LoHud: Croton's rescue efforts on river cost nearly $30,000

[INIT915 1,119]

LoHud Link

CROTON-ON-HUDSON — The village spent nearly $30,000 on a search-and-rescue operation after a group of expert whitewater rafters capsized on the Croton River in the wake of Tropical Storm Irene, killing one of them and triggering a major response from emergency agencies across the region.

Village officials are now seeking reimbursement from the federal government, as they continue to review the Aug. 28 emergency operation, as well as fix a problem with radio communications that hampered the initial response.

With the cost of three helicopters factored in, Zambrano said that the entire operation to retrieve the paddlers cost various municipalities around $50,000, which may also be reimbursed by those agencies.

How about seeking reimbursement from the parties that set these events into motion? It was not unforeseeable that going kayaking during a major hurricane would be without risks.

[Healz 30]

Hey! When I suggested that extreme sportsmen be financially responsible for their own rescue I was called a buffoon, here. I wonder how the public feels paying for the rescue these foolish individuals.

[INIT915 1,119]

Well, I tend to agree, so I guess were both buffoons!

Edited November 28, 2011 by INIT915

[mike2931 13]

Are the majority of the cost coming from the use to the helicopters? As I was there that night majority of the resources was volunteers from various departments

[ny10570 745]

I would encourage fees for reckless behavior resulting in rescue but fees just because I participate in a sport and happened to get hurt sets a bad precedent. At what point do they start billing for all services?

[JJB531 652]

Are the majority of the cost coming from the use to the helicopters? As I was there that night majority of the resources was volunteers from various departments

Just because the majority of the first responders were volunteers doesn't mean a cheap bill for an extended and involved operation.

[helicopper 1,050]

Are the majority of the cost coming from the use to the helicopters? As I was there that night majority of the resources was volunteers from various departments

Just because the majority of the first responders were volunteers doesn't mean a cheap bill for an extended and involved operation. ust because the majority of the first responders were volunteers doesn't mean a cheap bill for an extended and involved operation.

The report on the radio this morning detailed 30K for just Croton with a total of 50K for the total operation. I'd be interested in seeing the report that Lohud references to see how they actually arrived at those numbers.

It may also be useful to other agencies in future operations where reimbursement may be possible. Of course, the only reason FEMA may actually entertain this request is because it is associated with a declared disaster. Had this been the day after a heavy rain storm, there'd be no basis to submit to FEMA.

[helicopper 1,050]

Link to Original Discussion on Incident

[JM15 386]

Absolutely the responsible parties should be billed.. They did something stupid and put a lot of other lives at risk including rescuers, maybe they will think twice next time.

[INIT915 1,119]

I would encourage fees for reckless behavior resulting in rescue but fees just because I participate in a sport and happened to get hurt sets a bad precedent. At what point do they start billing for all services?

I'm not advocating billing victims in general, but I also feel like there is a fairly obvious line. Whitewater rafting during such a monumental storm, for me personally, is a considerable foreseeable danger.

[SRS131EMTFF 471]

I'm not advocating billing victims in general, but I also feel like there is a fairly obvious line. Whitewater rafting during such a monumental storm, for me personally, is a considerable foreseeable danger.

What about driving in a snow storm during a declared state of emergency (Whether City, County or State) should someone who crashes be charged as well? I don't know, I am just asking...

And the article includes some text about FEMA also paying for improved radio communication? Any more info on that?

[JohnnyOV 2]

I'm not advocating billing victims in general, but I also feel like there is a fairly obvious line. Whitewater rafting during such a monumental storm, for me personally, is a considerable foreseeable danger.

Same with running back into a burning building for anything, which people do. Should they be billed if we then have to pull them out as well? Both made it out of the "initial storm" alive, but chose to do something dangerous and life threatening to themselves, in return for another type of reward.

We all pay taxes which supply our emergency services units the opportunity to be ready to respond to these types of incidents. That money would otherwise be sitting idle in a garage or on a helipad.

[Goose 188]

What was wrong w/ the radios that requires 30k to fix?

[jack10562 414]

What was wrong w/ the radios that requires 30k to fix?

The 30K cost was for the entire incident operating expenses, not for radio purchase or repairs.

The radio/communication issue appears to be everyone was unable to talk to each other on a universal channel.

[INIT915 1,119]

Same with running back into a burning building for anything, which people do. Should they be billed if we then have to pull them out as well? Both made it out of the "initial storm" alive, but chose to do something dangerous and life threatening to themselves, in return for another type of reward.

We all pay taxes which supply our emergency services units the opportunity to be ready to respond to these types of incidents. That money would otherwise be sitting idle in a garage or on a helipad.

In my opinion they are different. In your example, the victims didn't create the underlying emergency. They only made an arguable unwise decision to reenter a burning building. In the Croton incident, these victims knowingly choose to put themselves in a precarious position, completely unnecessarily. Again, as no hard and fast rules apply, we can only discuss opinions on these matters, but in my personal opinion, those two scenarios are in fact different. To equate returning to building to try to save people/pets/cherished belongings seems very different to looking for the next thrill.

[INIT915 1,119]

What about driving in a snow storm during a declared state of emergency (Whether City, County or State) should someone who crashes be charged as well? I don't know, I am just asking...

Well, refer to my previous post, but in general, I think a fairly commonsense standard may come down to reasonableness versus recklessness. Arguing the difference between trying to travel in the snow and undertaking truly unnecessary risks seems like an easier line for me to define in my own head then perhaps others.

[Pedro911 22]

The 30K cost was for the entire incident operating expenses, not for radio purchase or repairs.

The radio/communication issue appears to be everyone was unable to talk to each other on a universal channel.

why was 60 control mobile comm not on site at this incident? would this have aided in commo? or how about helping to stream video feed from the helos to the trt ic on the ground.

[Healz 30]

<br />I'm not advocating billing victims in general, but I also feel like there is a fairly obvious line. Whitewater rafting during such a monumental storm, for me personally, is a considerable foreseeable danger.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

I think that this is part of the problem. What constitutes extra danger? If you have a Life Insurance Policy you'll notice it is * and void if you go sky diving, hang gliding, scuba diving or spelunking.

Soooo, what is dangerous enough that people should pay a fee to participate in? The big question?

[JohnnyOV 2]

In my opinion they are different. In your example, the victims didn't create the underlying emergency. They only made an arguable unwise decision to reenter a burning building. In the Croton incident, these victims knowingly choose to put themselves in a precarious position, completely unnecessarily. Again, as no hard and fast rules apply, we can only discuss opinions on these matters, but in my personal opinion, those two scenarios are in fact different. To equate returning to building to try to save people/pets/cherished belongings seems very different to looking for the next thrill.

I see your point of view, and while the reasoning for entering the situation are different, both parties need rescuing. Taxes pay for costs associated with the rescues. The equipment has already been purchased, the insurance is already paid for, the crews have already been trained. All of that sits idle on the tax payers dime, whether it is used or not. Everything is already paid for. Insurance can pick up the cost of the damaged equipment.

[INIT915 1,119]

I see your point of view, and while the reasoning for entering the situation are different, both parties need rescuing. Taxes pay for costs associated with the rescues. The equipment has already been purchased, the insurance is already paid for, the crews have already been trained. All of that sits idle on the tax payers dime, whether it is used or not. Everything is already paid for. Insurance can pick up the cost of the damaged equipment.

They may both need rescuing, but for entirely different reasons, which to me, does play a factor.

And, I'm glad we are only taking about finanical costs, and not serious injury to any rescuers.

[ny10570 745]

States like Washington,Oregon, and Alaska have already tackled this issue as they have a variety of natural attractions that invite reckless stupidity. Every case is different which makes hard and fast rules difficult, but generally speaking they apply a standard we should all be familiar with. What would a reasonable and prudent person of similar background and experience do? These guys clearly knew better but still chose to go in. The average structure fire victim has no fire experience and a reasonable person could understand why they would go back for a loved one or treasured possession.

[SRS131EMTFF 471]

One thing I guess I am failing to consider is that I maybe be playing part in a situation similar to recouping costs for rescue services.

I do a lot of backcountry skiing in the Northeastern Vermont, this usually entails leaving groomed ski area trails or the ski areas themselves. Certain ski areas where rescuing lost skiers has become a problem have posted signs around the edge of the boundary of their ski mountain so when you ski out of bounds (which you are allowed to do since almost all ski areas are on government land and leased to operators for the use of the mountain as a ski resort) you are informed 1. You are leaving an area where rescue is possible 2. You are entering a dangerous and highly technical environment 3. Any attempt to rescue you will cost a minimum amount of money (between $500-2000)

I attached an example of one of these signs, I think this one is from out West. I will post a picture of what I deal with when I get on the mountain.

[SOUSGT 357]

One thing I guess I am failing to consider is that I maybe be playing part in a situation similar to recouping costs for rescue services.

I do a lot of backcountry skiing in the Northeastern Vermont, this usually entails leaving groomed ski area trails or the ski areas themselves. Certain ski areas where rescuing lost skiers has become a problem have posted signs around the edge of the boundary of their ski mountain so when you ski out of bounds (which you are allowed to do since almost all ski areas are on government land and leased to operators for the use of the mountain as a ski resort) you are informed 1. You are leaving an area where rescue is possible 2. You are entering a dangerous and highly technical environment 3. Any attempt to rescue you will cost a minimum amount of money (between $500-2000)

I attached an example of one of these signs, I think this one is from out West. I will post a picture of what I deal with when I get on the mountain.

I love the “you or your heirs” part. If that doesn’t drive home the message, nothing will.

Unfortunately as soon as you make something fool proof, along comes a more resilient class of fool.

[Pedro911 22]

I see your point of view, and while the reasoning for entering the situation are different, both parties need rescuing. Taxes pay for costs associated with the rescues. The equipment has already been purchased, the insurance is already paid for, the crews have already been trained. All of that sits idle on the tax payers dime, whether it is used or not. Everything is already paid for. Insurance can pick up the cost of the damaged equipment.

Exactly. The biggest shutter-upper, to me, is this. NO ONE FORCED US TO SAY "YES, WE WILL ATTEMPT THIS RESCUE". Paid or Vol., you have the right to say NO. We all said yes that night. Why are the victims being harassed? Our job titles do not include judging our clientel (victims). So stay the pros that we all are and go train your brains out.

[Remember585 815]

Nothing like waking up today, getting a phone call about this and not knowing anything about it.

I'd love to know how our village is planning on fixing the "communications problems," since they've never mentioned anything to us.

Unreal.

That aside... I know that we (the FD) lost a boat, some radios, lights and other equipment during this rescue effort, so I am glad that the village might be able to recoup money for them from FEMA.

I'm going back into my cave now and biting my tounge about this whole thing now.... :angry:

[PFDRes47cue 653]

Nothing like waking up today, getting a phone call about this and not knowing anything about it.

I'd love to know how our village is planning on fixing the "communications problems," since they've never mentioned anything to us.

Unreal.

That aside... I know that we (the FD) lost a boat, some radios, lights and other equipment during this rescue effort, so I am glad that the village might be able to recoup money for them from FEMA.

I'm going back into my cave now and biting my tounge about this whole thing now.... :angry:

People who should know, are often the last to know...c'mon, what did you expect? Things are always gone about a** backwards.

Edited November 29, 2011 by PFDRes47cue

[Hazmatguy 5]

I have to laugh every time I hear about "radio problems" and how the federal government should pay for upgrades...... it's an embarrassment that radios had not been standardized years ago... and certainly before 9/11 occurred......