A Tale of Two Opinions (And Three Graphs)

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair…"

OK, while the quote applies to natural disasters, I'm no Charles Dickens. I'll move on.  That said, the response to the following question has placed people clearly on two different sides of the issue of rebuilding after a natural disaster:

Here's the question by an author of a Washington Post article writing about the recent (May 2018) "repeat" flood in Ellicott City:

"Would you believe the same scene unfolded two years ago and two people died in that flood? And shopkeepers were still celebrating their one-year reopenings this month when the 1,000-year flood came again Sunday, 998 years early.  Same thing happened in 1868, but 43 people died. And it happened in 1901, 1917, 1938, 1942, 1972, 1975 and 2011.  And what happens every time? They rebuild.  Why?"

There's the question--my question!  Here are the two sides.

On one hand hand there are those who say:

"In the era of climate change, the “business-as-usual” approach for addressing flooding is no longer an option. Current federal policies create an unsustainable “flood, rebuild, repeat” situation for managing the nation’s flood risks. Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, while extreme events, laid bare the holes in our nation’s ability to prepare for and adapt to a growing number of large-scale natural disasters. We are now seeing more severe storm events, rising sea levels, and more people moving to vulnerable coastal areas. The impacts and associated damage costs from floods will only continue to increase without reform. The Trump administration and Congress must pursue policies that make America safer and more resilient to flooding."

But that rarely happens.  We don't relocate. We rarely rebuild in a "different" (better) way.  Instead, on the other hand, some (as in this article) jump in to celebrate the resiliency of the community and its rebuilding efforts, saying:

"Some areas looked much like war zones during the flooding, with military convoys rumbling through the streets and helicopters whirring overhead. With around 19,000 soldiers present, this was the German army's largest ever humanitarian deployment within its own borders. The floods (of 2013 in Germany) left more than €12 billion ($15.6 billion) in damages in their wake... But the floods have left behind less tangible things as well -- the impressive work of those who came to help, the solidarity of those affected and their strength in not giving in to despair."

Regardless of the approach to post-disaster recovery that turns out to be correct, addressing these issues is becoming increasingly more important as the events that trigger the response likewise increase in frequency.

NOAA's web page includes a number of fascinating figures that depict this very fact.  NOAA plots the relative frequency and CPI-adjusted cost of natural disasters in the US since 1980, and the data are stunning.  Here are the three graphs I promised:

First, the combined frequency and cost of events over the years. 

NOAA then provides an interactive look at the largest disasters, highlighting in color the ones with the most significant impact.  Their recent occurrence tells the same story.

Finally, a graph depicting the CPI-adjusted cost of events over time, again with the same recent (and largest) events highlighted.

I've talked in these pages about the reasons for changing frequency of such events (e.g., climate change), but I also wonder if the dramatic increases in cost might be attributable, in part, to the increased density (and vulnerability?) of our built environment.

 
No matter the reasons, reducing physical vulnerability is, in my opinion, the single most important aspect of building our community resiliency in the face of overwhelming damage and destruction.  In other words, if we can find ways of creating physical communities that are less prone (either by location and/or design) to damage from these events, the increased frequency of the events becomes less important. And we can, as societies, turn our resilience efforts to restoring functionality and community spirit, rather than working and paying to rebuild homes and businesses.