Darrin Punchard, principal management consultant – risk services
Resiliency, for all its varied definitions, is essentially about risk management. It’s about preserving and protecting assets – whether physical, human, social, financial or environmental – from disruptive or damaging events in a timely and efficient manner. It’s also about adapting to changing conditions in a shrewd and holistic way that maximizes opportunities for strategic investments that yield long-term benefits. The key challenge lies in making sound decisions based on incomplete or uncertain information - a challenge that is made even more complex today in planning for natural hazards.
For the past 20 years, I’ve had the opportunity to work with a variety of clients across the United States to prepare plans aimed at measuring and mitigating their risk to potential natural hazard threats, as well as responding to and recovering from disaster events. The experience has taught me the value of pre-disaster planning for managing post-disaster recovery, but also in being prepared to seize unique opportunities to advance resiliency following adverse events. I’ve learned that true resilience should not be defined by the ability to bounce back, but rather to bounce forward.
Optimizing resiliency through pre-disaster planning requires the integration of risk management plans and procedures across an entire local decision-making framework. Doing so maximizes organizational efficiency and effectiveness. Doing otherwise results in gaps, conflicts and missed opportunities to advance preparedness and resiliency. These lessons became especially clear to me in developing, evaluating and updating multi-hazard mitigation plans for local governments.
Today more than 25,000 local jurisdictions in the U.S. are covered by a federally-approved hazard mitigation plan, which is a condition to be eligible for certain types of disaster relief and emergency assistance. The key outcome of local hazard mitigation planning is the identification of actionable strategies to reduce disaster risks including policies and projects that can be implemented in the short and long term. These actions may be dependent on funding availability and should be linked to existing capital improvement programs, asset management plans and post-disaster recovery plans.
While intended to be comprehensive and strategic plans for risk reduction cutting across all local government services and sectors, the reality is a majority of local hazard mitigation plans are prepared in relative isolation under the direction of local emergency management agencies. Few local hazard mitigation plans are truly integrated with those tasked with managing our communities’ most critical assets and key infrastructure, such as public water and wastewater utilities. This lack of coordination results in missed opportunities to enhance resilience before and, particularly, after disaster strikes.
For example, one of the largest missed opportunities for public utilities resides in FEMA’s Public Assistance (PA) program. Following a Presidentially-declared emergency or disaster, PA provides financial assistance for the repair, replacement and restoration of damaged publicly-owned facilities. The federal share of assistance is at least 75% of the eligible cost for emergency measures and permanent work to get the utility back up and running at pre-disaster conditions. The missed opportunity is a little known and historically underutilized discretionary funding program authorized under PA (referred to as PA Section 406) that provides utilities with financial assistance to not simply restore, but to rather strengthen and bolster the resiliency of its assets through additional protective measures. Such actions may include fortifying buildings, flood-proofing pump stations, installing shut-off valves and flexible piping, and raising mechanical and electrical equipment above potential flood depths. However, these options have traditionally not been actively promoted by PA program representatives or advocated by applicants during the rush to repair damaged facilities and restore vital services as quickly as possible.
This is where the benefits of integrated risk management planning come in. Public utilities should not only be aware but be vigorously engaged in local government processes to pre-identify and prioritize long-term strategies and capital projects for risk reduction, including those that may be contingent on the occurrence of destructive event. One of the most essential and cost-effective measures to increase the resiliency of our nation’s public infrastructure is during the repair and restoration of disaster-damaged assets. Opportunities to leverage funding and other resources abound in a post-disaster environment, but experience has proven the time to plan and become prepared to capitalize on such opportunities is well ahead of the next disaster.
Chances are you work in a community that has adopted a local hazard mitigation plan and perhaps even a disaster recovery or redevelopment plan. Are your risk management needs effectively integrated? Is your agency prepared to leverage funding and take advantage of investment opportunities that result in a more resilient future?
