EPA Looks to Mitigate Chemical Plant Disasters.
A new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation aims to minimize the harm to local communities from disasters at chemical plants.
The regulation overhauls major sections of the EPA’s Risk Management Program for such plants, with new requirements that companies coordinate with local officials and first responders, and learn from past mistakes.
See this article: A disaster that does not happen saves lives and money
From Fortune magazine, see this article titled Top Ten FEMA-Funded Disasters
This is not an easy article to follow, but what jumped out at me from viewing the chart in the middle of the article was how much federal funding has gone to the state of LA.
Clearly, some major efforts to mitigate the hazards and threats in that state are needed, not only to to reduce human suffering and property loss, but to reduce the huge federal outlay.
News Release from the University of Colorado Denver:
Today we launched a new guide and website on hazard mitigation planning “Planning for Hazards: Land Use Solutions for Colorado.” The guide and site were funded by the CDBG-DR program and developed by the Colorado Department of Local Affairs, Clarion Associates, and a team of subject matter experts and land-use planners concerned with disaster risk reduction and community resilience. The University of Colorado Denver was part of the advisory team and will be maintaining the site and guide moving forward.
I think these are great resources – besides a general overview of hazard mitigation planning and the hazards that most impact the Mountain West, they include profiles of various land-use tools to reduce losses and avoid hazards, sample code language for many of those tools, interviews with communities of different sizes and capacities, and more. Though the guide and site are focused on Colorado, the content and tools are much more broadly relevant.
Excerpts from the article:
The Obama administration has issued new guidelines that could make it harder for governors who deny climate change to obtain federal disaster-preparedness funds.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency’s new rules could put some Republican governors in a bind. The rules say that states’ risk assessments must include “consideration of changing environmental or climate conditions that may affect and influence the long-term vulnerability from hazards in the state.”
The policy, which goes into effect in March 2016, doesn’t affect federal money for relief after a hurricane, flood, or other natural disaster. But states seeking disaster preparedness money from Washington will be required to assess how climate change threatens their communities, a requirement that wasn’t included in FEMA’s 2008 guidelines.
Include Climate Change in Disaster Planning, FEMA Says.
Federal funds that help communities brace for emergencies will stop being provided to states if they ignore threats posed by climate change in their disaster planning.
Newly issued guidance on mitigation from FEMA.
Coalition Calls for Natural Disaster Mitigation Strategy
With tropical storm season underway, the Build Strong Coalition, a group of national business and consumer organizations, corporations and emergency management officials dedicated to stronger building codes, in order to protect homes and buildings from the devastation of natural disasters, renewed its call for Congress and the White House to move quickly on a series of bills that would fortify the nation against hurricanes and other natural disasters.
This article from titled Mitigation can save lives and reduce the cost of natural disasters was written by a Republican Congressman from PA, which is what makes it interesting to me. Some excerpts:
As the chairman of the Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management subcommittee of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I am working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to explore ways Congress can help encourage mitigation practices that will save lives and taxpayer money from disasters.
Here in Congress, several members have offered approaches to facilitate mitigation and encourage the building of stronger and more disaster-resistant communities. These proposals include incentives for state and local governments to improve their building codes, which can reduce building damage and protect people from harm during a catastrophe. Other bills provide tax incentives to individual homebuilders or homeowners if they choose strong building materials and construction methods.
Another proposal would allow individuals to set aside up to $5,000 annually in tax-free accounts for disaster mitigation expenses.
While all of these measures need to be evaluated closely and evaluated for their impacts on taxpayers, they do share a common characteristic: they are incentives and not mandates.
________________________________________________________________
NOTE: Just this morning I had an exchange of emails with several of the key members of the Natural Iazards Mitigation Association. In this case the topic was safe rooms and who should pay for them.
Your comments are invited, as always.
From HSWire.com, Protecting Cities From Floods Cheaper Than Postflood Damage Repairs. Some excerpts from the article:
Researchers say that global warming is here to stay, and thus it is time to start making plans for dealing with the inevitable flooding which will occur as ocean levels rise as a result of warmer water and melting snow and ice. Approximately a billion people currently live in areas which are most at risk — low-lying coastal areas. It is not likely that towns and cities will be moved farther inland, so other measures need to be taken. The researchers say that flood prevention strategies are well established, for example, building levees, barrier islands, etc., so it is not difficult to draw up estimates for such schemes for individual areas.
Planning carries a lower cost than reacting. * * * Researches have concluded that it would be more cost effective for the economies of most coastal areas to employ flood prevention strategies rather than pay to clean up after flooding that occurs as a result of global warming. In a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the researchers discuss likely flooding scenarios in the future as global warming cause ocean levels to rise, and the costs of building structures to prevent flood damage.
A PNAS release quotes the researchers to say that global warming is here to stay, and thus it is time to start making plans for dealing with the inevitable flooding which will occur as ocean levels rise as a result of warmer water and melting snow and ice. They note that approximately a billion people currently live in areas that are likely to be at risk — low-lying coastal areas. Since it is not likely that towns and cities will be moved farther inland, other measures need to be taken. The researchers say that flood prevention strategies are well established, for example, building levees, barrier islands, etc., so it is not difficult to draw up estimates for such schemes for individual areas. What is difficult is convincing cities and towns to spend billions of dollars on preventing floods which will not occur for many years.
The full text of the article cited in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences can be found here. Adapting to sea level rise cheaper than potential flooding costs.
Recovery Diva 