The cost of natural disasters is increasing rapidly in the United States. Although disasters strike most states, California and Florida are the worst effected, accounting for the majority of FEMA obligations. During the 1989-1998 period California received 43\% of monies, Florida received 10\%.

We consider two response strategies to earthquake and hurricane hazard in California and Florida respectively. Firstly, we compile maps of building code standards in the two states. Standards vary significantly in Florida while the hurricane risk (characterized by tracks for the last 100 years) is fairly constant. In California, there are only two building code categories while the hazard varies significantly as it is localized along fault zones. Secondly, we compare maps of insurance rates with hazard. In both states the rates seem to be biased towards the most recent events.

Current mitigation does not appear to be fully exploiting our understanding of risk. Instead, it is based more on a reaction to the last event. This bias is the product of public awareness of only the most recent events, and of the necessity of public support for costly mitigation efforts. This implies that we need more events to highlight the occurrence and frequency of potential disasters to the public. Clearly, this is not desirable. Therefore, we must publicize high risk areas prior to events and prepare to exploit public interest following disasters.