Hurricane Sandy – before and after photographs

Over the years I've seen the impact of disaster up close both personally and professionally. One the the things that has always impressed me is the sheer power of Mother Nature when she cuts loose. I've seen heavy vessels moved inland and small vessels stuck into the sides of buildings after hurricanes and typhoons. I've seen heavy winds rip the roofs off buildings. It's truly awe-inspiring.

This power to change our landscape is clearly demonstrated in a series of before-after aerial photographs by the USGS of the East Coast struck by Sandy. However, these pictures are more than just a record of the power of nature. They are valuable tools for a variety of purposes such as damage estimation and studying the effect of pre-disaster mitigation measures. The also reaffirm that some places were not intended for human habitation.

We rely heavily on work done by the USGS, particularly here in California where earthquakes are a daily occurrence. We are equally dependent on NOAA's many services. Unfortunately, both agencies have suffered severely from budget cuts over the past several years. Yet another example of government's penny-wise and pound-foolish approach to disaster management…

My thanks to my friend Art Taber for sending me the link to the USGS site. 

Hurricane Sandy and community resilience

One of the most common disasters myths is that people are incapable of taking care of themselves after a disaster. Despite historical examples and decades of research, we have based much of our planning on the concept of a strong central authority that directs disaster relief efforts. However, as the relief effort on the East Coast is demonstrating, humanitarian aid in large-scale disasters is complex and extremely difficult to centralize.

What both history and research shows us is that people are resilient and in the absence of government assistance will still try to organize themselves and begin the business of restoring their communities. Traditionally, this has not always been efficient or supportive of overall community interests because people frequently acted in isolation.

The advent of social media, however, has been a game-changer. Where non-governmental relief efforts were isolated and limited to the resources on hand, they are now have acccess to a world-wide community of tech-savvy supporters. Take, for example, the members of Occupy Wall Street who have turned their organizing efforts to coordinating the collection and distribution of relief supplies through a system of volunteers.

The truly interesting point for me is that this type of volunteerism can be focused and targeted through the use of social media. One of the reasons we have always discouraged in-kind donations is the difficulty of sorting and distributing these one-off donations. Small, localized efforts, however, can be very effective at identifying individual needs and disbursing donated goods to where they can do the most good. They work at the micro-level that is too granular for traditional government relief efforts.

What I see evolving is more equal partnership between government and volunteers. The question is will we be able to adapt our plans to take advantage of this resource or remain bound by the myth that government must coordinate all facets of disaster relief?

Insurance in disasters: Have you read your policy lately?

I have litany of reasons why people don't prepare. It ends with, "If it's that bad, they government will take care of me." Unfortunately, this is not the case as many people on the East Coast are finding out as they recover from the recent superstorm.

The truth is that most of the money used in rebuilding does not come from the government but from insurance. FEMA's Individual Assistance Program supplements but does not duplicate insurance coverage. There is also a cap on the amount of assistance the program can provide.

The problem with insurance is that insurance companies are fairly adept at sliding out from under claims at the time of disaster, largely because policy holders don't read their policies and have no idea what's covered and what is not. For example, following Hurricane Andrew in 1992, many policies now include a hurricane deductible based on a percentage of the coverage limit. Since Sandy was technically not a hurricane when it struck the East Coast, it will be interesting to see if insurance companies try to invoke this deductible as a tactic to get policy holders to settle to avoid lengthy litigation.

Even more worrisome is that policies typically exclude floods, mudslides, mold, fungi, and wet or dry rot, all of which are going to be present in the wake of the superstorm. Anyone that was not carrying flood insurance at the time of the storm is in trouble.

The point here is that a single policy may not protect you in a disaster. You need to consider the risks, the cost of replacing your home or property, and the options available to you. There's no time like the present to review your policy with your broker and make sure your coverage is adequate. Despite what you think, the government is not going to bail you out.

Hurricane Sandy and rumor control

One of the problems we see consistently in disaster operations is that of bad information being passed informally as rumors. This is particularly problematic in this era of immediate electronic communications. Rumors spread rapidly via tweets and social media pages.

We have traditionally dealt with this by having a "rumor control" function within our public information group that monitored news broadcasts and put out corrected information via the news services. However, the times are a'changing and our rumor control staff have a lot more to monitor than just news broadcasts and more ways to quickly correct misinformation.

FEMA is doing some interesting things to deal with this problem in the Sandy relief operation. In addition to the normal media channels, they are providing information directly to the public via a website designed specifically to correct bad information. Rumors are posted on the website with the correct information and links to either more information or relief services.

The page also offers the reader the opportunity to follow FEMA through a variety of social media sites where they can get current information.

This combination of traditional news releases, social media and a website certainly broadens the dissemination of information and goes a long way towards correcting bad information. Having a website pre-prepared that can be updated and made live during a crisis is concept that has been around for awhile but for some reason does not seem to be used as much as you would expect. If you haven't considered adding this to your crisis management tool box, maybe you should do so now. It's simple, cheap and effective and will definitely speed up your crisis communications.

The L’Aquila verdict: Should we be concerned?

Bernardo De Bernardini, one of the scientists convicted of manslaughter by a court in L'Aquila on Monday. Photograph: Filippo Monteforte/AFP/Getty Images

Tuesday's blog discussed the conviction of a group Italian seismologists on manslaughter charges stemming from their assessment of earthquake risk prior to the 2009 L'Aquila earthquake. However, in addition to the scientists, the government official who used the assessment to brief the public was also convicted. Taken together, this type of legal action could have a chilling effect on both the experts that assess risk and the public officials who rely on those assessments.

Security technologist, Bruce Schneier, sums it up well in a recent blog:

As someone who constantly makes predictions about security that could potentially affect the livelihood and lives of those who listen to them, this really made me stop and think. Could I be arrested, or sued, for telling people that this particular security product is effective when in fact it is not?

One of our principal tasks as emergency managers is the assessment and prioritization of risks. We base that prioritization on both the advice of experts and our training and intuition. While we hold ourselves professionally accountable for those decisions, the possibility of facing criminal charges even when acting ethically and competently would clearly hamper our ability to do our jobs.

And less you think, "it can't happen here," Schneier points out that there have already been attempts to bring civil suits against weather forecasters for erroneous predictions that resulted in death or economic loss.

So how do we defend against this? Well, you really can't nor should you lose sleep over it. Our job has always carried an element of risk and high levels of accountability. Your best defense is to act with the highest ethical and professional standards. The Italian case raises concerns but we would be negligent if we let it affect our duty to give our best professional advice to those we serve.

Warnings and responsibility: Italy convicts earthquake scientists

You may recall that last year Italy placed six seismologists and a government official on trial for providing inadequate advice prior to the 2009 L'Aquila earthquake that killed over 300 people. All seven defendants have been found guilty of manslaughter and sentenced to an astonishing six years in prison.

As I discussed in in my blog last  September and October , the basis of the charges was not the ability of the seismologists to predict the earthquake as is popularly reported but rather the failure to provide adequate warning to the population. After a swarm of small earthquakes, the deputy director of the Civil Protection Agency convened a meeting of the Major Risks Committee to review the earthquake risk. The seismologists, who were part of the committee, stated that there was no reason to believe that the swarm of small earthquakes were a precursor to a major earthquake. The seismologists also stated that in such an seismically active area there was always a significant earthquake risk. At no point did they say there was no risk.

The problem occurred when the official translated this into a message to the public that there was no danger of an earthquake. Six days later, the temblor struck.

During the trial, the defense argued that the seismologists had given appropriate scientific advice as demonstrated in the meeting minutes and were not present at the news conference. However, the judge ruled that their failure to speak out and correct the bad information made them responsible for the deaths that followed. The defendants are appealing the verdict.

From my perspective that case raises some interesting questions about responsibility. While there is no evidence that the seismologists gave anything but scientifically precise information, did they have a duty to speak out when the official garbled the message? Should the official who claimed to be acting in good faith on the scientific advice as he understood it bear responsibility for the inaccurate warning? How much responsibility should the individual citizen bear for living in a seismically active zone and not being prepared? What about local officials who haven't implemented mitigation? And just what actions would have been taken and how long would they have been sustained if the warning had been more accurate?

These are not easy questions to answer and similar ones are asked after each disaster. I agree that there must be accountability for failing to adequately warn the public but charging scientists and government officials with criminal offenses is not the answer, except possibly in extreme cases of negligence. As an emergency manager, I rely heavily on solid scientific advice. Anything that inhibits or prevents a scientist from offering his or her best professional opinion is something to be shunned. There is a big difference between accountability and vengeance.

Earthquake safety czar appointed in San Francisco

San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee

October 17 was the anniversary of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, still well remembered here in San Francisco. The 18th was the date of the Great Shakeout, a state-wide earthquake preparedness drill. With all this attention on earthquakes, it was the perfect time for San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee to announce the appointment of a director of earthquake safety.

This newly created position will be responsible for implementing a 30-year plan to reduce the City's most dangerous earthquake risks such as the soft-story buildings that failed so dramatically during Loma Prieta. The appointee, Patrick Otellini, is a veteran building inspector and building permit consultant and expediter and no stranger to the intricacies of the City's builing code process. From what I glean from the news reports, he will report to the City Administrator rather than the Director of Emergency Services, which, while not ideal, could actually increase Ottelini's ability to get things done by broadening his political support base.

To the best of my knowledge, this is something incredibly unique. Mitigation of hazards is something to which municipalities generally give only lip service. The appointment of a specific individual to drive earthquake mitigation with the attendant public visibility and transparency is a major commitment on the part of San Francisco and is to be commended.

Firefighters on motorcycles: thinking outside the box

This image of a firefighter from 1917 suggests that while the application is new the concept has been around for awhile.

When you think of first responders on motorcycles, you almost always think of police officers. But firefighters? It goes against tradition. Yet this is just what is happening across the country in major metropolitan areas where fire departments are rethinking how they provide services.

While the motorcyles are equipped with fire extinguishers, the primary purpose of these teams of firefighters is rapid medical response and reconnaissance. Miami-Dade Fire Rescue was able to cut response time from seven minutes to as low as three. A Los Angeles Fire Department team reached the scene of a brush fire within three minutes, beating the helicopters, and mapped the boundaries of the fire for the command post.

The motorcycles are typically equipped with defibrillators, medical supplies, a small fire extinguisher and a GPS unit. Their chief advantage is their ability to circumvent the traffic congestion that slows a regular response. Maintenance and fuel costs are also considerable less than regular response vehicles.

Still, going against tradition is a hard sell in this time of tight budgets. Miami-Dade's program was a victim of budget cuts despite it's cost effectiveness. Other agencies are having a hard time getting programs initiated. Nevertheless, this is a great example of analyzing a need and coming up with a creative solution.

Pirates and the power of ideas