We still hear the term “100-year storm,” yet those events are occurring far more frequently than the label suggests. From a preparedness perspective, how should engineers plan for long-term resilience?

Storms once thought to occur only once a century now arrive with increasing frequency rather than as outliers—bringing flooding, wind, heat, wildfires, and long-duration power outages that ripple through water, transportation, and communications systems. Given that reality, I encourage engineers, technical teams, and decision-makers to take a more holistic view of projects and integrate emergency preparedness into the earliest planning stages.

Emergency preparedness is often treated as a separate operational exercise rather than being embedded in engineering decisions from day one. The earliest phases of a project are where the two should intersect, and elevating these discussions at that stage is critical to building resilient, long-term solutions.

What does that holistic approach look like in practice?

It begins with a comprehensive risk assessment that evaluates hazards collectively rather than individually. That means anticipating cascading failures and initiating early conversations that address not only how a facility withstands a disaster, but how quickly it recovers, maintains service to the public, and adapts as conditions evolve.

A holistic approach also accounts for critical dependencies, such as power supply, site access, staffing availability, and operational continuity. This ensures preparedness strategies reflect real-world conditions and resource challenges from the start.

Where can clients start when they want to translate preparedness into

manageable, actionable steps?

First, I recognize that most organizations operate within budget constraints, so I help them allocate resources strategically and invest where they deliver the greatest value. Preparedness planning typically begins with a realistic risk and threat assessment, an approach long established by FEMA. This isn’t abstract or speculative—it’s about rigorously identifying the risks an organization actually faces.

At its core, emergency preparedness involves evaluating risk across three broad

categories: natural, technological, and human-caused hazards.

Natural hazards include earthquakes, hurricanes and tropical storms, wildfires,  coastal, riverine, and flash flooding, extreme heat and cold, drought, severe winter storms, and sea-level rise. These are often shaped by climate and geography and can place sustained stress on infrastructure systems.

Technological hazards stem from failures or disruptions to critical systems such as power grid outages, cyberattacks on operational technology, dam or levee failures, water or wastewater contamination, telecommunications outages, or data center and cloud system failures. Because these systems are interconnected, a disruption in one can ripple across the broader infrastructure network.

Then there are human-caused hazards that involve intentional or malicious actions threatening facilities or public safety. These can range from active-shooter incidents and acts of terrorism to cyber incidents such as ransomware or data compromise, infrastructure sabotage, arson, or intentional contamination affecting environmental systems.

What matters is using the risk and threat assessment to guide decision-making.

Identifying hazards is only the first step. The real value comes from understanding their likelihood, potential consequences, and how they may interact or cascade. That analysis becomes the basis for aligning preparedness, prevention, mitigation, and response actions to each identified risk within real-world constraints such as budget, operations, and long-term performance expectations.

While these hazards themselves are not new, the urgency to address them more deliberately through proactive, integrated design has never been greater. That’s where mitigation comes in—turning risk assessment into concrete design choices.

Can you share examples of how mitigation shows up in real projects?

Mitigation can take many forms. In some cases, infrastructure is designed to directly withstand or deflect a hazard, such as flood protection or sea-level defenses. In other cases, mitigation comes through codes and regulations that guide development in vulnerable areas.

On the Central Artery/Tunnel Project, for example, engineers identified locations

susceptible to flooding and incorporated targeted solutions such as low-point pump stations, seawalls, and elevated ramps. In the Ted Williams Tunnel, shield rock was placed over tunnel sections to protect against the unlikely but catastrophic scenario of a sinking vessel striking the structure. That decision was driven not by structural engineering alone, but by hazard-mitigation thinking.

This is where engineering and emergency preparedness are their best—working in concert. When hazards are clearly identified, mitigation measures can be designed intentionally, creating infrastructure that is resilient by design rather than as an afterthought.

If we look at flood maps, for example, they’re often treated as a primary planning tool. What’s missing from that approach?

Flood maps are valuable, but they’re static—they show where risk has been, not where it’s going. Engineers should look beyond those maps and ask whether their clients or relevant emergency management agencies have conducted broader risk or vulnerability assessments that predict conditions 10, 20, or 50 years into the future.

Asking those questions doesn’t mean gold-plating a project. It means understanding the full range of risks so mitigation investments are smarter and more durable. Engineers add important insight and value by helping clients think beyond today’s assumptions.

Looking ahead, what gives you optimism that the field is improving?

When I started in this field in the mid-1980s, emergency preparedness wasn’t

professionalized. My perspective was shaped early on by training in the Navy’s Nuclear Power Program, where emergency preparedness is treated as a core operational discipline and planned for rigorously, even for low-probability, high-consequence events.

In the broader civilian world, that same level of structure didn’t yet exist. After 9/11, that began to change dramatically. Today, we have standardized frameworks, FEMA guidance, NFPA standards, and formal academic programs dedicated to emergency management.

I now work with young professionals who are fluent in emergency preparedness concepts and standards. That’s a significant shift from when I started. While preparedness isn’t always mandated by a single legal requirement, the landscape has clearly evolved. Today, it’s supported by robust guidance, formal training, and a growing professional community that wasn’t in place early in my career.

If you could leave engineers with one guiding principle as they design for a changing climate, what would it be?

Designing for resilience means looking backward and forward. Historical data still matters, but it can’t be the only lens. We also have to ask: What could happen? How severe could it be? And are we prepared for that future? When engineers embrace emergency preparedness as a partner discipline, they unlock better designs and have more informed conversations with clients. The result is infrastructure that maintains critical functionality when it matters most.