.s. west, is this a slow rolling disaster for the u.s.? guest: it absolutely is. just, as you mentioned and speaking about the navy, an admiral used to say that climate change was all about the water, it is too much, it is too little, in the wrong place at the wrong time. so the fact we see major flooding and drought is what we expect from climate variability. the drought is an unfolding disaster and it will be a major challenge because so many legal, social and infrastructure systems are built up on the assumption that there will be a certain amount of water in certain places at certain times, and that is no longer true. when we think about the ripple effects, so when the water level is low, can we produce power, do we have enough water to deal with wildfires? some areas have reservoirs so

low that the firefighters cannot get water out to fight the wildfires. the challenges have compounding effects and they will have consequences for agriculture, for towns that are trying to get drinking water in water for recreation. and the effects will continue. so trying to get people to treat it as a disaster, the same way that we treat a disaster like ida, is incredibly difficult because it is so slow and it lasts for so long. it can be challenging to have that same motivation to act. host: let's hear from rick in idaho. go ahead. caller: good morning, c-span, dr. siders. i'm a retired marine. i have something that will help. it's a report from 2019, and when you open it up it is 33

pages. when you look at 28-30, you will see 1946 to 2017, the american taxpayer dollars go out and we get nothing in return. 1980, mount saint helens erupted and we sent out aid. not my job america. the earthquake in the bay area, we put out aid. what did the world do for us? here is the punchline. hurricane katrina, 2005, we put out $200 billion, $35 billion in foreign aid, and only one country stepped up to the plate and offered help. it was a noble gesture from japan. and president bush said thank you for the offer, but no thanks. what did the world do? not my job. i want my federal dollars to go to your programs, fema, funding levees and dams to support

america first and all of the victims from ida. i want my federal dollars to go to you. host: let's hear some final thoughts from the professor. guest: thank you for those thoughts, i am glad that you want funding to go to disaster programs. and obviously i think that is a great idea. in terms of foreign aid, when i was working for the navy i was working on their foreign investment programs, to build relations that we need in order to have defense mechanisms in those countries. so there is multiple roles there, but that does segue into the next section of the program. our disaster system is doing the best it can right now, but it is dealing with laws and infrastructure that are outdated and we need massive change in order to deal with both the disasters we are seeing now and the long-term changes we will see due the climate change. host: it is the university of delaware disaster research center, and the ata