From the Pew Trusts, this report (11 pages) on disaster mitigation. Natural Disaster Mitigation Spending Not Comprehensively Tracked. Most federal funding to help states manage cost growth is available only after an incident. Here is the concluding paragraph:
Because the federal government and state do not know how much they spend on mitigation in total, they lack the information to accurate compare proactive investments with post-disaster response and recovery Expenditures. All levels of government need a more comprehensive understanding of federal and state investment in order to better target funding to help manage the growing costs of catastrophic events.
FEMA used to have a program called Project Impact, which made money available for mitigation prior to a disaster. But the G..W. Bush administration killed the program. It is truly painful to see lessons forgotten or ignored.
Update: for those not familiar with Project Impact, which was notable and effective during its short life, I suggest you use Google Scholar with the search term “FEMA and Project Impact.” There you will find several studies and articles. See especially the study done by the Univ. of Delaware.
From Ed Thomas, President of the Natural Hazards Mitigation Association:
A link to some materiel the NMHA has developed to assist all involved in navigating the well-intentioned, costly, yet truly Byzantine way we do disaster recovery in our Nation.Build Back Safer and Smarter (5 pp.).
From Governing, this article about a recent IBHS study: As Storms Worsen, Many Coastal States Aren’t Prepared. Lax building codes and poor enforcement are a big problem in some places. An excerpt:
Eight out of the 18 hurricane-prone coastal states along the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Coast are highly vulnerable, according to a new report from the Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS). The report, Rating the States: 2018, is the institute’s third in six years. It evaluates the states on 47 factors that include whether residential building codes are mandated statewide, whether states and localities enforce those codes, and whether licensing and education are required of building officials, contractors and subcontractors.
Overall, the institute found “a concerning lack of progress” in the adoption and enforcement of updated residential building code systems across most of the states examined. “There’s not been much movement from [the first report] in 2012 to today,” says Julie Rochman, who stepped down as CEO and president of IBHS in April. “There’s some inertia.”
New article from Scientific American: Communities are spending money on disasters at the wrong time: after the damage has been done, not before.
That is the central theme Zurich Insurance Group takes in a recently released report that draws conclusions about natural disaster mitigation by analyzing a series of 12 events—floods, storms and hurricanes—since the summer of 2013.
In its study, the global insurer found that every $1 spent on “disaster resilience” saves $5 in limiting future costs, including post-storm cleanup efforts.
In recent years, various reports have cited savings of $4,.$5, and $6 dollars in costs but whatever the number the message is mitigation pays.
The Diva was watching Nightly Business News on May 30th and was especially interested in a feature they did about potential flooding in Boston harbor and its effects on current and planned real estate development in that area. [Personal note: the Diva is from the Boston area and her dad owned a store in the harbor area.]
I was told by a Boston-based friend that recently there has been extensive news coverage regarding a proposed flood barrier costing over $12 billion dollars, which will not be fully completed until 2050. That is a long time to wait, and one can only wonder if a barrier will in fact solve the Boston Harbor inundation problem due to sea level rise.
I was told that Boston’s 2015 Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan did not include the proposed flood barrier, but preferred natural shoreline solutions which are much less expensive to implement on a quicker timeline.
For those interested in the Boston mitigation situation, which is probably a bellweather for other major eastern coastal cities, here are several news articles:
Comprehensive strategy required to tackle Houston flooding problems.
Major report on flood mitigation needed in Houston. The direct URL for the report described is at the end of the article.
Update: see the comment added to this posting for additional resources.
Here is the direct link to the new study by the National Institute for Building Science re Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves.
Important study on the costs and benefits of mitigation. An update on an earlier study, with even more encouraging results.
Update on June 8. See the IBHS site called Mitigation Matters. It too explains the 6 to 1 cost benefit ratio.
New report re research done at TX A&M: Handling disasters differently critical for coastal cities.
This is a significant report, based on 5 years of research.
A key finding of the new study is: Mitigation Saves: Federal Mitigation Grants Save $6 per $1 Spent, Exceeding Building Codes Saves $4 per $1 Spent. The title of the study is: Investing in Mitigation to Build a More Resilient Nation.
Here is an article from Bloomberg on the report: Disaster Mitigation Programs Targeted by Trump Seen Saving Money.