Event Focuses on Preventing Disaster Damage

IRVINE —  An insurance industry leader called Thursday for a “declaration of war against natural disasters” that would feature a broad new effort to prevent damage in advance of calamities.

But California’s own disaster director warned against assuming that losses from natural disasters can be easily prevented.

The remarks came at the beginning of a two-day national conference on natural hazard loss reduction sponsored by an industry group and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

Wilson C. Cooney, president of USAA Property and Casualty Co., urged in a keynote address that architects, developers, home builders, government officials and even mortgage lenders become more effective partners in preventive efforts.

Cooney, a retired Air Force general who is also chairman of the board of the event’s sponsor, the Insurance Institute for Property Loss Reduction, suggested, for example, that mortgage lenders begin giving discounts to those who spend extra money to protect their homes from earthquake damage. Currently, lenders do not even require homeowners to buy earthquake insurance.

“Does a declaration of war seem farfetched?” Cooney asked at the meeting at the Hyatt Regency Irvine. No, was his response.

“Statistics show that natural disasters are a matter of national security,” he said. “In the last 10 years as a result of natural disasters, there have been more than 2,000 deaths in the U.S., more than 23,000 injuries and $78.8 billion in damage, and this doesn’t include the economic impact of business and job losses.”

He advocated more urgency in preparing both buildings and people for disasters, an effort that he said is tantamount to other wars the country has waged.

Michael J. Armstrong, FEMA’s new associate director for mitigation, said the agency is about to launch a $50-million pilot project to help four or five cities around the country become more “disaster resistant” and serve as examples of what can be done elsewhere.

But Richard Andrews, director of California’s Office of Emergency Services, said that even $950 million in federal funds currently being spent on mitigation measures in Los Angeles, Orange and Ventura counties does not promise to make much of a dent in future disaster losses.

Calling mitigation efforts up to now “fledgling” in character, Andrews warned: “We should not delude ourselves we will substantially reduce losses” in the future.

“While we should continue to spend money on mitigation, it is dangerous to suggest that relatively modest efforts like a $50-million pilot project will result in less damage when the next earthquake comes,” he said. “This is all a very, very long-term undertaking.”

He also said that controversy over implementation of state residential earthquake insurance in California in the past year demonstrates that any new steps that cost money will be politically sensitive.

At a luncheon later, representatives of several public and private agencies signed commitments to become partners in preventive efforts.

State Farm official Edward A. Laatsch and Sacramento consultant Kenneth A. Goettel both made the point in separate presentations that evaluating whether specific mitigation projects are worth the money is an extremely complicated and costly process.

Goettel, however, said he is convinced that it would be more cost-effective to retrofit the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge than it would be to spend more than $1 billion to build new bridge spans. In that case, $100 million in retrofitting would provide almost as much protection, he said.