We heard of Hurricane Irma only a handful of days before it smacked straight through 5th Avenue in my hometown. The predicted storm paths sent the hurricane sweeping through Miami—across the coast. When the storm path shifted, it was almost too late for my family to evacuate. Its 180 mph winds and 10–15 foot storm surge were catastrophic, costing the lives of 84 people.
It was the coordinated response of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), along with state and local governments, that saved many more. Search and rescue missions conducted by both FEMA and the U.S. Coast Guard saved 1,332 lives after Hurricane Irma, as well as 53 pets. After the immediate impact of the storm, FEMA transported over seven million meals to affected areas. FEMA has recently come under fire from the current administration, which claims that the agency should be abolished. However, now more than ever, FEMA is needed to protect U.S. citizens and serve as a guiding light for state response efforts.
Climate change is expected to increase the severity and frequency of hurricanes in the United States throughout the 21st century. The combination of wind and temperature changes means that hurricanes are going to drop more rainfall, primarily affecting the Southeast coast of the U.S. To mitigate, prepare, and battle the effects of these storms, it is vitally important that we have a tiered disaster response structure. FEMA is necessary to help state and local governments when they are overwhelmed by disasters, such as during a hurricane. Without FEMA, these states would be forced to grapple with disasters alone, leading to the unnecessary deaths of individuals and the destruction of infrastructure.
Beyond this, FEMA is responsible for mitigating the effects of disasters in the future. This can look like mapping areas that are at high risk after a hurricane or maintaining a watershed to reduce flooding and flood risk. By addressing these concerns before a disaster takes place, FEMA is able to reduce the burden of a disaster once it does occur. This not only saves lives but also resources and money. A benefit-cost analysis of FEMA’s mitigation grants revealed that grants for mitigating a variety of disasters showed a financial benefit to society. This indicates that investing in mitigation strategies through FEMA saves money in the long run.
Without FEMA, many states currently struggle with limited staffing and resources. This impacts the development and implementation of strategies. In particular, rural and marginalized communities are most affected by these limitations. Unfortunately, disasters disproportionately impact these communities. For this reason, state and local governments need the structure, funding, and resources from FEMA to overcome these disasters.
FEMA particularly garnered backlash after its response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005. A devastating storm, Katrina cost the lives of 1,392 people. This destructive storm came shortly after the restructuring of FEMA under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2003. After the reorganization, the time to dispatch FEMA personnel and supplies to areas in need after a hurricane dramatically increased. Furthermore, the dispatch rate and amount of damage were dependent on both the presidential administration and the FEMA director.
In particular, by Hurricane Katrina in 2005, there had been three major shifts in how administrations used FEMA. The first came during Ronald Reagan’s presidency: With Reagan’s appointment of an expert in terrorism preparedness as the director of FEMA, the agency’s focus pivoted from disaster management to nuclear preparedness. This was a focus that lasted throughout the ’80s and into the early ’90s. During this time, FEMA’s responses to natural disasters, such as Hurricane Hugo and Hurricane Andrew, were defined by slow speeds and bureaucratic disagreements.
Revitalizing FEMA through a second shift came with Bill Clinton’s presidency. Sweeping reforms across the agency to refocus FEMA on emergency management meant that FEMA was better able to respond to disasters such as the Northridge Earthquake of 1994. The third shift came during George Bush’s presidency: After the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, Bush formed the DHS and redistributed many government agencies. Under the DHS, FEMA’s goals shifted from all hazards to focusing on nuclear and chemical attacks. It was this last restructuring that led to the messy response to Hurricane Katrina. Under the DHS, it was now harder for FEMA to request resources and staff during disasters. This resulted in slower response times and greater destruction, as we saw in the aftermath of 2005.
Ultimately, what is most dangerous to the functioning of FEMA is the restructuring of the agency to support the political goals of an administration. When emergency management is the heart of FEMA’s focus, disaster response is efficient and effective.
When Hurricane Irma washed ashore seven years ago, lives were saved by the joint response of FEMA and the local and state governments. It is not hard to imagine how the aftermath of the storm could have been different. With increasing storm severity expected in the future, it is vital that we demand our state representatives fight to keep FEMA from being dissolved or restructured by the current administration. Our livelihoods depend on it.
Lucy Bowden is a medical student.
