I rarely miss an opportunity to read the latest published research, and one article recently grabbed my attention. In “Ten new insights about climate science 2025” (Cambridge University Press, January 2026), the authors—drawing from the work of nearly 200 scientists from different disciplines—present an annual “synthesis” of the most important findings from that year’s peer-reviewed climate-related research. One main finding held that the record-high temperatures of 2023 and 2024, significant ocean warming and higher frequency of extended marine heat waves were “not simply additional gradual steps in the warming trend of the past five decades but rather constitute a significant surge.” This is just one of several jarring findings in the article, which I encourage anyone to read.

These changes in ocean temperatures often have been linked to extreme weather. Evidence suggests that marine heat waves are at least one driver behind some of the most devastating hurricanes and storms. All indicators suggest these trends will only continue. For infrastructure design engineers, these trends present a direct challenge. Many of the standards used to design stormwater systems, culverts, detention facilities and related infrastructure rely on assumptions that no longer are reliable.

Updating Atlas 14 and Designing for Non-Stationarity

For decades, civil engineers have relied on NOAA’s Atlas 14 precipitation-frequency estimates to guide infrastructure design. These intensity-duration-frequency (IDF) curves define how much rainfall engineers must design for, based upon specific storm durations and recurrence intervals. Atlas 14 was built on historical precipitation records under the assumption of climatic “stationarity”—the idea that climate conditions would remain relatively consistent through time. Under that assumption, historical data provided a reasonable basis for future design.

That assumption is no longer defensible. As precipitation patterns shift under non-stationary climate conditions, historical records alone can’t predict future extremes. In response, NOAA’s Office of Water Prediction is developing Atlas 15 to update national precipitation frequency standards. Volume 1, expected in late 2026, will update precipitation estimates using recent observational data. Volume 2 will incorporate downscaled climate-model outputs to provide a range of projected future rainfall intensities for specific IDF scenarios.

The move from a single design value to a range of projected outcomes reflects a changing reality: engineers will need to consider uncertainty in their designs. Instead of relying solely on historical recurrence intervals, infrastructure planning and design will need to incorporate forward-looking projections.

Hedging Against Uncertainty

While state regulatory design standards are evolving, several major cities have already moved ahead. For example, Boston has developed updated, region-specific IDF curves based on climate-model projections and revised its stormwater standards accordingly. Seattle, Pittsburgh and Washington, D.C., have similarly developed stricter engineering design standards using forward-looking storm analyses. These standards require stormwater systems—and their components, including pipes, inlets and detention facilities—to manage increased runoff volumes. Boston notably mandates that drainage infrastructure be sized to accommodate projected precipitation conditions at the end of its design life—not those observed at its beginning.

The principle underlying these changing design standards is straightforward: historical precipitation is no longer a reliable guide for future performance. For engineers, this will increase the amount of analytical and design work necessary. Watershed characteristics, soil-infiltration variability, land-use changes, aging stormwater systems and urban drainage dynamics—as well as changing rainfall conditions—will need to be considered. This likely will result in oversizing infrastructure for projected extremes.

Local Action Matters

While state agencies and large metropolitan areas update standards, resilience ultimately plays out at the local level. For example, when historic flooding struck the rural Black Earth Creek watershed in Dane County (Madison), Wis., local hydrologists provided critical interpretation of watershed dynamics and practical mitigation options. With no motive other than to help folks with little technical background make sense of local hydrology, they stepped in to help. A similar professional response followed an August 2025 storm in Milwaukee where approximately 14 inches of rainfall led to widespread flooding across the metropolitan region.

Yet many communities, particularly in rural areas, lack sufficient technical or financial capacity to consider these impacts. A recent survey of local officials in Wisconsin showed that while climate-related risks are widely recognized, municipalities often face constraints including limited funding, insufficient technical expertise and minimal planning guidance. I suspect these findings would hold true anywhere in the country.

This is where engineers have an important role. We’re trained to identify vulnerabilities: undersized culverts, inadequate detention capacity, development encroaching on floodplains or life-safety risks posed by homes constructed along waterways. These risks often are apparent to trained professionals but less visible to the public. Our daily work may center on project delivery and regulatory compliance, but professional responsibility extends beyond individual projects and contracts. Where communities lack resources, we can provide clarity—translating hydrologic data into understandable risk and explaining what updated IDF projections mean for local infrastructure performance.

Our Responsibility Ahead

The transition from stationarity to non-stationarity represents one of the most significant paradigm shifts in stormwater infrastructure design. It challenges long-standing assumptions about recurrence intervals, acceptable risk and safety factors embedded in design standards.

It also reinforces a core truth about our profession. Engineering has always been about safeguarding public welfare. In an era of accelerating climate variability, that responsibility includes helping communities understand evolving risk and make informed decisions about infrastructure investment.

We can’t eliminate uncertainty. But we can reduce exposure. We can improve design margins. We can advocate for prudent standards. And we can help local leaders interpret the data shaping their decisions. Doing what we can—where we can—isn’t optional; it’s part of our profession.