California Not the Master of Disaster It’s Reputed to Be

Although California is widely known as a disaster-prone state, a new study published by the National Academy of Sciences concludes that in per capita dollar losses from all disasters, the state does not rank in the top dozen.

A book released this week, “American Hazardscapes,” deals with natural and technological disasters, ranging from earthquakes to nuclear plant accidents. Its authors conclude that from 1975 to 1998 the Golden State, overall, ranked somewhere in the middle.

California leads, as expected, in such categories as earthquakes and wildfires, but it falls well behind in most others--hurricanes, tornadoes, hailstorms, heat waves, cold waves and toxic releases.

When population is taken into account, North Dakota ranks first in disaster losses, with more than $10,000 per resident over the 23-year period. California averaged less than $1,800 per person.

The floods and general bad weather in the North Central states also put South Dakota, Nebraska and Iowa in the top dozen, and the hurricanes and floods put the Gulf Coast states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida in the top 12. Hawaii also was in the top 12.

In damages per square mile of territory, however, California did nudge into the top 10 states.

The book, edited by Susan Cutter, director of the Hazards Research Laboratory at the University of South Carolina, finds that direct losses in all American disasters in the years 1988 to 1998 averaged $54 billion a year.

If all indirect as well as direct economic losses are taken into account, the total reaches $160 billion a year. Average annual loss of life was about 350.

“California immediately comes to mind in both fictional and nonfictional portrayals of a disaster prone-area,” the authors note.

And because it has the largest population in the country, damage figures here are among the highest. But the picture changes on a per capita basis, and more lives have traditionally been lost in hurricanes and small events.

Cutter said the thrust of the book is toward reducing vulnerability through safer construction, land-use controls to avoid dangerous areas and safer handling of hazardous materials.

The authors also advocate limiting federal subsidies when disasters do strike.

California, however, may be going the other way. Since the Northridge quake, the amount of earthquake insurance, in coverage for losses and the number of those insured, has fallen so sharply that a disastrous quake would probably result in a greater demand for federal relief.

Only about 15% of the state’s homeowners are now covered for earthquakes, compared with 30% at the time of the Northridge quake.

Cutter said she believes that not until there is a catastrophe that overwhelms the government’s capacity or desire to provide relief will there be real progress toward the kinds of action her study advocates.

Nonetheless, she added, it might take “an earthquake in Los Angeles or San Francisco, or a hurricane in New Orleans” to really change public attitudes.