WeatherZine #20

Correspondence

We encourage your correspondence, and although we cannot print all that we receive, we will include at least one short, perhaps edited, letter per issue.

Correspondence from Charles A. Doswell III

Correspondence from Gene Maxim

Dear WeatherZine

Regarding Michael R. Smith's Guest Editorial, "The Future of the 'Public-Private Partnership'" (December 1999 WeatherZine):

Generally speaking, I find myself agreeing with most of what Mike has to say. Some colleagues and I expressed a not-too-dissimilar viewpoint at www.nssl.noaa.gov/~brooks/waf15/bfd.html

My current view of the future suggests that the "infrastructure" of the public weather service left in place by the middle of the next century is almost certainly going to have very few, if any, human forecasters left. The automation of most of the current NWS products and services will create a real opportunity for the private sector to fill in the resulting quality gap of service to customers; in particular, those forecast users who need something better than the generic products coming mostly from automated forecasting (and, eventually, warning) systems. Thus, a private sector can flourish where substantial, validated improvement in forecast quality (beyond that provided by the public sector) to serve specific user needs is the primary selling point for their services. There will be a real role for sophisticated forecasting (and research) skills in the future. Although the public-private mix will change substantially, there should be an abundance of opportunities for meteorologists in this altered future.

My only disagreement with Mike is a minor one, concerning his statement that "...the private sector weather industry is the only 'customer' of the National Weather Service that pays the incremental cost of the service it receives from the NWS. We pay 'user fees' for the Domestic Data Service, WSR-88D data, and other services. The public does not pay a user fee for NOAA Weather Radio." Strictly speaking, of course, this is true, but taxes nevertheless are paid by the public, in return for which it receives such "services" as the NOAA Weather Radio, and all the rest of the NWS products. Per taxpayer, this is about $7 per year, which is a bargain.

— Charles A. Doswell III
NOAA/National Severe Storms Laboratory
doswell@nssl.noaa.gov

Comments? thunder@ucar.edu

[ Top of Page ]

Dear WeatherZine

Regarding Mike Augustyniak's letter (December 1999 WeatherZine): I like idea #3 in your WeatherZine letter [that insurance companies helping to build more resistant houses develop a standard booklet for prospective house buyers building from scratch that would cover safety, insulation, utilities, siding, roofing, flooring, etc.]. In Maine we do not have a statewide building code. Building codes are left up to local officials and some do a good job in this regard but far too many do very little.

Many of the smaller towns have only an electrical and plumbing code and nothing that addresses wind, earthquakes, etc. In Maine it will be very hard to get a state building code passed by our legislature. We have to promote good building practices by educating the potential owners and builders. We have to try to create customer demand for a more disaster resistant, lower-cost-to-repair dwelling that keeps its contents warm, dry and safe when Nature acts up. It's slow going.

A booklet put out by insurance companies illustrating some basic principles of disaster resistant siting and construction would certainly be a big help. The fact that it was being distributed/produced by insurance companies would give additional weight to the message.

I also feel it is extremely important for insurance companies to offer premium reductions for those who build to a higher standard. Those who build in hazardous areas should be required to incorporate extra mitigation measures in the building design or pay a premium commensurate with their poor choices.

Insurance companies have been reluctant to embrace this concept. Last year, however, USAA announced at the National Hurricane Conference (NHC) that it was going to offer a major discount for houses built to a disaster resistant standard. Hopefully more will follow its lead.

See you at the NHC in New Orleans.

— Gene Maxim
Natural Hazards Planner

Comments? thunder@ucar.edu

[ Top of Page ]

WeatherZine #20 Home Page | Comments and Feedback | Site Map
ESIG Home Page | Roger Pielke, Jr.'s Home Page | Societal Aspects of Weather
[ Societal Aspects of Weather – Text Version ]