Why Hindsight Is Short-Sighted

Everyone who claims to have a "knowledegable opinion" about hurrican Katrina and its aftermath should head on over to Columbia University's Center For Hazards & Risks Research. In particular they should read the reports and maps presented in their Hotspots page, which, coincidentally, were featured in September's issue of The Atlantic. What becomes clear from looking over this research is that New Orleans is hardly unique. There are dozens and dozens of areas across the United States that also have Moderate or High mortality risks from natural disasters associated with living there. These areas include places like New York, Chicago, Miami, Los Angeles, Boston, Memphis, St. Louis and San Francisco. For every single one of these places (as well as many others) it is simply a matter of time until something horrific happens to them. In every single one of these places as well, throwing a nearly unlimited supply of money at them would go some way towards alleviating the mortality risks involved. Unfortunately, our resources are not unlimited. At the federal level, giving money to one locale by necessity means keeping resources from another locale. State and local governments are often unable or unwilling to devote the resources themselves. Other uses for the money always clamor for attention. Like it or not, in November of an election year it might seem a hell of a lot more important to your average politician to get a big raise for state employees than it does to allocate that money for levee repairs which might not be called into action for another 50 years or more.

The notion that there was something unique about New Orleans that required unique action to protect New Orleans and New Orleans alone from natural disasters is simply false. The Colubia University study makes it clear, New Orleans is not uniquely vulnerable in a way other places in the United States are not. New Orleans is just one of many risky places whose luck ran out.

Now it is also clear that FEMA is not capable of handling a disaster area as large as this one without 3 or 4 days of lead-in time. However, it also hasn't been shown that FEMA is either designed or funded to be able to handle such a disaster any more quickly. No one can point to another disaster and say "Here is a disaster of the same size and degree of severity as Katrina that FEMA handled speedily in the past." Until push comes to shove I'm not sure how anyone can know in advance the performance limitations of an agency such as FEMA. Maybe someone can look at some operation in the past and see how the FEMA system might have been straining to reach its goals, but I haven't heard word one on such an investigation.

I guess what I'm asking people to do is get enough information to put these events into their proper context and don't let emotion get the better of you. That is the only way we can ensure that things will go more smoothly when the next disaster strikes.

Its only a matter of time. Why waste any more of it?