If We Can't Build a National Lab for Climate Adaptation, Let's Build Something Better
But let's stop waiting, because we can't afford anything less.
I’ve argued before that the Mississippi River Basin—the beating heart of America’s water, food, and freight systems—needs its own national lab. A permanent, science-forward institution with the scale and urgency to coordinate climate adaptation across the basin’s 31 states, across sectors from agriculture to energy to shipping to water supply to flood management and insurance…and across some of the most complex water infrastructure in the world.
But let’s be real.
In today’s climate of federal counter-current, anti-science budget cuts and posturing, putting climate data on ice, and shrinking discretionary budgets, a fully funded national lab for climate adaptation is not coming anytime soon. And waiting around for it would be its own kind of disaster. Let’s let it go.
So the question now is: If we can’t build a national lab to lead climate adaptation for the Mississippi Basin, what can we build instead?
The answer: a distributed, state-led, university-powered, privately financed, publicly accountable system —one that can do what a national lab would have done, and in some ways do it better.
Faster. More flexibly. And with more legitimacy on the ground.
The Lab We Needed
A Mississippi Basin national lab would have tackled climate adaptation head-on.
It would have coordinated research and implementation across a watershed that touches nearly a third of the U.S. population. It would have unified fragmented efforts—federal, state, corporate, and civic—around shared goals. It would have invested in local-scale experimentation with basin-scale implications. And it would have helped ensure that sediment management in Missouri doesn’t undercut tropical storm resilience in Louisiana.
“What’s missing is coordination at the basin level—the kind of coordination that prevents good adaptation in one state from becoming bad maladaptation in another.”
In short, it would have made adaptation science useful, usable, and used.
We need that kind of alignment now more than ever. The Mississippi is facing a convergence of climate-driven crises—prolonged drought, extreme flooding, nutrient pollution, aging infrastructure, coastal land loss—that can’t be solved by any single state or sector alone.
The Lab We Can Still Build—Together
The good news is, pieces of a new model are already emerging and they are emerging in a framework that is consistent with the decentralized ambition of the current administration. States like Minnesota and Wisconsin are designing water policy at the watershed scale. Louisiana’s Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority is now exploring an inland companion agency for flood adaptation. Arizona, California, and Texas are investing billions in state-level water resilience.
What’s missing is coordination at the basin level—the kind of coordination that prevents good adaptation in one state from becoming bad maladaptation in another.
We now need to organize the Mississippi River Basin’s scientific leadership as a network, not a monolith. A distributed platform that includes states, universities, corporations, and civil society—and acts with the urgency and cohesion of a national lab, even if it doesn’t carry the name.
Here’s what that might look like:
1. Regional Compacts to Replace Federal Coordination
States can voluntarily form regional climate adaptation compacts focused on shared risks—nutrient loading, extreme floods, sediment loss, drought stress—and shared watersheds.
Compacts like the Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact have proven effective. A Mississippi River Basin compact could align funding, standardize data collection, coordinate high-priority projects, and prevent contradictory interventions across state lines.
It could also enable "project trading": for example, a lower basin state like Louisiana investing upstream in wetland restoration in Missouri to reduce downstream flood risk and deliver sediment to the coast.
Compact governance could be housed in or aligned with a revitalized federal Water Sub-Cabinet, giving it political cover and access to match funding.
2. A Consortium of Land-Grant Universities
Land-grant and research universities already lead the way in agricultural and environmental science. A Midwest Climate Adaptation Consortium could harness their collective expertise and extension networks to lead applied science for basin-wide resilience.
“The land-grant system was built to solve regional problems with science. Let’s aim it squarely at climate adaptation.”
Start with institutions like the University of Minnesota, Iowa State, LSU, Purdue. Build on models like the USDA Climate Hubs and Big Ten Academic Alliance.
This consortium could:
Coordinate field trials on climate-smart practices
Host basin-wide research challenges
Train the next generation of adaptation professionals
Deliver findings directly to communities via extension agents
The land-grant system was built to solve regional problems with science. Let’s aim it squarely at climate adaptation.
3. Public-Private Innovation Districts for Infrastructure Pilots
We need real-world test beds for adaptation. That means funding Adaptation Innovation Districts in cities and regions where climate impacts and capacity intersect.
Think of St. Louis, Des Moines, or Memphis partnering with local universities, state agencies, insurers, and ag companies to pilot:
Flood-resilient roads
Green stormwater retrofits
Restored floodplains for both habitat and sediment capture
Broadband-enabled ag adaptation tools
These districts should function as demonstration zones—with shared metrics, public reporting, and open data.
They’re ideal targets for resilience bonds, which attract private capital by linking returns to reduced future risk. Cities get needed infrastructure. Investors get climate-adjusted ROI.
4. A Midwest Climate Infrastructure Bank
We need financing that matches the scale of the challenge.
A Midwest Climate Infrastructure Bank could pool public, private, and philanthropic capital to fund regional adaptation.
It would:
Offer low-interest loans for flood control, water reuse, and soil restoration
Aggregate funding across states and sectors
Underwrite resilience with longer horizons than traditional lenders
Models exist. The Connecticut Green Bank and Michigan Infrastructure Council offer templates. The bank could also rate projects using climate-preparedness metrics to boost bond ratings and attract more investors.
Use case: Financing a multi-state wetland corridor to reduce flooding, recharge aquifers, and capture ag runoff—benefiting both upstream communities and the Gulf.
5. Private Sector Participation as Co-Funders and Co-Beneficiaries
Climate adaptation is a business imperative. Ag companies, food and beverage companies, insurers, logistics firms—all depend on a resilient Mississippi Basin.
Invite them in. Not just as funders, but as implementation partners.
Use CDP and Ceres to engage ESG leaders. Offer private-label adaptation bonds for projects aligned with public goals. Leverage frameworks like the Alliance for Water Stewardship.
PepsiCo is already investing with several US states for water replenishment. Other corporations such as Cargill and ADM need stable harvests. Insurers, meanwhile, need better risk models. Give them a seat at the table—and a stake in success.
A New Role for the Federal Government
The federal government still matters—but as a coordinator and catalyst, not sole operator or uncle with deep pockets.
The Water Sub-Cabinet could take point: reviving interagency coordination, fast-tracking permitting, and standardizing evaluation frameworks for basin-scale projects.
Let’s go one step further: create an Adaptation Accelerator Fund. Seeded with state funds, governed by a multi-state board, designed to attract corporate and philanthropic co-investment in the highest-impact projects.
What Success Could Look Like
Ten years from now, here’s what we could see:
A shrinking Gulf dead zone, thanks to upstream nutrient reduction
Smarter floodplain reconnections, reducing damage and restoring habitat
New crops and practices thriving in a hotter, drier climate
States and sectors working together instead of at cross-purposes
Private and public money flowing toward real, visible resilience
Maybe we won’t have a national lab. But we’ll have something better: a basin-scale adaptation system rooted in science, aligned across borders, and accountable to the people who live and work in the 31 states of the Mississippi River basin.
Let’s stop waiting. Let’s build it.
The US heartland—and the country—can’t afford anything less.