Reducing Damage and Losses from Hurricanes

Stop Building Where Hurricanes Hit the Hardest . [Note: after the article was published Fugate said: “Most of the article was right, but the Headline was wrong. I never said not to build, but change how we build and removed government subsidies for new construction in coastal high risk areas.”]

Fugate acknowledged his stance can rile a crowd. People do not want to hear they are taking on incredible risk by returning home and rebuilding. Legislators will do everything they can to avoid overhauling codes and raising standards that could result in higher building costs for many.

And the federal government remains the 800-pound gorilla in the room. People live with the comfort that the U.S. government — and, thereby, American taxpayers — will sweep in and help rebuild after a devastating natural disaster, Fugate said.

“I’m not saying people shouldn’t live and develop in coastal communities, but I bet you we’d see a very different type of construction, very different standards being applied, if state and local governments didn’t have you, the taxpayer, bailing them out every time there was a disaster,” Fugate said. “They really have no incentive to change their behavior because you, as a taxpayer, are an enabler.”

Possible Effects of EPA Budget Cuts

From the Conversation website: In planned EPA cuts, US to lose vital connection to at-risk communities.

The Trump budget calls for slashing the EPA budget by an estimated 31 percent. Staff would be reduced by 25 percent and 50 programs could see cuts, such as ones designed to lower the health risks from lead paint.

In all likelihood, the first communities to feel effects of a dismantled EPA are those who consistently pay the biggest price when policy strays from being focused on people. It will be the indigenous people, the populations who live in poverty and at-risk communities – often populated by people of color – who typically feel the sharp cuts and public health effects first and fully.