Smart growth incorporates hazard mitigation.

A smart growth strategy does not mean abandoning cities. It weighs the economic costs of abandoning established infrastructure that cities already provide, the costs of transportation, and the reduced quality of life that comes into play when people are commuting from suburbs to jobs in the city. To come up with a truly smart approach we must weigh these against the threats of a natural disaster, the toll on infrastructure, and the available resources.

Hurricanes Frances and Ivan are dramatic reminders of how communities and the environment can live in conflict. Images of Frances smashing into the East Coast, Midwestern homes trounced by tornadoes, and earthquakes demolishing buildings provide opportunities for us to step back and examine the human and financial tolls these natural disasters take on communities and the Nation.

Since 1971, California's losses, due to earthquakes alone, are $50 billion. The U.S. Department of Energy website reports that the insurance industry paid out $48 billion in claims from weather-related losses around the world between 1990 and 1996. This is up from $14 billion for the entire 1980s. Between 1975 and 1994 more than 100,000 people were injured and 24,000 people killed by natural hazards in the US. Financial losses associated with the disasters of this period are conservatively estimated at $500 billion.

Natural occurrences need not be catastrophic. They only become dangerous when they come into-contact with people and property. While it's impossible to reroute an earthquake and inconceivable to think of relocating a community the size of Los Angeles, Seattle, or San Francisco, developing a smart growth strategy that incorporates disaster resilience is not.

We know that it is only a matter of time before the Los Angeles area faces another great earthquake and that, even with all the mitigation activities that are happening, the damage will come with great consequence to the city, the state, and the world. We need to do a more complete job of designing communities with disaster resilience in mind. Our cities commercial, industrial, educational, and institutional buildings are at an unacceptably high risk. People must be able to live in their homes after a great earthquake, and they also need to be able to go to work. The world economy depends on a healthy and vibrant Los Angeles.

It will take decades to recover when the next great earthquake occurs unless we start correcting the deficiencies now. We must adopt and enforce a three-tiered approach to creating disaster-resilient communities. Proper codes and standards to assure that communities are built to appropriate levels of safety are essential. These standards must include proper land use, proper design and construction and proper over sight to assure that the built environment remains in a state of readiness. This is critical so that the problem does not continue to grow steadily worse.

The next step is developing appropriate policy to mitigate the unacceptable hazards in the community over a long period. There are lots of ways to do this including rehabilitation, down grading occupancy, replacement. The program should be affordable and diligent so the goal of correcting the existing built environment is achieved over the long term. And it should include incentives to encourage rehabilitation.

The third component to developing a disaster resistant community requires a strong emergency response plan that clearly identifies the tools that are available and focuses on minimizing loss of life and economic disruption to the community.

Mitigation is an investment in our community, an investment that increases efficiency, saves valuable resources, creates more environmentally viable places to live and draws and retains progressive businesses. For these reasons, we must begin to make development and building decisions based on multiple goals and maximize available resources. We have to make sure that the very best economic, social, and environmental principles of sustainable development and design be implemented simultaneously.

Livability and hazard mitigation go hand-in-hand. We want communities that are environmentally cleaner--yes. We want safe communities and, of course, we want these communities to last and to pass their legacy on to future generations. Designing these communities with disaster resistance and hazard mitigation in mind not only safeguards our future but perpetuates the notion of community. Together, across neighborhoods and organizations, people work toward a common goal, using local decision-making processes to build consensus, implement programs, and create a sense of security and safety. At the end of the day, that is what a livable community is.

Chris Poland is president and CEO of Degenkolb Engineers, a 65-year-old structural engineering firm with a focus on seismic safety, and co-chair of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Coalition, in Washington, DC. He was also a principal investigator and contributor to the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Series Program Handbooks.