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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”