As technology advances I have an observation, and a question that needs to be asked and answered. And this could be a pretty interesting question. Back in the day, say 100 or 150 years ago, there were not so many people. Many activities occurred where there were few people and impacts on others were minimal. In some cases ecological damage was significant, but we were not so worried about that because few people were impacted by that ecological damage. In the 20th century, in urban locations, the impact of one’s activities on others became the basis for zoning laws – limiting what you could do with your property because certain activities negatively impacted others. And we certainly had examples of this – Cuyahoga River burning for one. Of course this phenomenon of zoning and similar restrictions was mostly an urban issue because there potential to impact others was more relevant in urban areas. We also know that major advances in technology and human development tend to occur in population centers (think Detroit for cars, Pittsburgh and Cleveland for steel, Silicon Valley, etc.). People with ideas tend to migrate to urban areas, increasing the number of people and the proximity to each other. Universities, research institutions, and the like tend to grow up around these industries, further increasing the draw of talent to urban areas. The observation is that urban areas tend to have more restrictions on what people do than rural areas. So the question – do people consciously make the migration to urban areas realizing that the migration for the potential financial gain occur with the quid pro quo of curbing certain freedoms to do as you please? Of does this artifact occur once they locate to the urban areas? And is there a lack of understanding of the need to adjust certain activities understood by the rural community, or does it become yet another point of philosophical or political contention? I have blogged previously about the difference between rural and urban populations and how that may affect the approach of utilities, but read a recent article that suggests that maybe urban citizens accept that financial gains potential of urban areas outweighs the need to limit certain abilities to do as you please to better the entire community. They are motivated by potential financial opportunities that will increase their standing and options in the future. So does that mean urban dwellers understand the financial tradeoff differently than rural users? Or is it a preference issue. And how does this translate to providing services like water to rural customers, who often appear to be more resistant to spending funds for improvements? While in part their resistance may be that their incomes tend to be lower, but is their community benefit concern less – i.e. they value their ability to do as they please more than financial opportunities or the community good? I have no answer, but suggest that this needs some further study since the implications may be significant as rural water systems start to approach their life cycle end.
A project I am currently involved with looks at the impacts of climate change on public health in southeast Florida. The initial grant focused on looking at socially vulnerable populations and the impact on chronic diseases these groups from climate change. The question was whether climate change, which in southeast Florida is basically sea level rise, would have an impact on health issues. On the face of it, the correlation between chronic health conditions and climate seems tenuous although the statistics support the link between chronic health impacts and socially vulnerable populations. But what is interesting is that in general, the climate vulnerable topography and the socially vulnerable people do not correlate. This may be a southeast Florida issue, but it is the less socially vulnerable who live in the climate vulnerable topography.
Those familiar with the history of southeast Florida know that makes sense because of the beaches. The beaches are topographically vulnerable but eh wealthy want to live there anyway. But the problem is more pervasive. The data actually can be mined further to reveal that the older homes (1940s-1960s), generally smaller and of lower value, were traditionally built on the high ground. Turns out our ancestors were a little smarter than we thought – they actually thought this out. Aside from Henry Flagler building the railroad on the high ground, most of the cities were located similarly – on the coastal ridge. Drainage of the Everglades permitted the western migration of residences – newer and larger, but at lower elevation and mostly reliant on drainage across the ridge to the ocean via canals. But as sea level rises, the water moves more slowly.
The question that must be asked then is what happens as this housing stock ages? We already see some newer communities, primarily built for retirees, moving to relieve themselves of the 55+ designations to allow the housing stock to be sold – the children of the retirees don’t want the property and desire to sell it – often quickly. To increase speed of sales (and ultimately retaining some value), eliminating the 55+ opens younger families to move in. However the lower value of the properties makes them conducive to migration of people who are social vulnerability, so migration may be toward social vulnerable people moving to topographically challenged property. That portends poorly for the link between climate and health in the future.
Two issues arise from the research. First future health vulnerability from climate may be more related to vectors and waterborne disease than chronic health effects. That expands the health vulnerability to all populations. The second issue is that storm water, sewer roadway and water infrastructure may relieve some pressure on these topographically vulnerable properties, but the people who are moving to then will have significantly less ability to pay for those improvements, creating a political conundrum that will that a significant amount of leadership to overcome. That means that resiliency must be built into infrastructure and redevelopment projects now, to address future conditions. Building in resiliency is not currently being considered by local planners and engineers because the situation is not well understood and a 50 year planning horizon is not the norm. Also, it would likely create a firestorm of fuss from developers who would pay the costs, which discourages good planning.
Finally, if things accelerate, wealthier parties may begin to see a retreat from vulnerable eastern beaches to higher ground as being a reasonable concept. However the high ground is currently occupied by socially vulnerable people, creating a potential area of conflict over the fate of displaced residents who’s social status may force them toward the vacant, topographically vulnerable properties. This is a future problem for planners, developers and officials approving new development with an eye to displacement a concept not in the current thought process. Thinking about vulnerability means a lot of infrastructure must not only be constructed, but maintained meaning local public works and utility budgets will need to increase in kind. That means higher rates and charges to populations that may have limits to their ability to pay Stay tuned…..
In my last blog I outlined the 10 states with the greatest losses since 2006. Florida was not among them, yet given our legislature’s on-going discussion and hand-wringing with the state run Citizen’s insurance, you would think we have a major ongoing crisis with insurance here. Maybe we do, but I will provide some facts. Citizens,averaged between 1 and 1.5 million policies over the last 8 years. according the the South Florida SunSentinel, the average person pays $2500 per year for windstorm coverage. Somehow I think I want that bill because my insurance is about $6000 through my private insurer and when I had Citizens it was $5700/yr. But I digress.
Let’s assume there is 1.2 million policies over that time paying the #2500/yr. That totals.$3 billion a year in premiums. That means Citizens should have reserves of $24 billion because they have not paid-out since 2006. They have $11 billion according to the SunSentinel sources. So wher eis the rest of the money? We can assume there are operating expenses. They pay their executives very well for a government organization. I am sure they pay the agents as well. I asked a couple friends in the industry and they indicate that for private companies, about half your premium goes the the agent who writes the policy. That’s only Citizens.
Let’s assume there are conservatively another 8 million policies in Florida and since many of those are inland, let’s day they average $1500/yr. If you have it for less, check out your policy!. That means there is another $12 billion collected each year for a total of $15 billion per year.
Now let’s look at storms. According to Malmstadt, et al 2010, the ten largest storms 1900–2007, corrected for 2005 dollars are as follows:.
Rank Storm Year Loss($bn)
1 Great Miami 1926 129.0
2 Andrew 1992 52.3
3 Storm 1944 35.6
4 Lake Okeechobee 1928 31.8
5 Donna 1960 28.9
6 Wilma 2005 20.6
7 Charlie 2004 16.3
8 Ivan 2004 15.5
9 Storm # 2 1949 13.5
10 Storm # 4 1947 11.6
So for all bu the top 9 storms in a 107 year history,the annual receipts exceed the losses for a storm. The total over the period is $450 billion (adjusted to 2005 dollars) That means an average of $4 billion per year. So what is the issue? Sure a big storm could wipe out the trust fund, but that is what Lloyd;’son London, re-insurers and the ability to borrow funds is all about.
I suggest that the fuzz is really about is this. Most people do not understand the concept of an insurance pool. That includes many public officials. The idea of insurance is to pool resources is to collect huge sums of money so that if something bad occurs, there is the ability to compensate people for their losses. Insurance is a good thing but individually we hope it is never us that needs to be compensated because that means something bad happened. But we expect our premiums to pay into that pool, build large pools of money, and have money when you need it. The more people that pay in, the more the risk is split and lower the likelihood that any individual suffers a loss. Hence the lower risk should lower premiums. And people who live in high risk area should pay more than those who don’t. Flood plains, dry forests, coastal areas, high wind areas, tornado alley, etc are all high risk. Florida is one, but clearly there are many others,
So Citizens has a pile of money. Most private insurance companies should also, although their money is invested and they expect most of that will not be paid out. I suspect the concern is a fear that the pile of cash will create a public furor, but that shows a lack of communication and education. Cash is good. Lots of it is better. It’s like running surpluses in government or in your personal savings account. The idea is to have money when you need it. Running at a point where you never have surpluses guarantees you will have deficits that require cuts in services,and possibly losses of jobs when the economy tanks again. For insurance, those losses occur when big event hit. Fortunately those are infrequent, but they have and will happen. We need the cash pools on hand to protect our citizens just in case. In the meantime we need some leadership and education of the public.