There's a lot to like in the BuildStrong Coalition's call for a national resiliency effort. Probably the best thing about it is that it's grounded in the epitome of common sense — the notion that it's better to spend money on mitigating the impact of disasters than paying a lot more money in emergency relief after disasters strike.

Among other things, the report — “Ending the Cycle of Destruction: The U.S. Should Invest More Before Disasters Through a National Mitigation Strategy” — calls for the federal government to use some unspent funds allocated to government agencies other than the Federal Emergency Management Agency in the wake of 2012's Superstorm Sandy to pay for a new national resiliency effort. This includes a new building code grant program and increased funding for FEMA's predisaster mitigation activities. The report also calls for enactment of several pieces of legislation that would create resilient construction incentives for states, builders and individual homeowners.

The sad truth is, the United States cannot continue to follow a post-catastrophe strategy of repeatedly rebuilding and repairing in the wake of catastrophes. The National Flood Insurance Program alone — which responds to catastrophes — is more than $20 billion in the red. Added on top of that are all of the emergency relief outlays that follow any disaster. In an era of tight budgets, persistent deficits and increasing debt, any way to prevent unnecessary government spending deserves serious attention.

There will always been situations where the government will have to provide post-catastrophe relief. But a national resilience strategy emphasizing resiliency through comprehensive, effective and well-enforced building codes would decrease the need for such relief. And it doesn't stop there. In the face of locations suffering repeated disasters, there needs to be a close look at whether some structures should even be rebuilt where they once stood.

An effective strategy won't come free, as the BuildStrong Coalition report recognizes. By using previously allocated money, though, a strategy can be implemented without additional burdens.

It's more effective to pay upfront to protect against catastrophe than to pay much more to clean up after catastrophe strikes. That's just a matter of common sense — and fiscal prudence.