EOS

A supermoon is reflected in the Fred C. Babcock/Cecil M. Webb Wildlife Management Area’s marsh, near Punta Gorda, Fla. New research suggests that wetland loss in the contiguous United States has increased residential flood insurance claim payments by billions of dollars, with costs particularly high in coastal Florida. Credit: Diana Robinson/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Wetlands are biodiversity hot spots and provide important carbon storage. During heavy rains, they act like natural sponges on the landscape by storing and slowing the flow of stormwater—reducing downstream flooding and protecting infrastructure.

As the climate changes and extreme flooding events become more frequent and intense, flood protection from wetlands may become even more valuable for both the natural and built environment. However, since 1700, at least 40% of the wetland area in the United States has been lost to development and agriculture, meaning these benefits are being lost.

A new study in Nature Water puts a price tag on one key wetland service: reducing flood risk. Wetland loss across the contiguous United States between 1985 and 2023 has increased residential flood insurance claim payments by more than $10 billion, accounting for 9% of all riverine flood loss payments, the study suggests, with the highest costs in Houston, southeastern Louisiana, and coastal Florida.

“That number is actually a large underestimate of how much wetland loss has increased flood damages in total,” said Jesse Gourevitch, a former economist with the Environmental Defense Fund and one of the study authors. Because only about 30% of flood losses are insured through the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), the main source of claim data in the study, the true economic cost of wetland loss is likely much higher, Gourevitch explained.

An infrared Landsat time series of Louisiana’s Bay Dosgris from 1985 to 2024 shows wetlands converting to open water as sea level rise and storms reshape the Gulf Coast. Credit: NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center Wetland Loss Mapped Across the Country by Costs

Researchers used payment data from NFIP claims connected to river flooding, a direct way to tie individual properties to specific flood losses. They then connected these data to maps of wetlands in upstream subwatersheds and tracked how much a given wetland area changed since 1985. They also accounted for factors that may have influenced flood severity, such as heavy rain events and changes in impervious surfaces like roads and roofs.

This study tracked individual properties with multiple flood-related claims, comparing the property before and after upstream wetland changes occurred. The approach was “one of the most direct ways in which we can observe flood losses at a property level,” said Gourevitch.

Parts of New Orleans, seen here from the International Space Station, are sinking by millimeters per year. These sunken areas are more vulnerable to floods and storm surges, especially as wetlands degrade. Credit: NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center/Flickr, CC BY-NC 2.0

The researchers also examined the monetary value of wetlands throughout U.S. subwatersheds. On average, 1 hectare of wetland provides $15,738 in avoided flood damages, though that value varies throughout the country. In the top 10% of subwatersheds, wetlands are valued at an average of $24,783 per hectare. The top 1%, located in Appalachia and New England, along the Gulf Coast, and in parts of Oregon, California, and Washington, are valued at an average of $301,268 per hectare. These high-value areas are concentrated in regions with high downstream flood exposure and losses.

“We see that in about 16% of subwatersheds, marginal benefits provided by wetlands solely in terms of their flood mitigation benefits outweigh the cost of conservation,” Gourevitch said.

The cost of flood insurance claims has risen in the United States since 1985, with some of the highest costs in Houston, Texas. This marsh near Galveston is less than an hour from Houston. Credit: Corey Leopold/Flickr, CC BY-NC 4.0 Protecting Wetlands Protects People and Property

Wetland loss also affects people unevenly. Flood risk is often higher in lower-income communities and communities of color, where residents may live in low-lying and flood-prone locations because of decades of discriminatory zoning and housing policies.

“Future flood risk will continue to disproportionately impact vulnerable communities. We know that wetlands reduce this risk, and if we don’t protect them, we’re adding to the risk for those most vulnerable communities.”

“Future flood risk will continue to disproportionately impact vulnerable communities. We know that wetlands reduce this risk, and if we don’t protect them, we’re adding to the risk for those most vulnerable communities,” said Helena Garcia, a recent Ph.D. graduate from the University of North Carolina’s Environment, Ecology, and Energy Program and one of the study’s authors.

In 2023, the Supreme Court ruled in Sackett v. EPA to reduce protections for wetlands that don’t have a surface water connection to other federally protected waterways. A proposed rule from the Trump administration threatens to change the definition of a wetland even further by winnowing down protected areas to only those that have long-term surface water.

The wetland areas no longer protected would provide $177 billion in flood mitigation benefits to residential properties, the authors suggest, and the flood damage stemming from this wetland loss would be greater in census tracks with lower income and nonwhite households.

“We really see parts of the southeastern U.S. emerge as these areas where [wetlands are] providing a lot of value and are unprotected,” Gourevitch said. “Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia are certainly areas of concern.”

A change to the definition of “wetland” proposed by the Trump administration would mean that wetland areas that provide $177 billion in flood mitigation benefits to residential properties would no longer be protected, new research suggests. Credit: eagle102.net/Flickr, CC BY 2.0

The study includes an interactive map tool for local leaders and residents to see where future wetland loss may translate to expenses greater than the cost of conservation.

“Wetlands are inherently valuable spaces for many reasons. If we lose wetlands upstream, we’re losing that capacity of the landscape to filter out pollutants. We’re losing the capacity of the landscape to soak up water. We’re losing the capacity of those habitats to support ecosystems,” said Anne Smiley, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of North Carolina’s Institute for the Environment who was not part of the study.

The Fred C. Babcock/Cecil M. Webb Wildlife Management Area protects about 32,700 hectares (80,772 acres) just south and east of Punta Gorda, Fla. Credit: Diana Robinson/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

“This study is a really important contribution, because [the researchers] have quantified something that’s been very difficult to quantify,” said Smiley. “They’re communicating the value of these wetlands in a new way.”

—Rebecca Owen (@beccapox.bsky.social), Science Writer

Citation: Owen, R. (2026), Calculating the costs of wetland loss, Eos, 107, https://doi.org/10.1029/2026EO260217. Published on 9 July 2026. Text © 2026. The authors. CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Except where otherwise noted, images are subject to copyright. Any reuse without express permission from the copyright owner is prohibited.

Source: AGU Advances

Hillslopes in Arctic regions with frozen soils can host a suite of geometric patterns, from circles and stripes to polygonal patterned ground. They can also have solifluction patterns, or markings left behind when partially thawed permafrost slips and flows down a slope. Solifluction patterns look like pairings of flat, terraced soil—like a big staircase—and rounded lobes of soil at the terrace’s base.

Understanding how these patterns form is important for predicting and working to fix unstable slopes in Arctic environments as climate change increases the rates at which frozen ground thaws. It could also be useful for understanding past climates on Mars, as scientists have spotted similar patterns on the planet’s surface. But solifluction patterns have defied explanation, and in a new study, Glade et al. use mathematical and physical models along with remote sensing to explain how they form.

Icy soil moves very slowly, just millimeters to centimeters per year, and behaves in complex ways, acting at times like a fluid and at others like a solid. This complexity is due to seasonal variability in water and temperature, as well as the fundamental physics of soil.

The researchers ruled out other common fluid analogues, including paint dripping down a wall, buckling instabilities seen in folding lava, and roll waves; reviewed the soil literature; ran physics-based computer models of terrace and lobe formation; and ran mathematical models of different fluid behaviors. After all that, they landed at last on a suitable analogue: waves that form in Oobleck, a non-Newtonian fluid made of cornstarch mixed with water. Its velocity changes under different stresses, and counterintuitively, it becomes harder to move the harder you push on it.

Oobleck’s unique properties make it a common classroom experiment, and it matched up the best with the frozen features researchers have observed in nature. Differences in soil moisture could lead to differences in soil velocity, creating a spatially variable buildup of soil that eventually collapses before the process of solifluction begins again.

It’s still not a perfect fit, the researchers noted. The Oobleck waves reflect only rheology, or the material makeup of the soil (or fluid) in question. Real-world frozen soil is more complex than a simple mixture of cornstarch and water.

Additionally, factors like topography and vegetation affect the pattern, not only the material’s composition. There must be a bump to begin with for soil to build up behind, and there must be enough soil moisture to accumulate ice.

The researchers would like to validate their model in the field, but because it takes hundreds of years or more for the features to form, observing that is difficult, but not impossible, and they’re determined to try. (AGU Advances, https://doi.org/10.1029/2026AV002392, 2026)

—Rebecca Dzombak, Science Writer

Citation: Dzombak, R. (2026), Patterned frozen soils get their shape from gravity and funky physics, Eos, 107, https://doi.org/10.1029/2026EO260223. Published on 9 July 2026. Text © 2026. AGU. CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Except where otherwise noted, images are subject to copyright. Any reuse without express permission from the copyright owner is prohibited.

body {background-color: #D2D1D5;} Research & Developments is a blog for brief updates that provide context for the flurry of news regarding law and policy changes that impact science and scientists today.

14 July: This article has been updated with final data regarding responses to the proposed OMB rule. The public comment period closed yesterday with 341,699 comments submitted.

9 July: Six weeks ago, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) proposed a new rule that would drastically alter the federal grantmaking process. The proposed rule would give political appointees the power to approve or deny funding to scientific projects.

Among other changes, the rule would also allow federal agencies to terminate active grants they deem inconsistent with agency priorities and to prohibit federal grants from being used for publication costs and open access fees.

 

Related

•  Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance
•  A Rule That Would Rewrite the Terms of U.S. Science
•  White House Proposes Sweeping Changes to Grantmaking Process
•  Get Involved: Stop OMB From Erasing Federal Research
 

The OMB is accepting public comments on the proposal until 13 July, and organizations across the country have mobilized to coordinate responses during the 45-day comment period. As of 9 July, more than 98,900 comments have been submitted. Some, such as one from Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) asked OMB director Russell Vought to extend the comment period by no less than 90 days.

The most vocal public response has been from the scientific community, which largely opposes the proposed rule. Organizations such as Stand Up for Science, the American Physical Society, and AGU have launched tools to make the comment submission process easier.

“This is not a routine regulatory update,” wrote AGU President Brandon Jones in June. “[W]hat it actually does is restructure the foundational rules of U.S. science funding—with cascading impact for global collaborators—to serve political priorities rather than the public good.”

A tool created by Tech Policy Press analyzed the more than 50,000 comments that have been made public as of the closure of the comment period. The analysis found that 94% of the public comments opposed the new rule, with the top concern mentioned being the politicization of grant decisions. About 16% of the analyzed comments (8,414 of them) were from form letter campaigns. A disproportionate number of the form letter comments (2,549 of them), were in support of the rule.

Below is a sampling of comments. To submit your own comment on the proposed rule, join 1,000+ others who have shared their concerns through AGU’s Action Center.

Comments From Scientists

• “Because most grants in my field have durations between 2 and 6 years, this rule would make planning long term experiments and sustaining support for trainees nearly impossible. Depending on the outcomes of yearly elections and the oppositional priorities of political parties, grants could be cancelled on a whim any given year of a research project, leaving the promising science that was funded unfinished, scientists suddenly without jobs, and promising students abandoning opportunities that may have changed their life.” –Robert Denton, a biology professor at Ball State University
• “Scientific communication, whether through professional meetings or peer-reviewed publications, is the only way to share scientific findings. An individual working alone, with no route to sharing their work, does no good to society. Ideas thrive when they are shared, tested and amended, all of which happens through publications and presentations. Restricting this avenue to share results damages our nation and leaves us unable to compete.” –Tanya Furman (AGU board member)
• “I am really frightened by OMB’s proposed change to 200.340, which would allow agencies to terminate active grants at any time if they are determined to be inconsistent with federal priorities. This turns grantmaking into an entirely political process, and means that the kinds of science we’re able to do could shift every 2-4 years. Scientific progress that serves the American people takes longer than 2-4 years to come to fruition. With this kind of disruption, America would quickly lose our status as a leading scientific power.” –Hannah Mark, geoscientist
  • Note: The proposed changes to 200.340 involve allowing the agency to cancel grants that no longer serve “Federal agency program goals or priorities.” “Part 200” is also known as “Uniform Guidance.”
• “It goes without saying that all Americans – regardless of political affiliation – want health care that more quickly addresses their needs and reduces their risks for harms such as bloodstream infections and prolonged hospitalizations. Yet allowing unqualified political appointees to interfere with the scientific process imperils these universally held goals.” –Scott Halpern, professor of medicine, epidemiology, medical ethics, and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania
• “The passage of Vought’s ‘Uniform Guidance’ would be nothing short of catastrophic for American science. This rule would funnel decision power about what science is done, by whom, for whom, with whom, and effectively isolate scientists from the rest of the world. This is anti-democractic [sic] and anti-American.” –Colette Delawalla, founder of Stand Up for Science
• “I am a scientist. The US scientific system is the best in the world. Our universities, labs, and companies attract the most brilliant scientists from everywhere in the world to come to the US and keep us as the undisputed world leader in fields from AI to crop science. This creates jobs and wealth for our country. This proposed rule change threatens to obliterate science in the US.” –Edward Ricemeyer
• “The proposed OMB changes to grants would have severe negative effects on American science, and I oppose all of the proposed changes. … The peer review system used to evaluate research proposals at the NSF and NIH is a gold-standard system that is the envy of the rest of the world. I have served on NSF grant panels and also evaluated proposals for national grant agencies in Canada and multiple European countries. I am confident that our system leads to funding for the best science proposals, and our current peer review system leads to improvements in proposals and funded projects.” –Brian I.
• “Taken collectively, the provisions in the proposed regulations will limit agency flexibility to effectively engage with the scientific community and stakeholders to fund the best science and will impair the most positive outcomes for Americans. Simply put, this proposal, if implemented, will undermine the American scientific enterprise and global leadership.” -AGU. AGU’s full comment on the proposal outlines several concerns, and can be viewed here.

Comments in Favor

• “I support generally support any and all federal rules and regulations that help reduce waste, fraud, and abuse with respect to expenditure of taxpayer monies. In particular, I support the proposed OMB 2026-0034 Rule 200.450. … I support the OMB’s proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of the federal grant and assistance programs. It will improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse.” –Marc Jensen
  • Note: Proposed changes to section 200.450 would “expressly prohibit funding any voter registration campaigns, drives, or related activities under Federal awards.”
• “American taxpayers deserve confidence that federal funds are being spent responsibly and for their intended purposes. Recent reports of improper payments, fraudulent claims, and inadequate oversight have highlighted weaknesses in the current system that must be addressed. Strengthening verification requirements, improving recipient vetting, and providing agencies with greater authority to suspend or terminate funding when fraud or misuse is identified are reasonable and necessary steps.” – Tamara Harrison, with the same comment from Wayne Worden
• “I strongly support the Office of Management and Budget’s proposed reforms in federal grant and assistance programs. I want stronger verification including identity verification of grant applicants, tighter recipient vetting, and agency authority to suspend or terminate funding when fraud or misuse.” –Agnes Puzak

–Emily Gardner (@emfurd.bsky.social), Associate Editor

These updates are made possible through information from the scientific community. Do you have a story about how changes in law or policy are affecting scientists or research? Send us a tip at eos@agu.org. Text © 2026. AGU. CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Except where otherwise noted, images are subject to copyright. Any reuse without express permission from the copyright owner is prohibited.