FLOOD07109 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

$120 "00 rDoli.AR~M~(Ti;;~ .....""."')'''~o:<<''''."Ifii"'''^.''''..A $RIl '60 '40 $20 li15 19-71, 1979 19S11003.1SllS 19111 ljjll!lI991 1993 Annual Averaqc Lossc~ IItf 1 Million ~Olll~ from Natur~1 H~l~rds in th~ Unit~d ~tales. 1975-1994 (1994 Dollars) Disaster Losses Are Growing From 1975 to 1994, natural hazards killed over 74,000 people and injured some 100,000 in the United States and its territories. About one-quar- ter of the deaths and half the injuries resulted from events that society would label as disasters. The rest resultt'd from less dramatic but more fre- quent events such as lightning strikes, car crashes owing to fog, and localized landslides. . . . The United States has succeeded in saving lives and reducing injuries from some natural hazards such as hurricanes over the last two decades. However, casualties from floods-the nation's most trequent and injurious rlaturat hazard-have failed to decline sub<,tantially. And deaths trom lightning and torna- does have remained constant. Meanwhile ir,juries and deaths from dust storms, extreme cold, wild- tire, and tropical storms have grown. . . . The dollar losses associaltd witt, most types ot n<ltur- al hazards are rising. A conservative estimate of total dollar IO':.5es during the past two decades is $500 billion (in 1994 dollars). More than so pt'r- cent at thcse costs stemmed from climatological events, while around 10 percent resulted trom 4 draining of swamps in Florida elIld the bulldozing of steep hillsides [or homes in California. for example, han..' disrupted natural runoff pallcrns and mClgnified Hood ha7arrls. i\nd tIl;my mitigation efforts themselves degradc the environment ..md thus contribute to the next disaster. For example, lc\'ces built to provide flood prot('ct iOrl can destroy riparian habitat and heighten downstream floods. Another major problem has become clear O\'('r the past 20 years: some efforts to head off damages from natural hazards only postpone theJIl. f-or example, communities belo\\' darns or behind levees may avoid losses from floods those structures were designed to prevent. But such comlllunities often have more prop- erty to lose when those structurt's fail, hCC<lllSL' additional de\'elopment occurred thaL counted on protection. Such a situation contributed to ealClstrophic damage from the 1993 floods in the i\lississippi basin, And many of the nation's d<ims, bridges. and other structures <lre approaching the end of their designed life, n.'vealing how little thought their backers anJ builders gave to events 50 years hence. Similarly, hy prO\'iding i.llh'<lIlCC \\'arnings of se\'ere storms, this country may well have {'ncouragcd more people to build in fragile coastal areas, Such uevelopment. in tllrn, makes the areas more \.ulnefiJble hy destroying dllnes and other protective natural features. FOSTERING LOCAL SUSTAINABILITY Sustainahility means that a locality can tolerate-and O\'l-'rcomc-damage, diminished productivit)~ and redllccd tjuulity of life from ,111 extreme e\'(,lIt \\ithout significant outside ilssistallCC. Tu achii..'\'t' sustainabili- ty, communitics must take responsibility for choosing where and how de\.elnpment proceeds. To\\'ard that end. each locality' c\'alllatcs its elwironmental resources and ha/.ards, chooses future losses thaI it is willing to bear, and enS1Hes that dc\'c111pment and other community <lCtions and policies adhere to those goals. Si.\ objectives must simultaneously 1)(' reached to mitigate halards in a sustainable way and stop the nationaltrcmlto\\'ard increasing catastrophic lusses [rum natural disasters. . Ala;,llaill and ellluJUce el11,jrumuclltal qlwlity. Human <lctivities to mitigate ha/.ards should not reduce the carrying capacity of the l'l'llsy'stcm, for doing so inCH'ilSCS losses from hazards in the longer terlll. . AJail1tllill11lld eJllzallce people's qualit)' (~f life. A population's quality of life includes, i.lmong other fac- tors. access to income. eJucation, health care, housing. and employment, as well as protectioIl [rom disaster. To hf'colllC' slIsLainable, local communities IllUSt consciously define the quality of life they want and select only those mitigation strategies that do not detract [rom any aspect of that vision. . r'oster local resiliency aHd respoHsihility. Hesiliency to disasters means a locale Cel1l \vithstanJ an extreme nat1H(ll event wilh a tolerable Ic\-e1 of losses. It takes mitigation actions consistent with achieving that lew>l of protection. . Recogllize that rivrallt local economies are essential, Communities should take milig<.:ltion actions that fosler a strong local economy rather than detract from one.