Canton on Emergency Management

Why Do We Still Kill The Messenger?

There was an interesting article in Sunday’s San Francisco Chronicle about one of the survivors of the recent fire that destroyed the town of Paradise. The gentleman in question was born and raised in Paradise and built a home there. That home was destroyed in the Camp Fire last November. But unlike the other disaster survivors, this man receives no sympathy from his neighbors and has had to endure threats and vandalism. The reason? He works for Pacific Gas and Electric.

PG&E has had image problems since the San Bruno pipeline explosion in 2010 that resulted in a conviction for obstruction of justice. The company has a reputation for placing profits above safety, a reputation that was reinforced by the company being found responsible for major fires in California in both 2017 and 2018. The company faces multiple civil suits from those fires and consideration is being given to charging the company with manslaughter and possibly even murder.

But are the employees working on recovery culpable in any way? The individual that the Chronicle article highlighted is both a native of Paradise and himself a disaster survivor. The work he is engaged in is community restoration. Yet he and other workers have had their vehicles vandalized, been verbally assaulted, and had garbage thrown at them. They are abused not for who they are or what they are doing but because they are a visible and accessible representative of a powerful company that the abuser has no real power to influence.

This an extreme case, to be sure, but how often are we rude to people who are trying to help us simply because they are the only representative of an institution accessible to us? Mind you, I have limited patience with rudeness and inefficiency, but I try not to open a conversation with a customer service representative with a verbal assault. I remind myself first that I want their help and secondly that they, in most cases, don’t have the power to make any real decisions. In other words, they’re not to blame for their company’s errors; they’re trying to help fix the problem.

Executing a messenger who brought bad news simply because they represented the sender went out of style years ago. Next time you’re angry with a company, write the chairman or president; don’t beat up on the person who’s only trying to make things better.

Paranoia Strikes Deep

Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
Step out of line, the men come and take you away

These lyrics from “For What It’s Worth” were written by Stephen Stills back in 1966 and reflected the turbulent times surrounding the Vietnam War and the social upheaval that was taking place. It seems, however, that they are just as relevant, or maybe even more so, to our times, as we have allowed our fears to overcome our good judgement.

Here’s a recent example that highlights what I mean. Former FBI Director James Comey tweeted an innocuous message that was interpreted by a right-wing conspiracy group to be a reference to Jihad and was construed as the “go” order for a false flag attack. Using the first five letters of various Comey tweets with the same hashtag, the group identified the “target” as a charter school in a rural California county. As luck would have it, the school’s annual fund raiser was scheduled for last weekend. After reading about the threat on the Internet, several people contacted the school and local law enforcement to express concern.

There was never a direct threat to the school and local law enforcement felt that the threat was baseless. If you had to make a decision to cancel the fundraiser or go ahead with it, which would you have chosen? It’s a “damned if you do; damned if you don’t” no win situation for the school leaders. In the end, the school leaders opted to cancel, not out of concern over a potential attack, but for fear that armed vigilantes would descend upon the festival to “protect the children” as has happened in the past in other locations.

I do not question the decision of the festival organizers to cancel. It was a difficult decision to make and had financial consequences in terms of lost revenue and sunk costs, not mention subjecting the organizers to second-guessing and ridicule. What I do question is how have we sunk so low that a group of conspiracy theorists writing on a discredited website can force the cancellation of an event completely unconnected to them. Anyone who has studied mechanisms of violent social change understands that acts of terrorism or anarchy are intended to force us to overreact and create the very conditions required for the change we oppose. When we live in fear, we allow small erosions to our freedoms in exchange for security. The trouble is these small losses add up to create significant, far reaching losses of civil rights.

I’ve written before that we cannot eliminate all risk in our lives. This means being willing to recognize when a risk is acceptable and when it is not. It means we have to stop letting our fears drive us where we have not desire to go.

We Have Met The Enemy...

Cartoonist Walt Kelly’s beloved character Pogo is credited with coining the phrase, “We have met the enemy and he is us.” Although Pogo was referring to pollution, it applies equally well to disasters where we are almost always our own worst enemy.

Disasters are a social construct. That is, they are created by the interaction of impact of the event on our vulnerability. The issue is that we frequently create conditions that increase both the impact of the event and our vulnerability. In Rising Tide, his study of the Mississippi flood of 1927, John Barry notes how the commitment to levees as flood control measures increased rather than reduced the risk of flooding. In The Big Burn, Timothy Egan describes how a major firestorm in 1910 caused the fledgling Forest Service to adopt a policy of total fire prevention, a policy that actually increased the fire danger in national forests. Both policies were well-intentioned but flawed and had consequences with which we still deal today.

History is replete with other examples, some of the them the result of government decision making but many others caused by greed or expediency. San Francisco suffered in 1906 because a system of emergency cisterns was allowed to fall into disrepair because it was viewed as outdated and no longer needed. The Johnstown flood of 1889 was the result of shoddy dam construction. The same could be said of the holding tank that burst and flooded Boston with over 2 million gallons of molasses in 1919, killing 21 people.

We cannot eliminate all vulnerability. It is too late to move major cities such as San Francisco or New Orleans to safer ground. The Portuguese government considered such a move in 1755 following the great earthquake, fires, and tsunamis that destroyed Lisbon and discarded the idea as unworkable and fraught with political consequences. But we can be vigilant about resisting development that creates new vulnerabilities and we can mitigate the hazards we know about.

Surprisingly, mitigation is many times a hard sell, even though we have evidence that every dollar invested in mitigation yields $4 in societal savings and almost the same amount in savings to the US Treasury. That’s an incredible return on investment. The barrier is not financial or even the adequacy of the proposed mitigation. It comes down to the sociopolitical environment and cultural acceptance. In other words, people need to commit to mitigation. Given our track record to date, that’s a major obstacle to overcome.

Emergency Management Solutions December 2018

 

 

Emergency Management Solutions December 2018

Clean Up Your Act! New Product Highlight

Every now and then I come across an interesting product that makes me scratch my head and ask, "Why didn't someone think of this before?" I've spent a lot of time in environments where water was at a premium and showering wasn't always an option and would really have appreciated something besides tiny baby wipes. Now a new product called ShowerToGo promises to fill that need. 

ShowerToGo is a massive wet wipe, roughly the size of a bath towel at 24”x 50”. It’s quick, convenient, and disposable. One wipe cleans the whole body, absorbing sweat, dirt, grime, and contaminants.  It's composed of biodegradable material, a major plus.

I can see all sorts of applications for this product, not only in emergency shelters and go-bags, but for support to homeless populations and even for sport camping. Check it out!

www.showertogo.net 

Spontaneous Shelters: Ignore them at you peril

(Karl Mondon/Bay Area News Group)

Here’s an issue that we don’t discuss very often: spontaneous or makeshift sheltering. During the Northridge earthquake, many members of the Hispanic community who had experienced the Mexico City earthquake chose not to go to the official shelters established by the city of Los Angeles. They remembered the severe aftershocks that had killed many and chose instead to camp out in the local park. This presented the city with a problem. With the large number of people in the park, there was an immediate need to provide services such as sanitation, medical care, and feeding. However, providing services would encourage people to remain rather than move to official shelters and serve as a magnet to other displaced residents. Ultimately, the city chose to work with the community and provide the needed services.

A similar problem is occurring in the Camp fire in Butte County. Beginning on November 8, a makeshift tent city has sprung up in a dirt lot next to a Walmart parking lot in Chico. (Walmart has a long-standing policy of allowing overnight camping in its parking lots.) The camp is not an official shelter but has instead relied on volunteers to provide services and on donations of goods and money. These volunteer services are ending soon, which presents the city of Chico with a problem like that faced by Los Angeles.

The situation is a bit different here, though. The vacant lot is prone to flooding and rain is in the forecast. Winter temperatures are in the 30’s and will only grow colder. From the city’s perspective, remaining in the current site presents a health risk to the residents and they are encouraging residents to move to official shelters. Neither the city nor Walmart are actively trying to evict the displaced residents, nor have they established any deadline for them to move. While the campers are not pleased, but so far, the city has avoided any confrontations and is doing its best to encourage an end to the encampment.

These makeshift evacuation sites and spontaneous shelters are not unusual. People feel at a loss and have nowhere to go. Such sites may actually perform a service by allowing people to decompress and sort out their options. However, they also have the potential to turn into a greater problem with both health and safety issues and public relations concerns. Moving quickly to redirect evacuees to alternatives is essential.

Emergency Management Solutions - September 2018

 

Emergency Management Solutions - September 2018

Featured Article

Strategic Planning

Using your vision statement to demonstrate program value

Why Are We Having So Many Disasters?

A common question I’m hearing these days is, “Why are we having so many disasters?” While one can make an argument that we are just more aware of disasters these days, that really doesn’t answer the question. Neither does a single answer such as blaming it on climate change. Disasters are complex and are the result of the conjunction of many factors.

To begin with, all disasters are not equal, nor do they affect all segments of a community the same way. Disasters are a function of vulnerability, something that can be considered from any number of levels. In his classic study 1995 heat wave in Chicago, sociologist Eric Klinenberg identified social isolation as the vulnerability factor that led to disparate mortality rates in two similar neighborhoods. San Francisco’s Marina District was heavily damaged in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake because it was constructed on landfill. The rest of the city suffered only minimal damage.

Infrastructure also plays its part in creating the conditions for disaster, sometimes unwittingly. Some of these vulnerabilities are obvious, such as our predilection for building in flood zones or in the wildland-urban interface. As our infrastructure ages, it is becoming increasingly brittle, as evidenced by the recent bridge collapse in Genoa, Italy and last year’s road bridge collapse in Atlanta. We have increased our dependence on technology to the point where we cannot do without it.

But the obvious vulnerabilities of our infrastructure don’t tell the whole story; disasters are more subtle. In his book, The Fate of Rome: Climate, Disease, and the End of an Empire, historian Kyle Harper demonstrates how the interconnectivity of the Roman Empire (e.g. roads, established trade networks) allowed for the rapid spread of the bubonic plague in the sixth century and how Roman cities served as incubators and reservoirs for numerous other diseases.

We tend to think of climate change in the same manner by focusing on the obvious, such as winter storms, tsunamis, and so forth. But climate change can affect food production and even produce social disruption. The end of the Roman Warm Period in the fifth century saw the Rhine River freeze solid and the beginning of the migrations that would eventually cause the end of Rome. It also caused severe drought that disrupted the Silk Road trade and the flow of Egyptian grain to Rome. Climate change may also have induced migration among the host reservoirs, resulting in the spread of bubonic plague among populations already weakened by famine.

This conjunction of factors of such as climate, infrastructure, disease, and social networks may not create a disaster in themselves but they each have a bearing on vulnerability and can contribute to the creation of conditions for the disaster. What we are experiencing now are changes in the mix of conditions that are combining to increase our vulnerability to disasters

We're all doomed! Oh, wait...maybe not.

We had a small temblor here in the San Francisco Bay Area a few weeks ago, a 3.5 magnitude earthquake (We joke that we use these low-magnitude earthquakes to stir our coffee). Nevertheless, it did raise a bit of concern. One commenter on Facebook posted that the earth was moving under the Kilauea volcano, that eruption was imminent, and that it would spawn a 100-foot tsunami in Hawaii, with a wall of water 100 feet high hitting California within 5 hours. He claimed the source was the USGS.

Over the years I’ve grown a bit weary of correcting a lot of the nonsense that passes for news on Facebook, but I made an exception in this case and double checked the USGS Volcano Hazards, Pacific Tsunami Warning Center, and the Hawaii Office of Civil Defense sites. As expected, there was no such warning and I posted a pithy message squelching the rumor.

The problem with this type of misinformation is that there is sometimes a kernel of truth at its core and people frequently confuse possibility and probability.

Is a mega-tsunami possible in Hawaii? There is evidence in the geological record that the Hawaiian Islands have suffered over 70 collapses over the past 20 million years that spawned large tsunamis. Kilauea is moving, with the last shift of 10 centimeters occurring in 2000. Scientists project that a collapse of Kilauea would spawn a tsunami like the one described by my nervous friend: 300-meter waves locally and 30-meter waves striking the West Coast. Fortunately, the probability of such an event occurring in the immediate future is low. Don't cancel your Hawaiian vacation.

How do we counter this type of misinformation? I wish I had a good answer. I think all we can do is to try to educate people on where to find accurate information and try to correct bad information when we find it. Unfortunately, people are quick to pass on misinformation without double checking it and don’t always pass on the corrections, so it’s a never ending and thankless task. But then, who ever said our job was easy?

Related articles

It's the end of the world - again!

4.6-magnitude earthquake rattles Hawaii's Big Island

A Flooded Zoo Can Pose A Real Challenge to Responders

Live Life to the Fullest - A Tail From the Dog Park

Disasters Create Emotional Connections With Future Generations

 

Lotta's Fountain 1905

Catastrophic events leave their mark on a city for generations. I'm not talking about physical damage, although that may be part of it, but rather the memories ingrained on the psyche of the citizens. For us in San Francisco, THE disaster is the 1906 earthquake and fires that destroyed most of the city. The Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989 is remembered and is enshrined in the State's earthquake month in October but it pales in comparison with the feelings and emotional connection generated by it's predecessor.

Just how deep this emotional connection runs was demonstrated last week when my former boss and past Mayor of San Francisco, Willie Brown, suggested renaming Lotta's Fountain in honor of Mayor Ed Lee, who died in office last year. Mayor Lee was well liked and respected and prior to his election had been instrumental in restoring the fountain. The response to Brown's suggestion was a public uproar, the like of which  has not been seen for a while here.

To understand the reason behind this vehement response, you need to know a bit of San Francisco history. Charlotte Crabtree, fondly known as "Lotta", was a singer and entertainer who got her start in San Francisco during the Gold Rush Era as a neighbor of the famous dancer and actress, Lola Montez. She went on to become the highest paid actress in America at the height of her fame in the 1880's. In 1875, she commissioned the fountain as a gift to the City of San Francisco. Following the 1906, earthquake, the fountain became a meeting point for survivors and, beginning in 1919, the site of an annual commemoration that continues to this day.

One would think that renaming the fountain was do big deal. The last earthquake survivors, who were actually in the womb at the time of the earthquake, died in 2015 and many newcomers to San Francisco have no idea of the significance of the fountain. But many who grew up here remember and came forward to protest the renaming. Brown very wisely back pedaled on the suggestion. It was a humbling lesson in how disasters can create emotional connections even after the passing of many years.

Related articles

Terrorism Theater: The Public Is Not The Threat

Disaster Movies as Teaching Tools

A Flooded Zoo Can Pose A Real Challenge to Responders

It's the end of the world - again!