Sustainability, Climate, and Geopolitics
Bring Down the Costs of Disaster Recovery by Investing in Resilience: Questions about FEMA Reform for Congress

By Sarah Labowitz

Congress is meeting this week to hear from local leaders about Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) reform, while President Donald Trump and his administration continue to call for eliminating it. Getting rid of FEMA or pulling back from the federal government’s vital coordinating role in responding to disasters would transfer unmanageable costs and capacities to states, especially those that experience repeated disasters. There’s broad consensus in the emergency management and disaster recovery communities that FEMA is both a vital federal agency and that it needs reform to make disaster aid more efficient and resilient.

In upcoming hearings, Congress should prioritize what FEMA reform means at the local level, with a focus on lowering the cost of recovering from disasters by making front-end investments in resilience. Congress should explore several key issues and questions as they engage with local leaders on the front lines of disaster response and recovery.

FEMA’s Support for Local Communities

We hear a lot about FEMA’s often frustrating role in helping individuals. There’s no doubt that FEMA should improve the customer service experience of constituents when applying for help. What’s less visible is FEMA’s role in supporting local jurisdictions in both the response and recovery phases of a disaster.

  • What is the role of FEMA as a partner to local communities in the long road to recovery from a disaster?
  • How would you cope if FEMA wasn’t able to support you after a disaster? What implications would FEMA’s absence have for your community?
  • Do you have local capacity to make up the gap if FEMA were to pull back from its role in funding and supporting disaster recovery as a partner to state and local governments?
  • What needs would go unmet if FEMA in its current form were to disappear?

In fiscal year 2020, FEMA initiated a new program to offer incentive grants to state and local governments through its Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) grant program. Local governments have been the major beneficiaries of this program, but there is uncertainty about its future, as FEMA is redrafting its Notice of Funding Opportunity.

  • Who has benefited from BRIC grants in your community?
  • How would you make investments in resilience if this program were to disappear?
  • Given the urgency of making investments in resilience, what can federal and local government do to speed up resilience funding?
  • What challenges have you experienced with local and federal approval processes for BRIC-funded projects?

Local Government’s Vital Role in Planning and Mapping

The United States’s collective resilience to disasters is shaped by a patchwork of local building codes and land use policies, many of which are not working to keep builders from constructing new homes in disaster-prone areas or requiring homeowners and landlords to use resilient building materials. As we saw in the Los Angeles fires in January, smart building design and materials can gives homes remarkable resilience to fire. But if the same standard doesn’t apply to every house in a neighborhood, a single home can be left standing in a wasteland. FEMA cites Paradise, California, [MW1] which was largely destroyed in a 2018 fire and passed new building codes as the community rebuilt, as a model in meeting current threats.

  • What lessons can we learn from the Paradise disaster that has turned it into a model?
  • How did insurers respond to Paradise’s new building codes?
  • What makes it difficult to update building codes? What can the federal government do to incentivize local jurisdictions to speed up the process of passing building codes that address current threats?

Six years after Hurricane Harvey caused widespread damage, Harris County, Texas, updated its flood maps with data to reflect new weather patterns of urban flooding resulting from slow-moving rain.

  • Why do local flood maps matter?
  • What was the process locally to update these maps? Are there lessons learned for other communities?

Insurance

Communities impacted by recurring disasters often are unable to purchase insurance, as rates spike or insurance companies pull out of these markets altogether. In some instances, states have taken on the insurance burden, such as for fire coverage in California or flood insurance in Florida, but premiums continue to rise for consumers, and state-backed systems require significant taxpayer bailouts after major disasters.

  • What is the role of the insurance industry when disaster strikes?
  • If insurers pull out of a disaster-affected market, what is the impact on homeowners, renters, businesses, and governments?
  • Does the insurance industry work with FEMA to ensure efficient and effective disaster recovery?
  • What can different levels of government do to address the insurance crisis in disaster-prone areas?

FEMA’s Public Assistance Program reimburses jurisdictions for uninsured disaster losses on public buildings such as schools and courthouses. This can create perverse incentives for jurisdictions not to carry insurance at all, knowing that FEMA will pick up the tab.

  • Should FEMA require localities that receive FEMA Public Assistance funding to carry insurance on public buildings?

Economic Benefits of Investing in Resilience

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has said that investing in resilience is good for the economy. Its data show that every $1 invested in resilience saves $13 in “economic costs, damages, and cleanup.”

  • What investments are local communities making in their own resilience?
  • What support do they need from the federal government to accelerate these investments?
  • How can the federal government be sure that a disaster-affected community’s longtime residents benefit from resilience investments and aren’t displaced by private equity firms and luxury builders?

By Sarah Labowitz

Congress is meeting this week to hear from local leaders about Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) reform, while President Donald Trump and his administration continue to call for eliminating it. Getting rid of FEMA or pulling back from the federal government’s vital coordinating role in responding to disasters would transfer unmanageable costs and capacities to states, especially those that experience repeated disasters. There’s broad consensus in the emergency management and disaster recovery communities that FEMA is both a vital federal agency and that it needs reform to make disaster aid more efficient and resilient.

In upcoming hearings, Congress should prioritize what FEMA reform means at the local level, with a focus on lowering the cost of recovering from disasters by making front-end investments in resilience. Congress should explore several key issues and questions as they engage with local leaders on the front lines of disaster response and recovery.

FEMA’s Support for Local Communities

We hear a lot about FEMA’s often frustrating role in helping individuals. There’s no doubt that FEMA should improve the customer service experience of constituents when applying for help. What’s less visible is FEMA’s role in supporting local jurisdictions in both the response and recovery phases of a disaster.

  • What is the role of FEMA as a partner to local communities in the long road to recovery from a disaster?
  • How would you cope if FEMA wasn’t able to support you after a disaster? What implications would FEMA’s absence have for your community?
  • Do you have local capacity to make up the gap if FEMA were to pull back from its role in funding and supporting disaster recovery as a partner to state and local governments?
  • What needs would go unmet if FEMA in its current form were to disappear?

In fiscal year 2020, FEMA initiated a new program to offer incentive grants to state and local governments through its Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) grant program. Local governments have been the major beneficiaries of this program, but there is uncertainty about its future, as FEMA is redrafting its Notice of Funding Opportunity.

  • Who has benefited from BRIC grants in your community?
  • How would you make investments in resilience if this program were to disappear?
  • Given the urgency of making investments in resilience, what can federal and local government do to speed up resilience funding?
  • What challenges have you experienced with local and federal approval processes for BRIC-funded projects?

Local Government’s Vital Role in Planning and Mapping

The United States’s collective resilience to disasters is shaped by a patchwork of local building codes and land use policies, many of which are not working to keep builders from constructing new homes in disaster-prone areas or requiring homeowners and landlords to use resilient building materials. As we saw in the Los Angeles fires in January, smart building design and materials can gives homes remarkable resilience to fire. But if the same standard doesn’t apply to every house in a neighborhood, a single home can be left standing in a wasteland. FEMA cites Paradise, California, [MW1] which was largely destroyed in a 2018 fire and passed new building codes as the community rebuilt, as a model in meeting current threats.

  • What lessons can we learn from the Paradise disaster that has turned it into a model?
  • How did insurers respond to Paradise’s new building codes?
  • What makes it difficult to update building codes? What can the federal government do to incentivize local jurisdictions to speed up the process of passing building codes that address current threats?

Six years after Hurricane Harvey caused widespread damage, Harris County, Texas, updated its flood maps with data to reflect new weather patterns of urban flooding resulting from slow-moving rain.

  • Why do local flood maps matter?
  • What was the process locally to update these maps? Are there lessons learned for other communities?

Insurance

Communities impacted by recurring disasters often are unable to purchase insurance, as rates spike or insurance companies pull out of these markets altogether. In some instances, states have taken on the insurance burden, such as for fire coverage in California or flood insurance in Florida, but premiums continue to rise for consumers, and state-backed systems require significant taxpayer bailouts after major disasters.

  • What is the role of the insurance industry when disaster strikes?
  • If insurers pull out of a disaster-affected market, what is the impact on homeowners, renters, businesses, and governments?
  • Does the insurance industry work with FEMA to ensure efficient and effective disaster recovery?
  • What can different levels of government do to address the insurance crisis in disaster-prone areas?

FEMA’s Public Assistance Program reimburses jurisdictions for uninsured disaster losses on public buildings such as schools and courthouses. This can create perverse incentives for jurisdictions not to carry insurance at all, knowing that FEMA will pick up the tab.

  • Should FEMA require localities that receive FEMA Public Assistance funding to carry insurance on public buildings?

Economic Benefits of Investing in Resilience

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has said that investing in resilience is good for the economy. Its data show that every $1 invested in resilience saves $13 in “economic costs, damages, and cleanup.”

  • What investments are local communities making in their own resilience?
  • What support do they need from the federal government to accelerate these investments?
  • How can the federal government be sure that a disaster-affected community’s longtime residents benefit from resilience investments and aren’t displaced by private equity firms and luxury builders?