blog blog baby!

As a country we've been thinking a lot more about disaster preparation since Hurricane Katrina.  The U.S. government is now making plans to deal with an outbreak of avian flu - six months ago it would be unlikely that you would be able to get the attention of anyone on Capitol Hill regarding this matter, as remote of a possibility as it may be.  There is even concern now that we have not complied with a post-September 11th piece of legislation mandating the distribution of iodine pills to anyone living within 20 miles of a nuclear power plant by 2003.

Democracies have a tendency to be moved only by a crisis.  Now that we've had a recent crisis, there is a narrow window of opportunity to discuss contingency plans in case of a natural or terrorist disaster.  This is good.  We are in the mode now where the time is right to discuss what can be done during and after a disaster.

But what about rebuilding?

Hurricane Katrina has literally reshaped the coastline of the Gulf Coast.  There are some pieces of land that simply no longer exist, and the option to rebuild on them doesn't exist.  What about New Orleans - it was a poor idea in the first place to allow urban and suburban sprawl in swamplands and deltalands that are primarily below sea level in a hurricane-prone area.  Now that tens of thousands of homes have been leveled, should they be rebuilt in the same place, only to be possibly destroyed again?

Physical resources are obviously important, and we can scarely afford to allow resources to be used to build up areas that will certainly be destroyed.  FEMA policies certainly encourage people to rebuild in areas that are in designated flood zones and are sure to be destroyed again.  On the other hand, there are people who have lived in their houses for decades and are now being told that they have to leave the only place they've ever known.  Neither seems very fair.

Sometimes geography plays a strong role in where people want to settle - ocean views, mountain views, sheer cliffs and forest vistas usually come with the likelyhood of tsunamis, floods, hurricanes, volcanoes, earthquakes, fires, and other calamaties.  Then there are the economic considerations - the presence of ports, oil, timber, ores and other resources force difficult choices.  San Francisco has a perfect deepwater port - should we not utilize it due to the earthquake danger?  ShouldNew Orleans, a wonderful port, fishing and oil production area, be abandoned?  What about the history?

It really comes down to the desire of the people who live in any given place.  There are always people who have such a sense of location loyalty that they would live in a place even with a certainty that they would die there due to their choice. It is important to provide a way for those who will not leave to live safely in a place, but there is also a need to use resources wisely. 

There is no easy answer.  We have to make sure we deal with the die-hard loyalists of New Orleans in a sensitive manner, while not wasting public resources to cater to the whims of a few people with unrealistic expectations.  Most of all, we should remember that we are dealing with lives, and not just statistics.

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this