Creating the disaster-resistant community
When Terry McManus came home the day after Hurricane Hugo slammed into his coastal South Carolina neighborhood back in 1989, he found his house still standing. It was the only intact home on the block.
“I used to have neighbors on either side of me and behind me,” McManus says. “When I got back, none of their homes were there.”
McManus had built his house in Mt. Pleasant, a few miles north of Charleston, 13 months before Hugo struck. The son of a building inspector and brother of a builder, he had set out to build safe and smart and borrowed a book published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), that contains guidelines for constructing buildings to withstand devastating winds and surging water.
McManus told his contractor to meet or exceed the standards outlined by FEMA for coastal construction. Instead of building with two-by six boards, he used two-by-eights and built on pilings six inches higher off the ground than recommended by local floodplain standards. He used extra bolts to secure the pilings and braced the roof for increased wind resistance. Thus, when Hugo threatened, McManus and his house were ready.
Once the winds and rain had passed, McManus and his neighbors returned to a place that was almost unrecognizable to them. Debris littered the streets; houses and mobile homes were in shambles. McManus’ house was one of only three in the entire 103-property subdivision that survived the hurricane.
To protect his property, McManus followed the principles of what emergency management experts call “hazard mitigation” — taking constructive actions to reduce damage and loss of life from floods, fires, earthquakes and other hazards. Besides protecting people and property from the ravages of nature, mitigation can also reduce the costs that local governments must pay in responding to catastrophic events.
In McManus’ case, for example, the mitigation measures he followed saved him thousands of dollars in rebuilding costs, as well as the misery and pain of losing his home and belongings. The measures also saved the local government the costs of cleanup, social services and other assistance.
Nationwide, the financial cost of disasters is exploding. Over the five years from 1986 to 1991, major disasters cost the federal government $3.3 billion in aid to individuals and local governments. Over the next five years, that figure quadrupled to more than $13 billion.
But federal disaster assistance is only a fraction of the total expense. The actual costs are billions of dollars higher when private insurance claims, along with the expenses absorbed by state and local governments, private non-profit organizations, businesses and individual victims are all factored into the equation.
Mitigation measures can greatly reduce these costs. Such measures pay off by reducing direct disaster costs as well as indirect costs, such as the disruption of daily routines, community services, commerce and industry.
In the aftermath of the massive Midwest floods of 1993, FEMA worked closely with the Clinton administration and former Congressman Harold Volkmer (D-Mo.) to pass an amendment to the Stafford Act, FEMA’s authorizing legislation, that increased the percentage of federal disaster funds available for post-disaster mitigation from 10 percent of infrastructure costs to 15 percent of all FEMA disaster costs. This significant increase provided an exceptional opportunity to make a difference in the future safety of the people of Missouri and other flood-prone areas in the Midwest.
In consultation with mayors, county and state officials, FEMA identified properties throughout the Midwest that were located in floodplains and initiated a property acquisition program that moved homes and businesses out of danger. Over 10,000 properties were purchased, and the land was returned to open space or converted to recreational uses.
The savings from these projects, expected to be realized over an extended period, were estimated to be in the millions of dollars in terms of reduced federal, state and local disaster relief. However, in some areas of the Midwest, savings were almost immediate, since severe flooding occurred again in 1995. In Grafton, Ill., for example, a total of 403 residents and businesses had applied for disaster aid after 1993 flooding. In 1995, floodwaters hit the same areas, but this time only 11 disaster applications were filed.
Mayor Gerald “Windy” Nairn says that during the 1995 flood, he felt like the Maytag repairman. “I didn’t have to worry about 100 families living in the floodplain,” he says. “There was nobody living in those houses. The phone wasn’t even ringing.”
Nairn’s experience was repeated in other affected communities in Missouri. “When the 1993 flood occurred, our first response was trying to protect people and their possessions, both from the river and from vandals,” says Allen Garner, city attorney for Jefferson City. “We spent hours and hours on overtime, sandbagging and patrolling. [But] in the 1995 flood, we had no overtime.”
In Arnold, 17 miles south of St. Louis, Administrator Eric Knoll estimates that permanently removing residents from flood-prone areas saved the city around $10,000 a day in sandbagging costs during the flood of 1995.
Mitigation programs are most effective when initiated and implemented at the local level. It is the responsibility of local leaders to protect the citizens of their communities, and implementing mitigation measures is critical to enhancing this protection.
When Beverly Anderson became mayor of Darlington, Wis., in 1984, she went to work to make sure that her town’s comprehensive plan included a strategy to save Main Street and other areas from flooding of the Pecatonica River — a decades-old problem. Even as Anderson’s plans took shape, the town suffered serious damage from the flooding of the river in 1990 and 1993. The wastewater treatment plant, the fire station, numerous businesses and other structures were deluged.
Because of a presidential disaster declaration, the town qualified for FEMA’s hazard mitigation grant program. Still, Anderson did not rely on those funds alone. Pulling together $10 million to $12 million in funding from a variety of public and private sources, Anderson and her team focused on mitigating flood risks in the downtown historic district.
“I put out an appeal that we needed a coordinated effort,” Anderson says, “and we formed an interagency task force to attack the flooding problem. We had built where the flood waters are, and we needed to rectify those wrongs as much as we could.”
As a result, Darlington successfully flood-proofed, elevated or relocated many of the businesses located on historic Main Street.
Still, even when federal mitigation funds are unavailable, local risks can be effectively reduced. For example, after Tropical Storm Alberto tore through Florida in 1994, Tallahassee proceeded with its own buy-out plan.
The city collected a stormwater fee from taxpayers to pay for collecting runoff water and building stormwater retention areas. After Alberto, Tallahassee used a portion of that tax to buy out and demolish homes located in floodplains. As a result, when Tropical Storm Josephine passed right through the buyout area in 1996, the city was spared significant clean-up and assistance costs.
But floods are not the only disasters whose impacts can be mitigated. In Los Angeles County, frequent wildfires in the late 1980s and early l990s were destroying homes and lives and costing millions of dollars. After a devastating 1993 fire in Malibu that killed three people and destroyed more than 350 homes, the county fire department worked with local officials to more strictly enforce landscaping and brush clearance ordinances, threatening prosecution for noncompliance. After 1993, the department also opened a Brush Clearance Office, began rotating its inspection schedule, sent out mass mailings and held town hall meetings to educate the public about reducing fire hazards.
When a firestorm tore through the area in fall 1996, “there was a tremendous reduction in property loss, no lives were lost, and the mood of the residents was much more calm,” says Captain Steve Valenzuela of the county fire department. “[Residents] were confident of the preparations they had taken ahead of the fire. This helped with evacuation, because not as many people stayed behind.”
Most frequently, communities and individuals are motivated to take action after a disaster has hit. But communities cannot afford to wait for “the next time” to begin mitigation. Pre-emptive actions need to be taken before individuals and communities suffer the loss and costs of a disaster.
San Leandro, located on the eastern shore of the San Francisco Bay, committed to reducing the impact of future disasters on its residents after witnessing the devastation, disruption and economic problems caused by earthquakes in other California communities. The city of 70,000 has undertaken an aggressive retrofitting program for public infrastructure, as well as for private businesses and residential structures. It has devoted $18 million of its own money to upgrade all city facilities, including the civic center, library and fire stations to better withstand earthquakes. In addition, San Leandro created a special assessment district to enable it to make loans to businesses as an incentive to retrofit their structures.
The mitigation efforts of San Leandro have been recognized by the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the National League of Cities and written up in newspapers like the Christian Science Monitor. In 1996, the city received FEMA’s Outstanding Public Service award for its mitigation work.
When the next earthquake strikes Northern California, San Leandro will in all likelihood need less state and federal support than other affected towns. On its own initiative, the city — from the mayor, city manager and council to businesses and residents — has taken a giant step forward as a mitigation model of responsibility.
Spreading the word
In the next four years, FEMA’s goal will be to promote community responsibility by establishing disaster-resistant communities in high-risk areas across the nation. To accomplish this goal, FEMA will focus on three major areas of activity:
-
establishing a Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund program, which will provide financial incentives for communities in high-risk areas to better protect vulnerable infrastructure and buildings before disaster strikes.
Congress allocated $2 million in FEMA’s FY97 budget to initiate this effort. To make the program viable, the funds available for pre-disaster mitigation projects need to be greatly increased, and FEMA needs to work with its state and local partners to ensure that worthy projects are identified and developed;
-
implementing a Public/Private Partnership for Emergency Management that will help foster the type of comprehensive planning needed to produce disaster-resistant communities. Even with a solid source of funding, there will never be enough public money in an environment of constricting budgets to make all communities disaster-resistant.
Thus, the business community and other private-sector interests will be critical as partners in emergency management efforts, and they must be invited to participate by all levels of government; and
-
overhauling FEMA’s public assistance programs. Two-thirds of the agency’s spending for disaster assistance goes to rebuilding public infrastructure, such as schools, roads and bridges, damaged or destroyed by disasters. In 1997, the agency will undertake a restructuring of its public assistance program to dramatically streamline procedures and reduce the time for community recovery.
In the next four years, the agency will lead a campaign to keep people and communities from becoming the victims of disasters. As part of this campaign, the agency will embark on a series of town hall meetings in disaster-prone communities around the country. These meetings will be designed to bring together partners, focus attention on mitigation and promote community responsibility.
City and county officials must lead the way at the local level in mitigating against the hazards that threaten their communities. Local governments will be the focal points for bringing the many elements of communities together to plan and prioritize hazard mitigation projects that will protect citizens, businesses and public infrastructure from disasters.
It is critical for city and county officials to identify and understand the hazards that threaten their communities and to identify those public and private organizations that must be involved in the community’s emergency management planning.
The fundamental lesson learned by Terry McManus of South Carolina as well as city and county officials in San Leandro, Darlington, Jefferson City and Los Angeles County is that mitigation works. Together, FEMA and local governments can help make mitigation a priority and promote safer, more economically sound communities for the citizens they serve across the country.
James Lee Witt is director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C. Prior to his appointment as FEMA director in 1993, Witt served in his home state of Arkansas as director of the state’s Office of Emergency Services, and as a county judge in Yell County for 10 years.
Disaster planning pays off during ’96 Olympics
Approximately eight months prior to the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta, Red Cross Olympic Operations Director Bill Chenault began developing and strengthening collaborative relationships between the organization and other local and state emergency agencies. There were hours and hours of brainstorming — “nightmare planning,” as Chenault called it — with city, county and state representatives about ways in which all parties could work together to handle any potential disasters.
The Red Cross was the primary emergency agency represented within the Emergency Operations Center, which monitored potential and actual emergencies at Olympic host communities throughout the state.
The extensive pre-planning was put to the test on July 27, when a pipe bomb exploded in Centennial Olympic Park, killing one person and injuring more than 100.
During response to the blast, a Red Cross Mass Care feeding station was provided for law enforcement officials, while the organization’s Disaster Health Services worked to compile a list of the injured.
In addition, an emergency information and referral phone bank established for Olympic visitors was instantly converted into a disaster welfare and inquiry center, where volunteers answered thousands of national and international phone calls from concerned loved ones. All area law enforcement and emergency agencies were advised of the center, and they consequently referred calls to the center’s hotline.
Being able to respond to any large-scale disaster, especially within the Olympic Ring of Atlanta, while continuing to provide regular Red Cross disaster services to the community, was a major goal for the organization from the start of planning.
Through the Atlanta-Fulton County Emergency Operations Center, police escorts were arranged for Red Cross disaster and blood supply vehicles to ensure they would not be hampered by heavy traffic in the Olympic Ring.
As a result, during the Games, no hospital went without the blood it needed. Local residents requiring assistance in emergencies unrelated to the Games were also well served. For example, 120 people suffered fires in their homes or apartments during the 17 days of the Games, and they all received immediate help from the Red Cross and local agencies.
Planning and coordination with various agencies were also keys in identifying 21 shelter sites around metro Atlanta capable of housing 7,500 people in case of disasters or other emergencies. Additional cots, blankets, comfort kits and towels were available at Red Cross service centers so that each could function independently if necessary.
The Games were a tremendous learning experience for the Red Cross, according to Chenault.
“We’ve learned, number one, that planning is a must,” he says.
“We’ve cemented good collaborative relationships with other emergency agencies and brought to focus some things that would have never happened without the Olympics.”
City keeps floodwaters at bay
The village of Lincolnshire, located around 50 miles northwest of Chicago, has traditionally faced flooding by the Des Plaines River in the spring and fall. Thus, like many residents of the communities along the river, the village’s citizens have filled more than their share of sandbags. This critical task can now be completed much more rapidly and efficiently due to the village’s purchase of a dedicated machine for producing sandbags.
With just four workers, the machine, manufactured by The Sandbagger Corp., Wauconda, Ill., is capable of achieving production rates of up to 1,600 bags per hour. It is offered in a motorized auger or standard gravity feed model, and can be fork-lifted and transported on an eight-foot truck bed.
The most recent test for Lincolnshire came in May 1996, when unusually heavy rains quickly raised the river to flood stage.
As the floodwaters began to trickle over a permanent, half-mile levee protecting the village, officials took immediate steps to counter the situation. Fortunately, the village had reassessed its flood mitigation plans the previous fall and had added the purchase of a sandbagging machine to its annual budget.
During the flood, rotating crews of seven public works employees and volunteers filled 10,000 sandbags in approximately 12 hours. It took more than 200 people to fill the same number of sandbags in a similar period of time during a flood in 1986, according to Director of Public Works Frank Tripicchio.
Two front-end loaders were used to dump sand into the machine’s top-loading hopper and to carry sandbags to the dozen or so areas along the levee that needed shoring up.
Tripicchio calls the village’s response a complete success, as breaches in the levee were well fortified, and virtually no flooding and property damage occurred.
In addition, he says, officials ended up learning a great deal about the effective use of sandbags, as well as the level of protection from flooding that the village can reasonably expect to provide.