US emergency risk index used for allocating disaster prevention and mitigation spending ignores coastal Washington tsunami risk and other predictable disasters

The article mentions that this index is using only recorded history (which apparently starts in 1800 in Washington) for some Pacific Northwest data... which is wild, considering the many thousands of years' worth of geologic data we have on this region. As a Washingtonian who received a relatively cursory education about my state throughout K-12, I know enough to feel like it's pretty outrageous to use such a tiny dataset (where basically nothing has happened) to consider distributing funding to prepare for an event that would be an unmitigated disaster. However, even with that perspective, I feel like this article has a lot of "spin" to make Washington look worthy of sympathy and is missing comparisons to other states. I'd like to know how things look compared to hurricane-exposed areas, which are, of course, hit way more frequently. If the idea of this program is to help move funding to areas where funding is more predictably needed, it would make sense for us to be left out, since these tsunami / big quake events aren't even one in a lifetime. If the idea is to help put funding toward long-term safety structures, like the tsunami tower, to help mitigate extreme events... well, using this index would make less sense. It sounds like it's probably supposed to do some of both.