Our Sponsors:

Read more »

Trending Stories

Our Members

Many thanks to Robert von Tobel and Scott Veirs some of our many supporters.


Most Commented


    Hurricane Sandy and the importance of being FEMA

    FEMA has a mixed history of political support. With changing weather patterns, will Obama and Romney show favoritism toward the organization that has become a political stepchild of sorts in the other Washington?
    Hurricane Sandy hammers a wharf in Marblehead, MA.

    Hurricane Sandy hammers a wharf in Marblehead, MA. Brian R. Birke

    Hurricane Sandy has again focused the country on how we prepare, respond and recover from disasters. That it comes at the end of a pivotal presidential campaign, with all the twists, turns and accusations serves to highlight how different the candidates and parties are in how these issues are addressed.

    Once again, the normally obscure Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is at the forefront of our national debate. This is the agency that is responsible for coordinating the federal preparedness, response and recovery to disasters. There is much to be learned in how different presidential administrations have treated FEMA and how the effectiveness of the agency has been improved and degraded at different times.

    But first, it’s important to know a bit about FEMA’s history and mission. FEMA was originally created to respond to nuclear attack. It was a product of the Cold War and later fell into irrelevance.

    During the Reagan years, FEMA was filled with political patronage appointments and garnered little attention. And during the first Bush Administration, things were much the same. The real change for FEMA came during the Clinton Administration, when political appointees were replaced by emergency operations and preparedness professionals. The appointment of James Lee Witt and the elevation of FEMA to a cabinet level signaled that FEMA was going to be an important part of the federal safety net.

    It was at this time that I was a staffer with California U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer. My area of responsibility in the office happened to be disaster response and recovery. And then the Northridge Earthquake hit. I spent the next year working with victims of the disaster to help them navigate the recovery process and learned the FEMA process extremely well. I met with James Lee Witt and his staff and later helped with the training of new staff coming up.

    Over the next few years I worked with FEMA on fires in southern California and flooding on the Russian River. Each time I was impressed by the professionalism of the staff. FEMA can’t and should not always say yes to requests, but having pros in charge makes a big difference.

    Here’s the thing: Large-scale multiple jurisdiction disasters happen. And it looks like they're happening with more frequency than in the past. And having a federal coordinated response with temporary housing assistance, low interest loans for businesses, mitigation money and a multi-state network of temporary employees to help with all this is really important. And states can’t do it on their own. Just ask New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.

    And here’s something for all of us to think about: Federal disaster relief is not intended to make us whole. Its purpose is to get us through the immediate aftermath and stabilize us so we can use the other methods of recovery. Now is a good time to check out your homeowner or renter insurance policy, make sure your home is structurally sound and bolted to the foundation and get connected. Seattle has a website where you can learn more.

    The other piece of preparing and responding to disasters is all about mitigation. FEMA used to have a program called Project Impact, which provided training and funding to localities on how to mitigate the impacts of earthquakes, fires, floods and other disasters. In our neck of the woods that means preparing for earthquakes by strengthening buildings, bridges and roads. It also means replacing the viaduct and repairing our seawall.

    In 2001, then FEMA director Joe Allbaugh addressed a meeting of emergency management professionals in Seattle. He said, as a country, we spend far too much money on disaster mitigation. This speech was given as the Bush Administration was canceling Project Impact. The date of the speech was February 28, 2001.

    February 28th was also the day of the Nisqually Earthquake. Project Impact had been a pet project of James Lee Witt in his tenure as FEMA director under Clinton and mitigation had finally been given a boost within FEMA, but it was not to last. FEMA was downgraded from being a cabinet-level agency and Allbaugh would eventually pick his successor — the vastly underqualified Michael Brown, a Bush supporter who came to the position as a former lawyer for the International Arabian Horse Association.

    Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!


    Posted Thu, Nov 1, 7:44 p.m. Inappropriate

    I remember the FEMA of which Mr. Royer speaks. I was privileged to be assigned as a Navy Liasion Officer to FEMA Region Ten during the timeframe of 1992 -- 1995. The Army/Navy/Air Force/ team at FEMA at the time focused on professional qualifications and real world experience to get the job done and care for the people when they need you the most. This timeframe and the 1991 evacuation efforts for the explosion of Mt. Pinatubo in the Phillipines were the highlights of my Naval career of nearly 30 years.


    Posted Fri, Nov 2, 8:39 a.m. Inappropriate

    Here's some additional context for this article:


    including this graphic...


    ...which shows that the frequency of large-scale natural disasters costing $1 billion or more in FEMA payouts has more than doubled in the past 15 years compared with the previous 15-year period.

    Romney's climate change denial is extremely unethical in light of the fact that the ultimate outcome of climate change will be the moral equivalent of a massive, extended world war. Forty-three of the world's population lives in coastal areas that are vulnerable to damaging storms and sea level rise. The United States and many other nations will undergo unprecedented destruction of homes, businesses and infrastructure, and countless people will suffer poverty, hunger and loss of life as huge coastal areas become uninhabitable over time. Water supplies will dry up in the interior, and get salinized in the face of the rising sea. Agriculture lands will be inundated or made useless because salinized irrigation water will fill them with salt. The GOP natters on about the sanctity of life in the womb, but what about the sanctity of those living in the present and the future?

    Here's a clip of Romney at the GOP convention cracking a joke about this only a couple of months before Sandy slammed into New York and New Jersey leaving massive destruction and many lost lives in its wake:


    It's terrifying to think that someone this shallow and arrogant could easily wind up in charge of FEMA.

    Mud Baby

    Posted Fri, Nov 2, 11:32 a.m. Inappropriate

    Both President Obama and Governor Christie have shown leadership during this disaster. They have also proven that a democrat and a republican can work together. In political terms, this was 2012's October Surprise.

    Great piece Jordan, as usual.


    Posted Mon, Nov 5, 6:55 a.m. Inappropriate

    Jordan, terrific perspective. In many ways, FEMA is an odd target because it runs on a minimalist mode (as opposed to the Big Brother image promulgated by the far right). I'm a former member of the Region X disaster cadre--on-call, part-time disaster employees. It's a cost-saving way of keeping staff lean: you only bring them on when there's trouble. The agency coordinates existing resources within other agencies (like the firefighting capabilities of the Forest Service), it was designed to encourage the states to handle their own disasters first and to make local disaster plans, it emphasizes prevention, and relies heavily on private contractors. Among its first priorities is to get business back on its feet (through SBA etc.). Also, you make an important point: FEMA's job is not to cover all costs and losses or to make people whole--that's up to individuals and their insurance companies. But it is scaled to help people through a crises and give them a path to recovery. It's a very good, lean government model that ought to be applauded and emulated, not cut and condemned.

    Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.

    Join Crosscut now!
    Subscribe to our Newsletter

    Follow Us »