Here is a different one. Nowadays we regularly file environmental impact statements showing the insinuation for the environment of this or that responsibility (a new strip mine, an undeveloped establishment another airport, a dump yard…you can provide any one of hundreds of examples). We ought to in this similar fashion file statements showing the force of real estate development; the building of structures, dams, and levees; and other main projects -- on the augmented vulnerability to hazards they will compel on others. In this politically charged climate, this will look like to many like another unrequited federal "undertaking," but why should my self-determination extend to building a levee to defend my property that will augment the risk to your property downstream on that same river? Should I not have to check with you? The obligation for Environmental Impact Statements prompted numerous complaints at the period, but nowadays, we have internalized the procedure. It is a conventional part of doing commerce. And it is the correct thing to do. That is the comparable intent of the No-Adverse-Impact policy recommendation of the Alliance of State Floodplain Managers (Hurricane Sandy: Covering the Storm).

A third stride? Let us get the public- and private-sectors to the table to converse deliberately about how they can carry on to work together to decrease disaster losses in this nation. A lot of companies these days have business stability plans. They know what they have to do to remain their doors unlocked in the time of disasters. And they take those measures as best they can. However the companies cannot implement those plans if as consequence of the tragedy their employees lose homes and either can't make it to work or are preoccupied with domestic problems. And those open stores will not do any selling if their customers' communities have been uprooted. Companies want a discussion for collaborating with local-, state-, and national government to condense community defenselessness. There was a time; we had such a round-table, under the name of Project Impact, a FEMA...

We are supposed to bring back this program, or similar like it (Kirkland, E&E reporter).
Conclusion and Lessons Learned

Insurance companies may give a functional starting point. It is probable that Sandy's impact along all that urbanized shoreline will again highlight occasions for humanizing the National Flood Insurance Program. The insurance conglomerates, DoC and DHS, and the public's they all dole out have skin in the game (Serna, 2012). Such deliberations are required at the federal, state and local levels. The Department of Commerce possibly will give a normal venue to commence such a dialog (Hurricane Sandy: Covering the Storm).

Here's a final stroke. We can keep a tally. The National Academy of Sciences suggested over a decade back that the U.S. Department of Commerce add this contribution to its compilation of economic figures. That suggestion should be put into practice. It is human nature to perk up presentation with respect to what we determine. Figures would be boisterous year-to-year, but like those profitable aviation statistics, but over time, we should be able to all see the rise of those dollar losses first start to slow and then become constant, even as our economy maintains its growth (Kirkland, E&E reporter).

It would be inspirational. It might show we had been educated by Hurricane Sandy's real example.

Works Cited

Strasser; Annie-Rose. Conservatives Bash Christie for Cooperating With Obama Post-Sandy. ThinkProgress - Election. Oct 31, 2012

Kirkland, Joel. Energy Became Surprise Issue in Bitter Presidential Race. E&E reporter. http://www.accuweather.com/en/features/sandy/energy_became_surprise_issue_i/1182402

Hurricane Sandy: Covering the Storm, http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/10/28/nyregion/hurricane-sandy.html

Serna, Joseph. Hurricane Sandy death toll climbs above 110, N.Y. hardest hit. Los Angeles Times. November 03, 2012.