How big cities across the US are slowly sinking
The skyline of Dallas, Texas. Urban centres in Texas are among US cities sinking the most due to subsidence. PHOTO: BLOOMBERG
How big cities across the US are slowly sinking
A new analysis of America's 28 largest population centres found that all but three are sinking overall, and in many cases significantly.
Several of the most affected areas are in Texas, particularly around Fort Worth and Houston. But the problem is nationwide, affecting cities as scattered as Seattle, Detroit and Charlotte, North Carolina.
Sinking land, also called subsidence, can worsen the effects of sea-level rise, intensify flooding and strain the very foundations of urban infrastructure.
The new research, published in the scientific journal Nature Cities, built on previous work using satellite measurements to paint a detailed picture of rising and falling land. It also closely examined the connection between changes in land elevation and changes in groundwater, using data from individual monitoring wells.
Water pumped from wells isn't something that people think about often. 'You just turn on your tap, do what you need to do, and you go on your way,' said Mr Leonard Ohenhen, a researcher at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and lead author of the study.
But extracting more water than can be replenished 'can have a direct relationship with what happens on the surface,' he said. 'You can cause the ground to sink significantly.'
A 2023 New York Times investigation found that unsustainable pumping of water from underground aquifers can be a major cause of sinking land.
Other factors also influence land elevation. For example, a vast expanse of bedrock beneath parts of the country, pressed downward by enormous glaciers during the last ice age, is slowly rebounding back into place. But over time it creates a sort of seesaw effect that today is adding 1mm to 2mm per year to subsidence rates in much of the northern United States.
Texas draws immense amounts of groundwater for agriculture, industry and the public water supply. The extraction of oil and gas, including the growing use of 'monster fracks,' can also cause the land surface to slump.
Climate change can worsen the issue. Hotter temperatures and more extreme droughts, particularly in the West, dry out soil, streams and reservoirs, leading people to pump larger quantities of freshwater from underground.
Americans have also been moving in droves to some of the hottest and driest parts of the country. In the past few decades, metro areas in Texas have ballooned in population and sprawl.
Groundwater depletion was the main cause of subsidence in Houston between the 1950s and '70s, when nearly all water usage came from the ground, said Dr Bob Wang, a professor of geophysics at the University of Houston. Cracked roads and buildings were a common sight.
Several subsidence-management districts were established in the area to address the issue. Among other things, groundwater use was reduced and instead more water was taken from surface-water sources such as rivers. Subsidence has since slowed in the city centre.
However, when new neighbourhoods developed to support growing populations, the most affordable source of water was often what people could pump from below.
Subsidence is in itself a hazard. But when adjacent land sinks at different rates, or when sinking occurs next to land that's rising, it can cause roads and buildings to crack. Though this process happens slowly, in millimeters per year, over time it can create added stress to infrastructure in areas where flooding, earthquakes or sea level rise are already a problem.
Extreme weather adds to the risk. When surface soils expand during extreme rainfall, then compact during prolonged droughts, it can lead to structural damage. 'In the Houston area, foundation repair is a very good business,' Prof Wang said.
Cities along the coast, which are often built on soft soil or marshland like Houston, can be particularly vulnerable. But the research paper also looked at inland cities facing similar sinking challenges.
Phoenix, a desert city, has a long history of groundwater depletion but has managed to turn things around. After the state of Arizona implemented its 1980 Groundwater Management Act, management districts were established and many conservation rules were put in place.
Still, the legacy of overpumping still affects the area. One reason is that, once groundwater is pumped out, it can be difficult if not impossible for some aquifers to recharge and refill to their earlier levels. In other words, it's very hard to reverse land that has already settled.
Subsidence can still occur 'even as groundwater levels recover, because the pore spaces in the subsurface that were once being held open by groundwater are now just filled with air,' said Mr Brian Conway, a principal hydrogeologist at the Arizona Department of Water Resources. Those spaces sometimes can be refilled with water, but sometimes they compress and can't be recharged.
In Phoenix, managed recharge has helped to fill those pore spaces, replenishing underground reservoirs. While subsidence still occurs, it's a far cry from the rates that caused a record 18 feet of elevation drop in Phoenix between the 1950s and 1990s.
Outside the city, however, land is still sinking as fast as ever.
Methodology:
Vertical land movement data with higher uncertainty, including areas around dense vegetation and water bodies, were not included in the maps.
Researchers analysed the most populated areas in the United States, and included all cities with more than 600,000 residents.
They used 2020 US census data for the population estimates. NYTIMES
Find out more about climate change and how it could affect you on the ST microsite here.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Times
5 days ago
- Business Times
This isn't how you ‘restore gold standard' science
IN another attempt to concentrate power, President Donald Trump has signed an executive order to 'restore gold standard science' in federal research and policy. It sounds reasonable given the instances of bad or faked science being published, including high-profile papers on Alzheimer's drug development and one misleadingly claiming that hydroxychloroquine would cure Covid-19. In the last decade, scientists themselves have grown concerned about the large number of studies whose promising results couldn't be replicated. However, researchers dedicated to reforming their field say the president's plan isn't a solution. It's a way to give government officials the power to reject evidence they disagree with – without any accountability or transparency. There is already a long history of US policies that ignored scientific evidence, from allowing toxic lead in petrol to decades of failing to act on the known dangers of asbestos and cigarettes. Science alone can't decide policy, but the public and lawmakers need reliable scientific data to decide, for example, which pesticides or food additives to ban, or how to regulate genetically modified crops. Trump's order cites as a flaw in the system the prolonged school closures during the pandemic. Many US schools stayed closed long after those in most European countries had reopened. However, the US policy decision had little to do with science – shoddy or otherwise. It was more about a clash of values and political polarisation, along with a lack of balanced, evidence-based public discussion. He also criticises the National Marine Fisheries Service for basing restrictions on Maine's lobster fishing industry on a worst-case scenario aimed at protecting the endangered right whale. But the public might benefit from knowing such scenarios – unless their likelihood is being exaggerated. Ultimately, the decision comes down to values: Americans might want to act on even a small chance that an industry could drive a species to extinction. The language in the executive order is nearly identical to that used by scientists already working to improve research standards, including reproducibility, communication about errors and uncertainty, and scepticism about assumptions. In recent years, fields with replication problems have made progress towards those goals by requiring more transparency in reporting data and statistical methods. Peers uncovered fraud in the research of Harvard Professor Francesca Gino, who was fired from her tenured position last month. Journals and scientific societies are requiring more disclosure about potential conflicts of interest, and scientists are using a platform called PubPeer to criticise published work, which can lead to corrections and retractions. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up But the president's directive isn't really aimed at improving science. 'The executive order converts principles of good practice into weapons against scientific evidence,' said psychologist Brian Nosek, co-founder of the Centre for Open Science. Deciding what's credible should be a decentralised process, Nosek said, with many people and lines of evidence being presented and different parties challenging each other. He and other experts in science research reform say that even good studies aren't perfect. There's widespread concern the executive order could allow government officials to flag almost anything as not up to their definition of 'gold standard'. Sometimes the best we have are observational studies or models. Nutrition is notoriously hard to study with reproducible experiments, but we still have to decide what to put in school lunches. And there is no default precautionary position where you wait for perfect evidence; inaction can kill people, too. The executive order comes amid drastic federal funding cuts to the National Science Foundation and similar institutions. It's not surprising that many scientists see the order not as a way to improve scientific standards, but as the latest offensive in a war on science. The document begins by blasting the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for discouraging in-person learning during the pandemic even though 'the best available scientific evidence showed children were unlikely to transmit or suffer serious illness or death from the virus'. On the surface, this is backed up by reporting from The New York Times, citing data showing prolonged school closures didn't significantly decrease Covid-19 mortality, and also set many kids back in their education. In his book, An Abundance of Caution, journalist David Zweig makes a case that the relevant scientific data were available in the spring and summer of 2020, and by May many European schools were up and running with no uptick in casualties. In my own reporting back in summer of 2020, I found the problem was more bottom-up than top-down. The data couldn't reassure people that there was zero risk, and some worried that any danger of severe infection was unacceptable – for students or teachers. By summer 2020, the CDC had acknowledged the benefits of in-person education, but the American public was struggling to have a rational debate. It was more a matter of moral outrage over our different values than any disagreement over science. Many factors fed some regrettable policy choices, including social media algorithms that drowned out reasoned fact-based discussion with misinformation and mudslinging. What we didn't need then was more centralised control of science – and it's the last thing we need now. BLOOMBERG

Straits Times
04-06-2025
- Straits Times
From no hope to a potential cure for a deadly blood cancer
The immunotherapy developed by Legend Biotech, a company founded in China, seems to have made their cancer disappear. PHOTO: UNSPLASH From no hope to a potential cure for a deadly blood cancer NEW YORK - A group of 97 patients had long-standing multiple myeloma, a common blood cancer that doctors consider incurable, and faced a certain, and extremely painful, death within about a year. They had gone through a series of treatments, each of which controlled their disease for a while. But then it came back, as it always does. They reached the stage where they had no more options and were facing hospice. They all got immunotherapy, in a study that was a last-ditch effort. A third responded so well that they got what seems to be an astonishing reprieve. The immunotherapy developed by Legend Biotech, a company founded in China, seems to have made their cancer disappear. And after five years, it still has not returned in those patients – a result never before seen in this disease. These results, in patients whose situation had seemed hopeless, has led some battle-worn American oncologists to dare to say the words 'potential cure.' 'In my 30 years in oncology, we haven't talked about curing myeloma,' said Dr Norman Sharpless, a former director of the National Cancer Institute who is now a professor of cancer policy and innovation at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine. 'This is the first time we are really talking seriously about cure in one of the worst malignancies imaginable.' The new study, reported on June 3 at the annual conference of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and published in The Journal of Clinical Oncology, was funded by Johnson & Johnson, which has an exclusive licensing agreement with Legend Biotech. The 36,000 Americans who develop multiple myeloma each year face an illness that eats away at bones, so it looks as if holes have been punched out in them, said Dr Carl June, of the University of Pennsylvania. Bones collapse. Dr June has seen patients who lost 6 inches (15.24cm) in height. 'It's a horrible, horrible death,' Dr June said. 'Right now advanced myeloma is a death sentence.' (Dr June has immunotherapy patents that are owned by his university.) There have been treatment advances that increased median survival from two years to 10 over the past two decades. But no cures. Dr Peter Voorhees of the Atrium Health Levine Cancer Institute in North Carolina and the Wake Forest University School of Medicine, who is lead researcher for the newly published study, said patients usually go through treatment after treatment until, ultimately, the cancer prevails, developing resistance to every class of drug. They end up with nothing left to try. The Legend immunotherapy is a type known as CAR-T. It is delivered as an infusion of the patient's own white blood cells that have been removed and engineered to attack the cancer. The treatment has revolutionised prospects for patients with other types of blood cancer, like leukaemia. Making CAR-T cells, though, is an art, with so many possible variables that it can be hard to hit on one that works. And it can have severe side effects including a high fever, trouble breathing and infections. Patients can be hospitalised for weeks after receiving it. But Legend managed to develop one that works in multiple myeloma, defying sceptics. The Chinese company gained attention for its CAR-T eight years ago when it made extravagant claims, which were met by snickers from American researchers. Johnson & Johnson, though, was looking for a CAR-T to call its own. So, said Mr Mark Wildgust, an executive in the oncology section of the American drug giant, the company sent scientists and physicians to China to see if the claims were true. 'We went site by site to look at the results,' he said. The company was convinced. It initiated a collaboration with Legend and began testing the treatment in patients whose myeloma had overcome at least one standard treatment. Compared with patients who had standard treatment, those who had the immunotherapy lived longer without their disease progressing. The immunotherapy received regulatory approval in that limited setting and is sold under the brand name Carvykti. The study did not determine whether this difficult treatment saved lives. The new study took on a different challenge – helping patients at the end of the line after years of treatments. Their immune systems were worn down. They were, as oncologists said, 'heavily pretreated.' So even though CAR-T is designed to spur their immune systems to fight their cancer, it was not clear their immune systems were up to it. Oncologists say that even though most patients did not clear their cancer, having a third who did was remarkable. To see what the expected life span would be for these patients without the immunotherapy, Johnson & Johnson looked at data from patients in a registry who were like the ones in its study – they had failed every treatment. They lived about a year. For Ms Anne Stovell of New York, one of the study patients whose cancer disappeared, the result is almost too good to be true. She says she went through nine drugs to control her cancer after it was diagnosed in 2010, some of which had horrendous side effects. Each eventually failed. Taking the Legend CAR-T was difficult – she said she had spent nearly three weeks in the hospital. But since that treatment six years ago, she has no sign of cancer. She said it was still difficult for her to believe her myeloma is gone. A new ache – or an old one – can bring on the fear. 'There's that little seed of doubt,' she said. But in test after test, the cancer has not reappeared. 'It's a relief for me every year to get a bone marrow biopsy,' she said. Myeloma experts applauded the results. Like treatments for many other cancers, treatments for multiple myeloma come with a high price. The drugs are 'hideously expensive,' Dr June said, costing more than US$100,000 (S$129,143) a year. The total cost over the years can be millions of dollars, Dr June said, usually paid by insurers, 'and it doesn't even cure you.' CAR-T is expensive too. Carvykti's list price is US$555,310. But it is a one-time treatment. And, more important, the hope is that perhaps by giving it earlier in the course of the disease, it could cure patients early on. Johnson & Johnson is now testing that idea. Dr Kenneth Anderson, a myeloma expert at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute who was not involved with the study, said that if the treatment is used as a first-line treatment, 'cure is now our realistic expectation.' That, at least, is the hope, Dr Sharpless said. And for those like the patients in the new study who are living at least five years – so far – without disease, the outcome 'really is eye-popping,' Dr Sharpless said. 'That's getting to a point where you wonder if it will ever come back,' he added. NYTIMES Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Business Times
28-05-2025
- Business Times
Starship megarocket blows up over Indian Ocean in latest bumpy test
[SOUTH PADRE ISLAND, United States] SpaceX's prototype Starship exploded over the Indian Ocean on Tuesday, capping another bumpy test flight for the rocket central to billionaire Elon Musk's dream of colonising Mars. The biggest and most powerful launch vehicle ever built lifted off around 6.36 pm (2336 GMT) from the company's Starbase facility, near a southern Texas village that earlier this month voted to become a city - also named Starbase. Excitement ran high among SpaceX engineers and spectators alike, after the last two outings ended with the upper stage disintegrating in fiery cascades over the Caribbean. But signs of trouble emerged quickly: the first-stage Super Heavy booster blew up instead of executing its planned splashdown in the Gulf of Mexico. A live feed then showed the upper-stage spaceship failing to open its doors to deploy a payload of Starlink satellite 'simulators.' Though the ship flew farther than on its two previous attempts, it sprang leaks and began spinning out of control as it coasted through space. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up Mission teams vented fuel to reduce the force of the expected explosion, and onboard cameras cut out roughly 45 minutes into what was meant to be a 66-minute flight -- falling short of its target splashdown zone off Australia's west coast. 'Starship experienced a rapid unscheduled disassembly,' SpaceX posted on X - a familiar euphemism for fiery failure - while stressing it would learn from the setback. Musk, meanwhile, vowed to pick up the pace: 'Launch cadence for the next 3 flights will be faster - approximately one every 3 to 4 weeks,' he said. He did not say, however, whether he still planned to deliver a live stream about Mars that SpaceX had been promoting. Space fans Standing 403 feet (123 meters) tall, the black-and-white behemoth is designed to eventually be fully reusable and launch at low cost, carrying Musk's hopes of making humanity a multi-planetary species. NASA is also counting on a variant of Starship to serve as the crew lander for Artemis 3, the mission to return Americans to the Moon. Ahead of the launch, dozens of space fans gathered at Isla Blanca Park on nearby South Padre Island, hoping to catch a glimpse of history. Several small tourist boats also dotted the lagoon, while a live feed showed Musk sitting at ground control in Starbase, wearing an 'Occupy Mars' T-shirt. Australian Piers Dawson, 50, told AFP he's 'obsessed' with the rocket and built his family vacation around the launch - his first trip to the United States, with his wife and teenage son whom he took out of school to be there. 'I know in science there's never a failure, you learn everything from every single test so that was still super exciting to see,' said Joshua Wingate, a 33-year-old tech entrepreneur from Austin, after the launch. 'Fail fast, learn fast' Starship has now completed nine integrated test flights atop its Super Heavy booster. SpaceX is betting that its 'fail fast, learn fast' ethos, which helped it dominate commercial spaceflight, will once again pay off. One bright spot: the company has now caught the Super Heavy booster in the launch tower's giant robotic arms three times - a daring engineering feat it sees as key to rapid reusability and slashing costs. This ninth flight marked the first time SpaceX reused a Super Heavy booster, though it opted not to attempt a catch - instead pushing the envelope with a steeper descent angle and one engine intentionally disabled. The FAA recently approved an increase in Starship launches from five to 25 annually, stating the expanded schedule wouldn't harm the environment -- a decision that overruled objections from conservation groups concerned about impacts to sea turtles and shorebirds. AFP