Special Report: The 2005 Storm Season - A Florida & Gulf Coast Perspective & the Value of Hurricane Protection

The hurricane storm season of 2005 gave a new meaning for the names Alpha, Beta, Gamma. Formerly only used in fraternal organizations, the storms of 2005 were so numerous that for the first time in recorded weather history, the National Weather Service used up the entire list of published names.

The 2005 season also will go down in history as the most costly, in terms of storm damage. A positive for the hurricane protection industry; there will be a large number of building officials who will be requiring storm protection in their jurisdictions.

As Katrina roared towards the Gulf Coast many photographs showed some of the buildings being protected with plywood, but almost no modern hurricane protection systems were evident. The lack of modern protective systems and lax building codes contributed to $34 billion of insured losses. The economic and non-insured losses could push the figure to over $125 billion. One federal official estimated that the federal government will spend over $100 billion on low-interest loans and relief efforts. Could it have been prevented?

Hurricane Wilma pounded South Florida with 120 mph winds in one of the most populated regions of the United States. Yet the level of destruction from high winds was significantly less in Florida than the destruction caused by Katrina.

An estimated 250,000 buildings were destroyed during Katrina. While the American Red Cross estimated that only 27,000 structures were destroyed in Florida.

The number of homes without power in Florida was 6.5 million. The number of homes along the Gulf Coast after Katrina was 3.5 million. With these two statistics it is apparent that the wind damage was similar if not higher in South Florida.

Two significant reasons for the smaller amount of property damage during Wilma was tougher building codes that demand the use of hurricane protection systems, and the laxity of building standards along the Gulf Coast.

A professor from Louisiana University estimated that 80 percent of the failures were due to faulty construction. This figure is almost identical to the level of damage that was attributed to faulty construction after hurricane Andrew struck South Florida in 1992.

National Public Radio reported that there were no enforced building codes being used in Louisiana and, currently, the Louisiana legislature is debating what type of building code should be employed before the rebuilding begins.

After looking at the damage caused by Hurricane Wilma in Florida and Katrina along the Gulf Coast, new building codes, strict enforcement and required hurricane protection for the building’s opening should be part of any rebuilding effort.

Storm protection is only part of the answer. Preliminary estimates by U.S. geological services showed that Katrina’s storm surge was a record 37 feet on impact and an eyewitness from Pass Christian, MS, which is two miles inland, estimated the storm surge at 25 feet.

Certainly buildings immediately impacted by the strong storm surge would not have been helped by hurricane protection, but many building would have survived if their openings had been protected. In Long Beach, MS, one resident was building a reinforced concrete house using many FEMA building standards and having protected openings. It was the only building left standing.

In Florida, the use of hurricane protection and stronger building codes, which require hurricane protection, the number of buildings destroyed was less than the lives lost. And the total number of dollars that will be needed to rebuild is going to be less than $10 billion or about $24 billion less than Katrina.

An interesting fact of the difference between the two storms is that Katrina spared the largest metropolitans area from its worst winds while Wilma sent 110 mph wind directly across Miami and West Palm Beach, FL, two of the most expensive and densely populated areas in the United States. Clearly the effect of hurricane protection contributed to a reduction of property losses.