Disasters Are Inevitable; Government Waste Doesn’t Have to Be

As happens after every major natural disaster, political leaders — everyone from President Trump to Gov. Gavin Newsom of California — have vowed to rebuild after last year’s hurricanes and the recent California wildfires. While governments must address immediate needs — rebuilding roads, ensuring public order and providing shelter — the best way to make America safer from future disasters isn’t more government involvement but less. 

In the 10-year period that ended in 2021, America spent nearly $350 billion through FEMA’s disaster relief fund. A modicum of care for taxpayer dollars suggests we should not spend more. The best policies eliminate incentives to build in disaster-prone areas while making it easier to build elsewhere.

The facts are simple: Hurricanes will batter coastal regions, wildfires will blaze through drought-prone areas, and floods will inundate river valleys. While they are constant, people can and do live good lives in areas prone to disasters.

Hurricanes, wildfires and floods are inevitable, but disasters occur when vulnerabilities collide: poor building patterns, ineffective responses and inadequate infrastructure. Climate change has undoubtedly intensified many disasters and may have made some more common, but cutting emissions won’t make America safer because disasters, by definition, have many causes. U.S. emissions are a trivial part of the global total anyway. 

The real issue is government policies encouraging risky development while restricting safer alternatives. Federal flood insurance, tax laws and subsidies promote building in danger zones, while local zoning and labor laws make construction difficult in safer areas. For instance, obtaining building permits in San Francisco can take nearly two years.

Solutions exist. The Coastal Barrier Resources Act, signed with the enthusiastic support of  Ronald Reagan, withdrew federal subsidies from environmentally sensitive coastal areas, saving billions while protecting an area of land larger than any national park in the lower 48 states. 

Expanding this approach to certain river floodplains, fire-prone canyons and other high-risk zones would curb reckless development. If wealthy individuals choose to build in these areas, they shouldn’t expect government help.

While scaling back government incentives encouraging risky development is essential, it cannot happen in isolation. To ensure enough housing remains available, state and local governments must also remove unnecessary barriers to building in safer, less sensitive, more desirable locations. That’s why state and local governments must reform restrictive zoning, housing, building, and historical preservation rules, and mandates placed on landlords. While there is a government role in ensuring that uses of land don’t cause huge problems for their neighbors, the basic principle of private property means that people who own land should enjoy a very strong legal presumption in favor of building what they want where they want to.

Real-world models show that this can work: cities like Houston that have minimal regulations provide a full-spectrum of urban amenities — great art museums, big-league sports teams and top universities — with rents that are half and home prices that are a quarter of those in regulation-happy cities like San Francisco and Portland, Oregon. These policies aren’t perfect — Houston has real flooding problems, for example — but they point a way toward better policies and safer cities.

Better disaster policy means protecting taxpayers, encouraging responsible development, and letting private individuals — not the government — decide whether to take on risk. By embracing policies that curb reckless subsidies and make it possible to build more, America can enjoy a far safer future.