Man Against Mother Nature

The Wall Street Journal has a good science article about the man-made activities -- destruction of wetlands and barrier islands, construction of levies, dredging of shipping channels -- that took away some of nature's shock absorbers to hurricanes, intensifying Katrina's blow.

Which is all well and good to point out. But as a resident of Los Angeles, I'm particularly sensitive to the Hastertian vibe you always get from the rest of the country at times like these … why do you crazy people live there? Instead of answering that, I'd like turn the question around -- what parts of the country are actually sensible to live, in terms of avoiding natural catastrophes and constant reliance on guvmint to bail citizens out? Much of the Mississippi basin would be uninhabitable wetlands if we let the Big Muddy go where it actually wants to (for an account of this, and of the insanity of Southern California development, I highly recommend John McPhee's The Control of Nature). The Midwest is a tornado-generating sinkhole of federal farm subsidies; everything west of the Rockies is a nightmare of water mismanagement, Florida and California are famously doomed, the Pacific Northwest is filled with active volcanoes, whole chunks of the Canada-adjacent strip are uninhabitable for several months a year (in my judgment, at least), and the entire eastern seaboard could be swallowed by a tsunami if that volcano on Montserrat volcano on Las Palmas blows the wrong direction. Not to make light of a heartbreaking tragedy, but is there a sane, self-reliant place to live in this country? Or is wrestling with a hostile Mother Nature a feature, not a bug?

While you chew on that, here are some relevant Reason articles about American catastrophe:

In January 1993, Glenn Garvin documented the pork-filled government response to Hurricane Andrew. In April 1994 Nick Gillespie showed how rent-control disincentivized Santa Monica landlords from preparing for the Northridge Quake. In December 1996, Hurricane Fran victim John Hood observed that the "road to recovery was paved with good intentions but incredibly wrongheaded government policies." In August 1997 Virginia Postrel made an intriguing analysis of the difference between "anticipation" of natural disasters and a more generalized "resilience." In April 1998 James DeLong argued that "many dams probably should not have been built." In February 1999 DeLong was back with a look at "the lunacy of the 30-year-old flood insurance program." In October 2003, I criticized government-subsidized homeowners insurance in high-risk areas. And in March 2004, John Stossel confessed that he built an Atlantic Coast home only because he knew the government would bail him out once nature destroyed it (which it did).

Comments

[Tom Crick]

"...what parts of the country are actually sensible to live, in terms of avoiding natural catastrophes and constant reliance on guvmint to bail citizens out?"

I grew up in Maryland, and in the first 18 years of my life, I personally knew five people who died in car accidents directly attributable to weather. I've only known one person who died in an automobile since moving to Southern California, and she drove off of a cliff.

I know that's not a scientific study, but I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that there are significantly more automobile related deaths on the east coast. ...and what would they do in the cities of the northeast without snowplows, salt for the roads, etc.?

[R C Dean]

what parts of the country are actually sensible to live, in terms of avoiding natural catastrophes and constant reliance on guvmint to bail citizens out?

Most of the country is quite habitable without relying on government to bail citizens out. The Midwest farm subsidies and the like are not necessary for the Midwest to be a sensible place to live, for example. Similarly, tornados are highly localized and utterly unpredictable - there is no levee maintained by federal funds containing swarms of feral tornados, and tornado damage does not disable entire regions or exceed the ability of private insurers to recover from.

Most of your examples are apples and oranges.

[Jason Ligon]

People should live wherever they want - and largely internalize the costs of doing so. There shouldn't be too many poor people living in NO. It should be too expensive for them to live there.

[Jim Walsh]

What parts of the country are actually sensible to live, in terms of avoiding natural catastrophes and constant reliance on guvmint to bail citizens out?

I was thinking about this very question earlier today. I currently reside in North Dakota where winter days of forty below are not unheard-of. Formerly, I resided in Delaware (flood plain), the Texas Pandanhle (Tornado Alley), West Virginia (Robert Byrd), you get the idea...

[jf]

Akron, Ohio seems to do pretty well. Great geography, plenty of friendly natural resources, works for me.

[SP]

Yes, the near-Midwest -- such as Ohio, Michigan, Indiana -- are more or less catastrophe-free.

Of course, you've got to put up with damned despicable winter weather, but "freezing your ass off" remains more figurative than literal.

[coarsetad]

Denver.
Dry, but plenty of water from the Rockies (if we can keep Calfornia's Hands off it.)
Close enough to the mountains to block tornados and blizzards.
The ground doesn't shake.
It doesnt get too too hot or too too cold.
Hell, its always sunny.
Only thing that will get you here is boredom.

[wsdave]

Plug for the NorthWest:

The temp is mild year round, the people don't get in your way too much, the volcano's only erupt every 50 years or so, and until the "big one" hits (taking out most of the West coast), the earthquakes are fairly mild.

[joe]

Jason,

"People should live wherever they want - and largely internalize the costs of doing so. There shouldn't be too many poor people living in NO. It should be too expensive for them to live there."

That's a fine sentiment. But something I've learned is that there is a looooooooong way to travel between making a statement about what the right settlement patterns are and actually changing the built environment to match it. It's all well and good to say we shouldn't be subsidizing people, encouraging bad practices, etc., but then what? Do you yank the rug out from under 100,000,000 people?

[joe]

Mr. Crick, your experience is atypical. Massachusetts and Rhode Island have among the lowest automobile death rates in the country, and we suck at driving. Man, that's a real bummer that you'd see such a horrible anomoly.

[thoreau]

Jason-

The only problem is that a place that's highly vulnerable to disasters will (usually) be cheaper in a free market. Market pricing incorporates risk, after all.

Now, if you want some insurance cover while living in an especially risky area, that's a whole different ball of wax. Then you will indeed receive signals telling you to move elsewhere.

But those who can't or won't pay for insurance? Well, they'll probably live in the places that the market prices cheapest due to risk.

I'm neither suggesting nor dismissing any public policy remedy here. I'm just saying that market pricing may very well lead to poor people living in risky places. And public sector fixes (or apparent fixes) may depress the cost of insurance and make risky places artificially cheap, leading to more people living there and hence more casualties if preventive measures fail. Not to mention perverse phenomena like federally subsidized insurance for rich guys with cliff homes (see John Stossel's excellent article in Reason a while back).

The conclusion? Sadly, none. Free markets may lead to vulnerable people living in risky places. Public sector interventions may paradoxically exacerbate problems or create new problems. The most obvious private fix (insurance) may fail because people who can't afford it will seek the cheapest accomodations. And while a perfectly omniscient planner could no doubt fix all of it, such omniscient planners seem to be in short supply.

So, I guess life will always have tragedies. I wish I could say something better, propose some ultimate remedy, but I can't.

(And yes, I know, obviously risk isn't the only factor in pricing, nor is it the only determinant of where people live. But we're talking about risk and how it affects prices and decisions, so, let's utter "ceteris paribis" (all else being equal) so we can move on in this discussion.)

[The Wine Commonsewer]

Californicate has great seasons,

Fire

Flood

Wind

Smog

Come visit today....

I may have stolen that from Carson (Johnny, that is)

[saw-whet]

OK, time for me again. Central New York. The city of Oswego was closed for two weeks after the blizzard of '66 and every year some locale closes for a couple of days. But, hey...

We have salmon, apple cider and maple syrup. Any of you other guys got that? Speaking of which, I'll be starting my first batch of hard cider of the season tomorrow.

Happy Labor Day, all. And say, whatever happened to that industrious guy who signs his own paycheck, unlike us little pukes. Probabaly canceled his subscription.

[Perry]

"what parts of the country are actually sensible to live, in terms of avoiding natural catastrophes and constant reliance on guvmint to bail citizens out?"

Well,
A house on a cliff by the ocean is a bad place to live.

A home below river level next to a river that is known to flood over during heavy storms is a bad place to live.

A house below sea level just outside of the sea is a bad place to live.

A home on a heavily wooded hill where brush fires are commonplace is not a good place to live.

Should I go on...

[Rich Ard]

In Michigan, saw-whet, we do too - plus blueberries and unemployment.

[Dynamist]

There shouldn't be too many poor people living in NO. It should be too expensive for them to live there.

Like thoreau said, the poor will always live in the riskiest places. The customary stereotype has the poor outside the levee on the floodplain, with the rich up on the bluffs. Even in NOLA this is true, although the difference in elevation is only a few feet between rich and poor rather than hundreds as it is upriver.

In spite of all the national blather, much of greater New Orleans isn't at much greater risk than any other place in hurricane territory. Recall that 20% of the city was not flooded. Another significant chunk was built with floods in mind. The newest slab-on-grade houses were not. Flood an storm protection has been so well-managed for so long that people have evidently forgotten (or were never taught) how to survive.

[Ammonium]

California could get the Big One, but a lot of the costs of mitigating disaster are internalized within the cost of building earthquake resistant structures. Some infill areas would be toast, but people on solid ground could get back to normal fairly quickly.

Seattle/Tacoma is a disaster waiting to happen. If Mt. Ranier ever starts going it could wipe out a lot of people just with the melted icecap. A lot of the development in the area is located on top of mudflows that moved at 45mph.

Most of the west is pretty good as long as you stay away from slide areas, canyons, and forests. Don't drive through floods here. I'd recommend Arizona or New Mexico.

The Midwest is very safe. The biggest problems there are storms. Winter storms are probably the worst since they can cause widespread power outages. Summer storms are usually pretty weak on the whole scale of things. Nearly all tornadoes are F-2 or less, which is Katrina strength or less, but for a much shorter time in a smaller area. As you move north into forests, you could have fire problems. Obviously flood plains are guaranteed disasters, and a lot of people live on them, but they are easy to avoid.

The east part of the country isn't too bad. Being on the beach of the Atlantic means your house will be destroyed eventually. But if you are further inland the destruction will not be total.

[Portlander]

wsdave lies.

The Pacific Northwest is a hell-hole. The temperature sores above 200 in the summer and drops below -600 in the winter. It rains 400 days a year. We don't have oxygen here, so we've all been genetically engineered to breath SO2 emitted by the volcanoes that exist ever 3 miles. Gravitational anomalies have been know to launch people into the stratosphere.

You don't want to come here. Shoo! Shoo! Turn around and go back home. Save yourselves!

[Matt Welch]

Portlander -- Admit it: You're a SoCal transplant....

[Shawn Smith]

With federally financed water from the Colorado River, Las Vegas (or Boulder City or even Blue Diamond for the people who like smaller towns) isn't too bad--you get the annual heat wave or two (113+ w/ 10% humidity), or a very localized flash flood, or once every score years a four-pointer earthquake.

[Jason Ligon]

Er, yes guys I was suggesting that the total cost of living in a given place should be internalized. I'm not big on moral hazard creating government programs in the first place, but what needs to be acknowledged is that the entitlements granted to the poor living in danger zones are much greater than the entitlements granted to the poor living elsewhere. My point is, section 8 housing and projects below the flood plain right next to the levee? Why?

joe: I acknowledge that we are screwed and can't uproot 100,000,000 people. However, if a ton of them get displaced by a horrific natural disaster, it seems like an opportunity not to repeat our mistakes.

[Dynamist]

I'm with Shawn. The desert is actually pretty survivable. One can live on far less water at home, if agricultural imports are available.

I had forgotten about volcanoes, Ammonium. Not only does that wipe out a swath of the NW, but also the dust cloud probably leads to frost exposure deaths across the whole northern part of North America. Nice.

[Portlander]

I'm a Canadian transplant. I moved here as kid from Vancouver. BTW, the same horrible conditions exist there, so you people in Ontario don't want to move west. Shoo! Shoo!

[Lowdog]

In Phoenix, as long as you've got water, there are absolutely no natural disasters to worry about. Ok, you could get caught in a flash-flood if you're hiking in a flash-flood area, or swept away if you're dumb enough to try and drive across a raging torrent that's devouring the street, but that's about it. (And that neither of those happen very often, anyway.)

Oh, and there is a fault line way to the south that one of my geology teachers said if it ever goes (it does something like once every 500 years or something) would wipe out quite a bit of the southwest, but I'll take my chances.

Of course, I really want to live in San Francisco (earthquakes) or Spain (don't know about their natural disasters). But Phoenix is great for now.

[Mike Laursen]

Hey, don't forget the supervolcano underneath Yellowstone Park!

[TomHynes]

By "construction of levies" do you mean raising taxes?

[PapaCool]

Think about it... As we?ve seen with hurricane Katrina, disasters can strike at any time. Where should a New Orleans family move to avoid a natural disaster? There are so many acts of God: a California earthquake, Washington volcano, Mississippi flood, North Dakota blizzard, west coast tsunami, Oklahoma tornado, Colorado avalanche, east coast Noreaster, etc. PapaCool likes South Dakota more and more!

[Jim Walsh]

The Midwest is very safe.

Unless you take into account the New Madrid fault line. Major cities in the region like St. Louis and Memphis are unprepared for even a moderate seismic shiver. Pleasant dreams...

[poco]

The weather forecast I saw for Phoenix the other day was H: 108 and L: 80-something. No freakin' way.

[Dynamist]

what the right settlement patterns are and actually changing the built environment to match it.

I love it when I agree with joe. All the rights-of-way and non-damaged infrastructure point to cities in thier seemingly foolish locations. If you moved the population of NOLA, you would also have to buy and build new rail, road, pipe-, and powerlines to serve them. It is was cheaper to rebuild houses on the groud people already own.

[lincoln]

I don't understand the "oh well, there are natural disasters everywhere" attitude. The pertinent point is not whether an earthquake could happen but what the odds are of it happening. You could get struck by lightning or eaten by a shark but the fact is you are still far more likely to be killed in a car accident. So we prioritize wearing seat belts, designing air bags and arresting drunk drivers over rubber head wear and shark repellant. New Orleans is below sea level and was propped up by a series of levees! It is not fair to compare the situation in New Orleans to an Oklahoma tornado, a North Dakota blizzard or a Florida brush fire.

[Uncle Sam]

The problem for many people is the vast wealth that has been frittered away by government waste.
Thus, the poor are poorer than they should otherwise be. Perhaps MUCH poorer. When people are wealthier, they are willing/able to invest more in safegaurds against natural hazards.

[Uncle Sam]

Is anybody holding their breath for the next large asteroid strike?

[Alison]

I live in Pittsburgh and we tried to brain storm ways the city could be destroyed and ways to prepare for it. Even the flood last year left most home untouched. The only thing we could think of was a mishap at the nuclear reactors thirty miles away. I'm not sure if we can prepare for that.

[Jason Ligon]

"I live in Pittsburgh and we tried to brain storm ways the city could be destroyed "

Cowher finally wins the big one?

[joe]

Alison,

"Moving?!? To PHILLY?!!!! AAAAAaaaarrrrrghhhhhh! KILL KILL KILL!"

[joe]

The truth is somewhere in between Dynamist and Jason Ligon - you have to make a judgement call between rebuilding in place and starting anew in a better location.

To Dynamist's list of factors pointing to rebuilding in place, you have to consider social and cultural factors - would we really have Bourbon Street if it were rebuilt somewhere else? (I know, the French Quarter is high and dry, throw me a frickin bone here). Are you going to lose the community ties if you try to move everyone to a new location? This is particularly important for poor communities, in which people depend on their neighbors more to get by.

[Seattlite]

Portlander,

You failed to mention that 9 out of 10 people who don't take their own lives in rain induced fit of depression, or get burned up in volcanic eruptions, are tortured to death by serial killers.

The rest of you just stay away.

[Dynamist]

joe: I'll let you have the Bourbon St. bone. But...I think you're a bit out of touch to suggest that the poor, as a class, depend on each other to get by. It seems a major failing of New Orleans' poor that they do not rely on each other. The crowds around the Dome were not cooperating, they were acting just as they do every day back in the neighborhood.

There's big rant I would like to get into about the difference between being poor and being a jerk, and how churches used to help the former avoid the pitfalls of the latter. Some other time...

[Anonopotomous]

To echo the sentiments of several others on the thread...

There is a stark difference between living where it snows a lot and living below sea level with nothing in between you and the Mississippi but a government construction project.

[Phil]

I live in Pittsburgh and we tried to brain storm ways the city could be destroyed . . .

I used to live in Cleveland, and we were brainstorming the same thing. 😀

[Not David]

I think there's pretty clearly a spectrum of dumb places to live, from questionable to moronic, and we've been pushing the envelope since we wandered out of Africa a hundred thousand years ago. That's pretty much what humans do. But I also think that rebuilding a city below sea level in 2005 may not be the wisest investment we could make. It's a reasonable question, and it ought to be discussed -- especially when what we're talking about investing is a whale's belly o' federal dollars. (Joe, I wonder whether Bourbon Street will be the same if it's rebuilt, period.)

[joe]

Chirst, Dynamist, you're basing your observation about how poor people get by based on teevee footage of what's going on at the Superdome? Excuse me while I puke.

Now that my system's cleared, low income people rely on systems of informal social networks much more than those of us with more resources, for things like rides to work, babysitting, a few bucks until the paycheck comes in, borrowing tools, and a million other things you and I just whip out our wallets to take care of. There are literally volumes of sociological studies on this, and it's one of the reasons why anti-social community designs, such as high rise apartment complexes that lack natural gathering spaces, lead to such severe hardship when they're used for low income housing, but are quite popular as luxury housing.

[Col DuBois]

If every square mile of the country is so dangerous, it's a wonder we survived until Jesus -- I mean, Jimmy Carter -- gave us FEMA in 1979...

[DB]

Given that every year Californians pay tens of billions of dollars more in taxes than they receive in government benefits, I don't think you could honestly say that Californians are relying on government largesse to survive disasters. The total annual cost of our natural disasters doesn't even come close to our net rate of payments to the federal government.

Anyway, isn't it obvious that most areas of the country can't be relying on the government to bail them out? If every part of the country couldn't cover its own bills, where would the federal disaster relief money come from? *Somebody* has to pay more than they use...

[Dan Lovejoy]

This is a lot like saying "Well, I'm gonna die anyway, so I might as well smoke like a chimney and eat 40 doughnuts a day."

We shouldn't build cities where the odds are 1:1 that the city will be wiped off the map, resulting in thousands of casualties in

[Dan]

Oops -t hat was supposed to say "resulting in thousands of casualties in <100 years"

[Sarnath]

If one draws a line south from Idaho's western border and a line north from Arizona's eastern border, most of the cities in the strip are disaster-free. There is the problem of federally-funded water distribution, but that could be fixed.

[Larry A]

I live in Pittsburgh and we tried to brain storm ways the city could be destroyed and ways to prepare for it.

Any natural or intentional disaster that knocks out a city's sewer system for more than a few days will reqire it being evacuated.

[Eric the .5b]

It's all well and good to say we shouldn't be subsidizing people, encouraging bad practices, etc., but then what? Do you yank the rug out from under 100,000,000 people?

A big problem. At best, we can try to brace outselves and slooooowly pull that rug. Of course "we", in the sense of the actual social and political forces at work, won't actually do that.

In fact, "we" will probably end up laying a brand new little below-sea-level rug down for the people of NOLA.