In the U.S., there have been two defining events of the 21st century: 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina, both of which have exposed breathtaking incompetence on the part of the government, as well as the disturbing vulnerability of the world's sole superpower.
It didn't take long for comparisons to emerge between Hurricane Katrina and the fire storm in southern California. Mostly it had to do with the scale of social displacement in California - over 500,000 people were forced to evacuate their homes and communities. As numerous commentators have commented, this was the largest evacuation in California's history, and the largest in the country since Hurricane Katrina. Point taken. However, there are a number of important differences.
Insurance estimates for the fire damage to date hover around $2 billion. This would be about 1/20th of the insurance cost of Hurricane Katrina.
Fire and water are different. Amongst natural disasters, flooding is far and away the largest cause of death and property damage. Water tends to overstay its visit, turning stagnant, redistributing sewage and toxins, and generally creating an unholy nuisance. Drowning, disease, and property damage are the legacy of floods. Fire, by contrast, is dangerous and destructive, but relatively quick. All creatures know to get out of the way of fire - immediately. Water is deceptive. It's usually not apparent that there is a problem until there is a problem and then it's a little late.
Southern California is not the Gulf Coast. There is a wealth of difference, as well as a difference of wealth. For SoCal natives, the burning of coastal communities like Malibu and San Diego is familiar because it happens repeatedly and because these are not generally poor areas. Far from it. Everyone deserves sympathy for unexpected loss (even rich people), but we all know, or at least suspect, that many of these people have better than average material reserves to recover from such a loss (excluding life of course), as well as good auto and home insurance. Add to that the unparalleled efficiency of the response of first responders and emergency personnel. The President was quick to praise the handling of the fire storm and to attribute credit to lessons from Hurricane Katrina. However, the competency of the California response had less to do with federal improvement than with ample (and repeated) experience by state and local officials (see "A Firestorm, A Deluge, and A Sharp Political Dig," NYT 10/25/2007).
An oft repeated complaint in California and elsewhere is that people should not be allowed to build in areas that are repeatedly exposed to natural hazards like fire or flood. I heard this again on NPR as callers called in to comment. In particular, I recall a caller calling from the North Shore of Massachusetts who passionately derided rampant development speculation and overbuilding in California for the root cause of the problem, which in turn, he argued, simply imposed economic burdens on the rest of society. Unlike other forms of insurance, however, fire insurance is actually well calibrated with risk because it is one of the oldest forms of insurance and fire is a known quantity, especially in California (see "Fires' Cost to Insurers Is in Range of $1 Billion" NYT 10/25/2007). The certainty of fire insurance is in stark contrast to flood insurance. People in California with fire insurance (as well as private insurers) actually shoulder more of their fair share of the economic risk than, say, coastal residents of Massachusetts who are exposed to the risk of flooding. On Cape Cod, 44% of residents have to be covered by a government-run program because no private insurer with a sense of economic sanity would insure them (see "Hurricane Fears Cost Homeowners Coverage" NYT 10/16/2007). When the next major flood event happens in Massachusetts (and it will), it is likely that the government will be picking up most of the tab. On that score, if anyone should move, it should be coastal residents in Massachusetts and other areas along the eastern seaboard.
The irony of the Southern California fire storm of 2007, however, is that it will likely be followed by flash floods and mudslides when the rains come (see InciWeb for further explanation). Let's hope their flood insurance is adequate.
No comments:
Post a Comment