Risk Management

The tragedy that occurred in the Texas Hill Country should be a wake-up call for anyone responsible for the safety of others and/or infrastructure. As a parent who lost a child, I understand firsthand the grief that the parents and families of the deceased campers are feeling. My heart goes out to families and friends of all who perished. 

What general thoughts about risk management does this tragedy spark for you?

For me, those responsible for the safety of others and/or infrastructure should 

1. Take a deep dive to intentionally identify everything that could go wrong and what would happen if it did. These are risks.
2. Determine how to mitigate each risk. Risks can be taken, terminated, treated, or transferred.
3. Ensure that the risks and their corresponding mitigations are clearly and broadly communicated.

Specific to Flooding, Policy Statement 545 - Flood risk management - sets out a strong position. Is there anything you would suggest adding to this to this policy?

------------------------------
Mitch Winkler P.E.(inactive), M.ASCE
Houston, TX
------------------------------

Policy 545 is an excellent statement with a proper definition of risk -- a combination of the probabilities of occurrence and consequences.

Unfortunately, too many of us focus only on the probability of occurrence and disregard the potential consequences of a low probability event. Concurrent tsunami and earthquake? Too unlikely, until it happened in Japan. Our terminology doesn't help. Referring to a 1000-year river flood probability lulls us into thinking about how rare that must be instead of how many lives it might cost. Hydrologists understand the reality behind the words but public officials may not understand. Who helps them understand the consequences of lives lost by rare events? Should other officials, engineers, scientists, journalists, or the public be telling them? How can we better communicate these issues?

------------------------------
William McAnally Ph.D., P.E., BC.CE, BC.NE, F.ASCE
ENGINEER
Columbus MS
------------------------------

Good point, Bill, about disregarding the potential consequences of a low-probability event.  A great example is the Macondo blowout. This low-probability event brought BP to the brink of financial ruin. I also think reputational risk is underestimated. At a later time, I want to explore cognitive biases, including Prospect Theory, which can drive risk-seeking behavior.

------------------------------
Mitch Winkler P.E.(inactive), M.ASCE
Houston, TX
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 07-09-2025 12:23 PM
From: William McAnally
Subject: Do You Know Your Risks?

Policy 545 is an excellent statement with a proper definition of risk -- a combination of the probabilities of occurrence and consequences.

Unfortunately, too many of us focus only on the probability of occurrence and disregard the potential consequences of a low probability event. Concurrent tsunami and earthquake? Too unlikely, until it happened in Japan. Our terminology doesn't help. Referring to a 1000-year river flood probability lulls us into thinking about how rare that must be instead of how many lives it might cost. Hydrologists understand the reality behind the words but public officials may not understand. Who helps them understand the consequences of lives lost by rare events? Should other officials, engineers, scientists, journalists, or the public be telling them? How can we better communicate these issues?

------------------------------
William McAnally Ph.D., P.E., BC.CE, BC.NE, F.ASCE
ENGINEER
Columbus MS
------------------------------

There should be tangible and intangible quantification of the acceptable risk and compared to the probability of that accepted risk.  

------------------------------
David Williams Ph.D., HG, P.E., BC.WRE, F.EWRI, F.ASCE
President
David T. Williams and Assoc.
Commerce City CO
------------------------------