It's obvious that our country has experienced a multitude of natural disasters in our history, and it seems that the multitude and intensity of these disasters has just continued to increase in recent years. We have already looked at the impact of the drought in California and the devastating effects of Hurricane Harvey. We have examined what kind of assistance, or lack thereof, that the victims of these disasters have been receiving, but after close examination, it becomes very disturbing to learn that this assistance is limited to post-destruction disasters. The assistance only comes after the storm. The government swoops in to clean up the mess, but have they considered preventing it?
Let's consider the government's take on homeland security. It is reported that "analysts generally talk about five missions areas: prevention, protection, mitigation, response, and recovery," where prevention is the main focus. However, when discussing natural disasters, prevention isn't really an option. It's impossible to prevent a natural disaster, but that does not mean that action cannot be taken to prevent the devastating effects of damage and the high costs we normally associate with these natural disasters. Instead of focusing on response and recovery, we can do more before the disaster hits. What was suggested back in 2016 was increasing FEMA's (Federal Emergency Management Association) "pre-disaster" mitigation budget from $25 million to $200 million. Even though we can't prevent natural disasters, we can put efforts toward mitigation, which would reduce the effects of natural disasters before they hit. According to the National Institute of Building Sciences, mitigation tactics can save six dollars for every one dollar spent. Now that sounds like a great idea, doesn't it?
However, what makes this discussion relevant is that President Trump's budget outline for 2018 "explicitly called out the FEMA Pre-Disaster Mitigation program on the list of programs that should be reduced or eliminated." Now, FEMA's pre-disaster program is the only source of federal funding that goes toward pre-disaster mitigation. This money goes to both cities and states to help diminish the effects of natural disasters. The money from these FEMA mitigation grants can go toward building codes that ensure buildings and structures can withstand the effects of earthquakes, hurricanes, and floods. It could go toward safe rooms that shield victims from weather and debris, or it could be used to elevate houses to protect them from flood damage. It has been reported that this program receives bipartisan support in Congress and is proven to be cost-effective, produce long-term savings, and lower loss of life and property.
So do you agree with Trump? Do you think that the FEMA pre-disaster mitigation program is a good place to cut funding? Potentially, people across the nation could save themselves from these dangers and the high costs of damage by making these mitigation efforts with their own time and money, but how much money is enough? It was reported that elevating a house in a flood plain can cost anywhere between $30,000 and $100,000. That is surely a cost I would not want to pay, and I could almost guarantee you that I would have the "it won't happen to me" mentality.
If we think back to my previous discussion on Hurricane Harvey, I discussed the costs of damages that these victims faced. Just two weeks after the initial landfall, FEMA provided victims with more than $35 million. Their next efforts went toward infrastructure, and eventually they brought in trailers and temporary housing. Clean up and damage costs totaled around $75 million. If we think about it, though, putting one dollar toward mitigation would have saved the nation six dollars. In terms of the $75 million in clean-up costs, we hypothetically could have spent $12.5 million to avoid those damage costs. That is a very low cost considering FEMA's annual budget is $13.9 billion.
You might be saying wow, why aren't we endorsing FEMA's Pre-Disaster Mitigation program? I am too. Although these mitigation tactics could be performed by individuals, cities, or states, the federal government has the money; it just comes down to allocation. Other areas of importance would have to face budget cuts, so that's something to consider. However, to save six dollars by spending one? That sounds like one heck of a deal. So what will it be, one dollar for mitigation or six dollars for response?
 |
| House damaged by Hurricane Harvey - CNN.com |
Let's consider the government's take on homeland security. It is reported that "analysts generally talk about five missions areas: prevention, protection, mitigation, response, and recovery," where prevention is the main focus. However, when discussing natural disasters, prevention isn't really an option. It's impossible to prevent a natural disaster, but that does not mean that action cannot be taken to prevent the devastating effects of damage and the high costs we normally associate with these natural disasters. Instead of focusing on response and recovery, we can do more before the disaster hits. What was suggested back in 2016 was increasing FEMA's (Federal Emergency Management Association) "pre-disaster" mitigation budget from $25 million to $200 million. Even though we can't prevent natural disasters, we can put efforts toward mitigation, which would reduce the effects of natural disasters before they hit. According to the National Institute of Building Sciences, mitigation tactics can save six dollars for every one dollar spent. Now that sounds like a great idea, doesn't it?
However, what makes this discussion relevant is that President Trump's budget outline for 2018 "explicitly called out the FEMA Pre-Disaster Mitigation program on the list of programs that should be reduced or eliminated." Now, FEMA's pre-disaster program is the only source of federal funding that goes toward pre-disaster mitigation. This money goes to both cities and states to help diminish the effects of natural disasters. The money from these FEMA mitigation grants can go toward building codes that ensure buildings and structures can withstand the effects of earthquakes, hurricanes, and floods. It could go toward safe rooms that shield victims from weather and debris, or it could be used to elevate houses to protect them from flood damage. It has been reported that this program receives bipartisan support in Congress and is proven to be cost-effective, produce long-term savings, and lower loss of life and property.
 |
| Elevated housing in flood zone - ctmirror.org |
So do you agree with Trump? Do you think that the FEMA pre-disaster mitigation program is a good place to cut funding? Potentially, people across the nation could save themselves from these dangers and the high costs of damage by making these mitigation efforts with their own time and money, but how much money is enough? It was reported that elevating a house in a flood plain can cost anywhere between $30,000 and $100,000. That is surely a cost I would not want to pay, and I could almost guarantee you that I would have the "it won't happen to me" mentality.
If we think back to my previous discussion on Hurricane Harvey, I discussed the costs of damages that these victims faced. Just two weeks after the initial landfall, FEMA provided victims with more than $35 million. Their next efforts went toward infrastructure, and eventually they brought in trailers and temporary housing. Clean up and damage costs totaled around $75 million. If we think about it, though, putting one dollar toward mitigation would have saved the nation six dollars. In terms of the $75 million in clean-up costs, we hypothetically could have spent $12.5 million to avoid those damage costs. That is a very low cost considering FEMA's annual budget is $13.9 billion.
 |
| Mitigation savings over the past 23 years - grist.org |
You might be saying wow, why aren't we endorsing FEMA's Pre-Disaster Mitigation program? I am too. Although these mitigation tactics could be performed by individuals, cities, or states, the federal government has the money; it just comes down to allocation. Other areas of importance would have to face budget cuts, so that's something to consider. However, to save six dollars by spending one? That sounds like one heck of a deal. So what will it be, one dollar for mitigation or six dollars for response?
You make a very good point about FEMA's mitigation program. While I have long known the adage "an ounce of prevention [or, in this case, mitigation] is worth a pound of cure", I hadn't realized that FEMA had such an effective mitigation program, nor that it was under threat. This post makes me hope that Congress and the President will eventually see the value in the program and save it.
ReplyDeleteFor all of the talk about people refusing to evacuate before major storms, there isn't a lot of talk about the consequences of people actually evacuating en masse. We saw this with Hurricane Rita, where gridlock on highways led to a higher death toll than if people had just stayed home. Giving people in susceptible areas adequate infrastructure to evacuate is one of the things that I would like to see FEMA's pre-disaster program focus on, and to do so, they absolutely need more resources than they have now.
ReplyDeleteThe power and money being vested in Congress is sadly the case for much of these situations and similar ones outside such natural disaster. I watched a film in which the Florida mayor talked about a prevention project taking place that includes raising roads and using pipes to combat the frequent flooding from rising sea levels. He mentioned that with the climate change denialism of their Senator they are unable to do much prevention and the funding come from within by raising taxes. It's upsetting that this is the case for so many areas.
ReplyDeletePre-disaster programs have great potential to save even more lives. I think FEMA is doing everything they can to help people affected by natural disasters. I think cutting the program would be vey irresponsible. After these storms and other natural disasters, people are left with practically nothing. Any little help makes all of the difference. I think we should put more money in pre-disaster programs so we can spend less money after the fact.
ReplyDeleteWe've always been the kind of country to think, "well if it hasn't happened it isn't a problem" ....except that whenever it does happen they don't do anything to make it better next time round. This can be seen in crime rate, school shoots, and especially here, in natural disaster mitigation. There were many, many ways to prevent all these damages from happening, but no one decided it was important enough to deal with until AFTER the hurricane. The "I told you so's" and "blame the government" people can run their mouths all the want but it's everyone's responsibility to prevent damages. More legislation should be passed and more infrastructure should be improved, and the best way to do that is to speak up to your local governments and get your representatives to work!
ReplyDeleteI have never thought about prevention when it comes to natural disasters, but I think that you definitely have a point that we should be focusing on a proactive approach rather than only waiting for the aftermath. Especially as global warming continues to change our weather patterns and we will likely see the incidence of disasters rise, I think designing infrastructure to withstand these disasters is an ingenious way to prepare and reduce damages! And your point about this being a financially advantageous move only further supports this.
ReplyDelete