Can Congress keep America storm resistant?

2009’s North Atlantic Hurricane season has thankfully just come to a close without a major U.S. disaster.  Consider the facts: no truly large storms made landfall in the United States, and, for the first year in at least a decade, not a single American family lost its home to hurricane damage.  While most early season forecasts called for between 4 and 7 significant named storms, only three ever formed in the Atlantic. 

But the almost storm-free conditions won’t last.  Nearly all meteorologists agree that we are now in a decades-long period of heavy hurricane activity.  Many scientists also think that global climate change will increase the severity of storms, amplify storm surge as sea level rises, and possibly increase the overall number of storms forming on average each year.  In short, nobody should believe that a single placid season should be a reason to celebrate.

While our two organizations have often approached a variety of issues as polar opposites this is one area where we can truly agree:  many of the problems with hurricanes stem from deliberate government action.  Many people moved into hurricane zones because governments encouraged them to buy buildings there, often providing the infrastructure that makes it possible.  Governments at all levels should look long and hard before they offer a dime of taxpayer assistance—roads, schools, power lines or anything else--for any new development that doesn’t sit well away from likely hurricane impact areas.

Federal law already limits subsidies for developments on barrier islands and Congress should look to expand this principle to more sensitive areas. Coastal wetlands, whose very presence can absorb hurricane-related storm surge, deserve special consideration. Current law makes it too easy for developers to build over them as long as they fund new wetlands inland, but that policy ignores impending hurricane, storm surge and sea-level rise risks along the coasts.  Generations of Army Corps of Engineers projects, likewise, have built breakwaters and levees in places that probably should have been left undeveloped. While some areas need these “structural” flood control measures most do not. For the most part, the country is better off leaving likely-to-flood areas in something close to their natural state. The federally run National Flood Insurance Program, finally, charges many people living near coast-lines very low rates for flood coverage. Not surprisingly, this encourages more people to move there. 

This situation took decades to develop and it’s unrealistic to think that federal or state governments could change things in a short time even if the will to do so existed. In fact, there’s a real danger in repeating the same mistakes. Efforts to build on bad ideas by subsidizing wind insurance through the flood insurance program (an idea Rep. Gene Taylor has pushed), providing taxpayer backed reinsurance (a favorite idea of Rep. Ron Klein), building more levees and sea-walls, and allowing more subsidies for developments in wetland areas would make things worse for storm-prone areas.  And such programs don’t serve the national interest anyway. 

While many people live in hurricane zones, most Americans don’t.  People who own homes in hurricane zones have to maintain them against nature.  Lower income residents, particularly senior citizens, may need some help, but Americans who live near the coast and want to stay there know the risks.  If we charge flood insurance rates that reflect the true risks, rely more heavily on the private market and build fewer levees—all things we support—the federal government could well justify  assisting lower income Americans with temporary help while aiming to permanently reduce their disaster risks with housing that is made safer and located out of harm’s way. A series of bills introduced by Rep. Bennie Thompson that offer assistance to lower income disaster-prone homeowners and people living in Section 8 housing deserve careful consideration.

Government policies helped create a nation that isn’t as storm resistant as it should be. The government needs to avoid repeating its mistakes and start to alter policies to encourage safer and more environmentally responsible behaviors.

David Conrad is the Senior Water Resources Specialist of the National Wildlife Federation and Eli Lehrer is a Senior Fellow at The Heartland Institute.  Both organizations are members of SmarterSafer.org.