By establishing a new Center for Hazards and Risk Research, Columbia University's Earth Institute hopes to revolutionize the ways in which hazards are defined and analyzed and to help communities around the world protect themselves against these perils.
Drawing on the long history of earth science research at Columbia's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, the new center will unite basic earth scientists with sociologists, economists, and representatives of other disciplines to produce integrated and effective assessments of hazards risks. The center will concentrate on natural processes such as earthquakes, floods, landslides, and extreme weather, and on environmental hazards, such as air and water pollution and climate change.
Recognizing that "massive investments in scientific research, regulatory mechanisms, and financial risk management tools, have failed up until now to substantially reduce losses," the center intends to expand the range of approaches to hazards mitigation by also addressing such issues as communication and knowledge dissemination, public awareness, economics and wealth distribution, policy formation and political issues, development, land-use planning, and community resilience.
Indeed, one of the first projects on the Center's agenda will be the design of a "Multi-Hazard Vulnerability Index"--a composite measure of disaster risk. This index, researchers believe, will be a useful tool in focusing necessary attention on slowly developing hazards, such as the massive earthquake scientists now predict will topple Istanbul within thirty years.
A "virtual center," the Center for Hazards and Risk Research will combine the talents of several Columbia schools, institutes, and centers, such as Columbia's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, School of Engineering, School of International and Public Affairs, Center for Science Policy Outcomes, Center for Decision Sciences, and Center for International Earth Science Information Networks. Whenever possible the center will also collaborate with other academic, government, and international institutions and agencies.
More information about Columbia's new Center for Hazards and Risk Research can be found at www.ldeo.columbia.edu/CHRR/. Interested persons can also contact the Center for Hazards and Risk Research, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, 230 Seismology, Route 9W, Palisades, NY 10964; (845) 365-8909; fax: (845) 365-8150; Art Lerner-Lam, Interim Director, e-mail: lerner@ldeo.columbia.edu; Kathleen Boyer, Program Coordinator, e-mail: kb42@columbia.edu.
EarthScope is an integrated, multiorganizational program to apply modern observational, analytical, and telecommunications technologies to investigate the structure and evolution of the North American continent and the physical processes controlling earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. EarthScope will provide a foundation for fundamental and applied research that will contribute to the mitigation of risk from geological hazards, development of natural resources, and understanding of earth dynamics. The program will address such fundamental questions as "Why do earthquakes and volcanic eruptions occur?" "How do continents form and evolve?"
EarthScope will combine several sophisticated geophysical monitoring and measurement systems with data and observations from other disciplines. The project is a partnership involving more than 100 universities, the National Science Foundation, U.S. Geological Survey, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Department of Energy, regional seismic networks, and state geological surveys.
Detailed information about EarthScope is available on the World Wide Web from www.earthscope.org. In particular, program brochures can be downloaded from www.earthscope.org/EarthScope1.pdf, and www.earthscope.org/EarthScope2.pdf.
In the last issue of the Observer (Vol. XXV, No. 6, p. 8), we mentioned that President Bush had created a new Office of National Preparedness in the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Recently, FEMA Director Joe Allbaugh announced additional realignments within the agency. Director Allbaugh believes the new agency structure will ''flatten the organization where possible; reduce the number of organizations reporting directly to the Office of the Director; and consolidate like functions.'' In addition, Allbaugh changed the title of agency directorate heads from Associate Director or Executive Associate Director to Assistant Director. However, the Administrators of the Federal Insurance Administration and the United States Fire Administration will retain their titles as prescribed by law.
The new offices in FEMA include:
The Information Technology Services Directorate re-mains basically unchanged, as do the offices of the Inspector General and Equal Rights. The agency reorganization was fully implemented in August.
For further information about the reorganization, contact the FEMA Office of Public Affairs, 500 C Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20472; (202) 646-4600; WWW: www.fema.gov/about/femaorg.htm.
The federal officials involved in the prescribed fire in Bandelier National Monument that exploded and destroyed 235 buildings in the Los Alamos, New Mexico, area used ''questionable judgement'' despite following National Park Service policy, according to the Cerro Grande Prescribed Fire Board of Inquiry, which investigated the fire. The board also concluded that National Park Service policy at the time of the fire ''had weaknesses that helped contribute to the chain of events that caused the Cerro Grande Fire to escape'' the control area. In addition, the board concluded there was insufficient coordination among federal agencies to handle the fire.
The Board of Inquiry Final Report (2001, 52 pp., free), which contains the findings of the independent review panel evaluating the federal role in the Cerro Grande fire, was released in early June. The board was commissioned to investigate the facts and contributing factors to the event, consider legal and policy issues that apply to the incident and determine compliance with those policies, critique the actions of individuals involved in the prescribed fire, and recommend corrective actions. The report contains a chronology of events surrounding the fire, a detailed explanation of findings and recommendations, and a summary of the actions taken by individuals involved in managing the controlled burn.
The board concluded that the techniques used by Park Service employees to evaluate the fire risk were appropriate, although the factors used to calculate the risk (taken from incorrect information posted on a Park Service web site) were incorrect, resulting in an erroneous assessment of the level of fire risk in the area. The board also concluded that the importance of obtaining replacement firefighting crews to deal with the fire in its early stages was not recognized in a timely manner. Confusion over obtaining resources to fight the fire resulted in serious delays that allowed the fire to worsen, and the decision to expand the area to ignite for the controlled burn allowed the fire to run into an adjoining area containing much fuel. Also, extreme winds that were not anticipated nor predicted spread the fire too quickly for crews to respond.
The board determined that all federal land management agencies need to develop protocols and guidelines for dealing with complex prescribed burns. Their report is available on-line at www.nps.gov/fire/fireinfo/cerrogrande/reports.htm.
Recently, Congress asked the General Accounting Office (GAO) to evaluate the implementation of the National Fire Plan, the philosophical and policy foundation for federal interagency fire management activities. In his testimony before the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health in the House of Representatives, Barry T. Hill, Director of GAO's Office of Natural Resources and Environment, stated that implementing the policy's guiding principles and recommendations presents unusual, if not unique, challenges to traditional organizational structures. The multiple agencies that must cope with the wildfire threat under this plan (the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the U.S. Forest Service need an effective strategy that uses a full range of fire management strategoes. Thus, the policy requires federal fire managers to forge new working relationships with other disciplines and agencies, including those responsible for wildlife, fisheries, vegetation, and watershed management.
GAO's preliminary data indicate that:
Hill's testimony is contained in The National Fire Plan: Federal Agencies are not Effectively Organized to Effectively and Efficiently Implement the Plan (Report No. GAO-01-1022T, 2001, 15 pp., free). It can be obtained from the U.S. General Accounting Office, P.O. Box 37050, Washington, DC 20013; (202) 512-6000; fax: (202) 512-6061; e-mail: info@www.gao.gov; WWW: www.gao.gov.
On July 24, 2001, President Bush signed into law a supplemental appropriations bill (Public Law 107-20) that provides funding for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, for activities ranging from payment to the Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust Fund to human space flight. Although numerous budget rescissions (reductions in current funding) were also included in the legislation, several disaster relief activities were funded.
Among the appropriations are:
Regarding failed attempts by members of Congress to include additional funding for FEMA for disaster relief, President Bush stated, ''I applaud the Congress for passing this bill without resorting to the abusive use of the emergency designation. We have seen 'emergencies' become a recurring part of the budget process, and become magnets for special-interest, non-essential spending. I will continue to work with the Congress and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to see that FEMA meets its obligations to perform its extremely important role of disaster relief in a thorough and timely manner.''
The complete text of the legislation, as well as background information and related amendments, can be found at any federal government repository library or on the Library of Congress web site: thomas.loc.gov.
The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is not actuarially sound because it does not collect enough in premium payments to build reserves that will adequately cover long-term future expected flood losses, according to the GAO. However, the program was deliberately designed this way because Congress authorized subsidized insurance rates to be made available for certain structures in an effort to encourage communities to join the program.
In his testimony before the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, Stanley J. Czerwinski, Director of the GAO's Physical Infrastructure Issues office, provides information on the financial aspects of operating the NFIP since 1993, the soundness of the program, and the impact of repetitive flood losses on the program. His testimony is available in the GAO report Flood Insurance: Information on the Financial Condition of the National Flood Insurance Program (Report No. GAO-01-992T, 2001, 13 pp., free).
Czerwinski notes that, while the magnitude of flood damage varies considerably from year to year, the program has operated without financial loss for the past two fiscal years. During the prior eight fiscal years, however, losses exceeded premiums collected, and during the first six years of that period, the NFIP experienced cumulative losses of about $1.56 billion for the program, forcing FEMA to borrow from the U.S. Treasury. Yet, during fiscal years 1999 and 2000, the NFIP gathered enough revenues to repay the loan and establish a reserve of $720 million.
As of the year 2000, the NFIP subsidized about 30% of its policies. Since no catastrophic losses (over $5.5 billion in flood damage in one year) have occurred since 1978, collecting premiums based on an average historical loss year does not enable the program to build enough reserves to cover a flood catastrophe.
About 38% of all claims paid by the NFIP cover properties that have experienced repetitive flood damage. These properties, which have had two or more losses greater than $1,000 within 10 years, receive about $200 million in claims payments annually. To address this problem, FEMA is
The agency will use Flood Mitigation Assistance funds and Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funds in conjunction with NFIP funds to acquire repetitive loss properties, relocate residents, and initiate other mitigation actions.
Copies of Czerwinski's testimony are free and can be obtained from the U.S. General Accounting Office, P.O. Box 37050, Washington, DC 20013; (202) 512-6000; fax: (202) 512-6061; e-mail: info@www.gao.gov; WWW: www.gao.gov.
Robert F. Shea, Jr., Acting Administrator of FEMA's Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, also testified before the subcommittee on the problem of repetitive loss properties. His prepared testimony can be found on-line at www.fema.gov/nwz01/nwz01_68.htm.
Annual flood losses in the United States have continued to increase despite 75 years of federal flood control efforts and the 30-year-old National Flood Insurance Program. According to the Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM), this trend is unnecessary and has continued primarily because of federal policies that have encouraged at-risk development, insufficiently considered the impacts of development on other properties as well as future flood and erosion risks, justified flood control projects using a benefit-to-cost ratio policy that encourages increased land use within a floodplain, and engendered an unhealthy reliance on federal funding for flood control projects by state and local governments.
Concerned about this needlessly rising flood damage, the ASFPM has adopted a new program policy objective for the nation: ''No Adverse Impact.''
The new policy calls for balancing structural and nonstructural flooding solutions to ensure that no construction in a watershed will adversely impact other property by increasing flood depths or velocities upstream or down. The ASFPM emphasizes that comprehensive local watershed plans should ensure that all potential adverse impacts are properly planned for and mitigated to avoid such increases. According to the association, this approach ''promotes fairness, responsibility, community involvement and planning, sustainable development, and local land use management while not infringing on private property rights. These concepts support the sustainable community initiatives to reduce the devastation caused by natural disasters.''
The ASFPM has prepared a flyer, No Adverse Impact: A Commonsense Strategy for Protecting Your Property (2001, 4 pp., $1.00 for a single copy, 50¢ each for bulk copies), that describes this approach and provides examples of its success in communities throughout the U.S. Information regarding the new policy, including the report No Adverse Impact: A New Direction in Floodplain Management Policy, by Larry Larson and Doug Plasencia, (2001, 25 pp.), a list of policy recommendations by the ASFPM, and a list of resources and related information can be found on the association's web site: www.floods.org. To obtain any of these items, contact the ASFPM, 2809 Fish Hatchery Road, Madison, WI 53713; (608) 274-0123; e-mail: asfpm@floods.org.
