Who Pays for Rebuilding?

The questions residents are asking in flood- and mudslide-prone coastal areas of Orange County are good ones. Should they rebuild? If they do and disaster strikes again, who will pay?

Increasingly in recent years, those same questions have been asked in different parts of the country. If the Mississippi River periodically overflows its banks in the same spot, how often should taxpayers help residents rebuild?

The federal government has come up with a sensible answer, one that is linked to its efforts to encourage homeowners to buy insurance through the National Flood Insurance Program.

Since 1994, the government has allowed uninsured flood victims access to a range of disaster aid just once. The next time, for those still uninsured, only the most limited federal assistance will be available.

People willing to live in harm’s way and take their chances should be able to do so, as long as they don’t endanger others. But it is understandable that city councils and county officials are reluctant to let people rebuild in areas likely to be evacuated in another storm or fire, requiring assistance from police and firefighters. That risks lives and costs money, paid by residents living elsewhere, in safer areas.

Earthquakes can topple buildings just about anywhere in Southern California and heavy rains wreak havoc across wide stretches of territory. But some areas are more likely to flood than others; some locales are at higher risk of fires. Insurance from private companies often is unavailable in those areas.

Many Laguna Beach residents saw their homes destroyed by fires 4 1/2 years ago. In last month’s El Nino storms, two people died and more than 200 homes were damaged. As the rain paused last week, Laguna Beach officials sent letters to two dozen residents, warning that their canyon homes might be on shaky ground and suggesting they hire engineers to test the soil. The city strongly recommended that the residents move to more secure ground during “moderate or severe rainstorms.” That would be wise.

A number of residents who have been through the 1993 fire that damaged or destroyed more than 400 houses and the recent mudslides have decided to move. But many appear determined to rebuild. One man who lives in a trailer in a canyon that filled with mud said, “I still love this place. It’s beautiful.”

City officials properly are looking at ways to minimize damage from future onslaughts of nature. One possibility is buying out homeowners in the highest-risk areas.

Thirty years ago, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers raised the possibility of buying some homes in severe landslide zones and preserving the areas as open space.

That kind of drastic action would be politically difficult at best. As a Cal State Fullerton professor noted, many Californians have the sense that property is theirs to use as they wish. That’s especially true in areas of great natural beauty like Laguna Beach.

San Clemente too has had problems with parts of houses sliding down cliffs in times of heavy rains, including last week. Sometimes the biggest retaining walls and deepest pilings just aren’t enough to support a house on a cliff. Homeowners have to recognize that fact.

In the Surfside section of Seal Beach, where residents can see the ocean, Catalina and glorious sunsets from their homes, flooding is a perennial problem. This year, the Army Corps of Engineers hired a contractor who spent weeks setting up thousands of yards of pipe to bring more than 1 million cubic yards of sand from beneath the sea onto the beach. The effect will be to counter beach erosion and make the homes less threatened by the seas. Two years ago, the city trucked in sand as part of a $220,000 operation to protect the beach and homes. Last year the city fortified a sea wall with bulldozers, which cost another $50,000.

In areas where houses have been destroyed, homeowners often find that rebuilding will be more difficult because of stiffer city codes. After the 1993 fire, Laguna Beach rightly required more extensive geological studies of building sites in the hills. But the City Council did not accept other proposals designed to reduce the fire threat.

All residents deserve help when emergencies occur. But if developing some areas or heavily populating them makes them more susceptible to disaster, the wisdom of rebuilding must be questioned. At some point, some hillside and oceanfront properties probably should be left empty.