Firing of 800 NOAA Employees

[Mike Smith]

destroying it will not save it.

It is utterly corrupt and incompetent. With civil service it is impossible to reform.

So, we should create a much smaller federal agency that has two missions (only):

• Disaster logistics
• Red tape cutting

That's it. Reforming FEMA in its present state is a fool's mission.

 

[Randy Zipser]

This article basically ignores the abysmal state FEMA was in prior. Stating it is not ready now? -- well, how is that any different than say, last year?
Its absolutely deplorable handling Hurricane Helene victims? Bad management and redirecting of its funds elsewhere for non-citizens when our own citizens were suffering gravely post-Helene? Their argument squarely falls flat here concerning readiness.

The article states, "current capabilities have been derailed this year." When it wasn't "derailed," its performance was already sub-par, to say the
least.

And this statement, "we've got hurricanes, we've got fires, we've got mudslides, we've got flash floods, we've got tornadoes, we've got droughts,
we've got heat waves, and now we've got volcanoes to worry about." LIONS AND TIGERS AND BEARS, OH MY! Going on rant like this verbosely listing out all the hazards to increase the drama is intellectually lazy, and acting like volcanoes are a new "worry?" What, they didn't exist as a hazard before? Shameless "piling on" and crying poor mouth here.

The point is they are crying foul when they did it to themselves, filled with corruption and grift, among other things.

And FEMA's issues are not going to be addressed or fixed overnight. Withholding FEMA funds for disasters is not good I agree, but I can see why funds are being withheld b/c of the established corruption that has existed for some time, and those funds going elsewhere.

The current system is broken, so drastic action has to be taken to improve things. There is no easy solution short-term here, but one needs to think more long-term. In other words, taking hit short-term in order to fix things for the future, and perhaps a much better way to handle action and funding for disasters though other agencies, or some fusion between FEMA and other agencies, has merit.

Blaming the current administration for all of FEMA's woes is disingenuous and suggests agenda-driven. biased narrative/policy.

I agree with you, Boris, on most of your points above, and have discussed FEMA's woes in other previous posts.

The most important sentence in this whole article is the last one: "Lawmakers from both parties have expressed concern about dismantling the programs." FEMA was created under the Carter Administration in 1979, and its authority and funding (a combination of regular appropriations and emergency funds in response to events) are controlled by the U.S. Congress, not the Executive Branch (regardless of who holds that office). My point is: Why is the current session of Congress not taking a more proactive role of first trying to correct all the obvious problems of that agency (which everyone, including both of us, agrees is badly managed/broken), before just dumping that agency's federal functions (and problems, including staffing) on the already-overwhelmed state emergency management authorities? Is that policy not just as disingenuous? In other words, why should the Congress not execute its authority and try to fix a broken program rather than just allow it to be abandoned by the Executive Branch, especially if the budgetary savings might prove to be relatively minimal in the overall budget outlay?

The other side of that argument also has merit: namely, that the private commercial sector might be a less expensive and more efficient option. Thus, one could just as well make the argument that state governments are not the only option, but rather could be seen as a very easy "scapegoat" for the Washington budgetary hawks.

I don't want to get any further off topic here, so as to not "ruffle any feathers" of the ST Administrators. So, I'll close this post be saying that the residents of states who have just suffered mightily from the devastating tornadoes in recent days and those who may become victims of hurricanes this summer/fall will have one thing in common: Who to trust to provide reliable help for their disaster relief issues while Washington squabbles over what to do with FEMA.

 

[John Farley]

It is utterly corrupt and incompetent. With civil service it is impossible to reform.

So, we should create a much smaller federal agency that has two missions (only):

• Disaster logistics
• Red tape cutting

That's it. Reforming FEMA in its present state is a fool's mission.

We still need a way to fund disaster recovery. Only the feds have the resources. Maybe grant the money to states and localities, but it has to be funded. And I think with the extreme budget cutting now going on, it won't happen

 

[Boris Konon]

I agree with you, Boris, on most of your points above, and have discussed FEMA's woes in other previous posts.

The most important sentence in this whole article is the last one: "Lawmakers from both parties have expressed concern about dismantling the programs." FEMA was created under the Carter Administration in 1979, and its authority and funding (a combination of regular appropriations and emergency funds in response to events) are controlled by the U.S. Congress, not the Executive Branch (regardless of who holds that office). My point is: Why is the current session of Congress not taking a more proactive role of first trying to correct all the obvious problems of that agency (which everyone, including both of us, agrees is badly managed/broken), before just dumping that agency's federal functions (and problems, including staffing) on the already-overwhelmed state emergency management authorities? Is that policy not just as disingenuous? In other words, why should the Congress not execute its authority and try to fix a broken program rather than just allow it to be abandoned by the Executive Branch, especially if the budgetary savings might prove to be relatively minimal in the overall budget outlay?

The other side of that argument also has merit: namely, that the private commercial sector might be a less expensive and more efficient option. Thus, one could just as well make the argument that state governments are not the only option, but rather could be seen as a very easy "scapegoat" for the Washington budgetary hawks.

I don't want to get any further off topic here, so as to not "ruffle any feathers" of the ST Administrators. So, I'll close this post be saying that the residents of states who have just suffered mightily from the devastating tornadoes in recent days and those who may become victims of hurricanes this summer/fall will have one thing in common: Who to trust to provide reliable help for their disaster relief issues while Washington squabbles over what to do with FEMA.

FEMA is just one small part of the entire Federal system. There is so much going on at all levels now, I would not expect things to be done
efficiently or logically this early in the game. The long-term system corruption and failing runs so deep, it is immense challenge here. Reform is never easy, and we are dealing with a corrupt system so used to operating a certain way so long, there is strong push-back and this is hampering progress, to say the least.

In all this mess, it is unfortunately a given that public services and funding will take hit, and the weather and disaster relief part of this are not immune. I think this is awful, but that's how our society works and human nature is. We should do better, but easier said than done!

Back to FEMA, in some cases, it *is* best option to dismantle, totally re-imagine, and start from scratch some agencies or organizations.
They may be so broken, hopelessly outdated, or any number of other things, a reset is needed. Or perhaps something as simple as name
change? Don't call it FEMA anymore b/c of the stigma now attached to it b/c of its failings.

 

[Randy Zipser]

FEMA is just one small part of the entire Federal system. There is so much going on at all levels now, I would not expect things to be done
efficiently or logically this early in the game. The long-term system corruption and failing runs so deep, it is immense challenge here. Reform is never easy, and we are dealing with a corrupt system so used to operating a certain way so long, there is strong push-back and this is hampering progress, to say the least.

In all this mess, it is unfortunately a given that public services and funding will take hit, and the weather and disaster relief part of this are not immune. I think this is awful, but that's how our society works and human nature is. We should do better, but easier said than done!

Back to FEMA, in some cases, it *is* best option to dismantle, totally re-imagine, and start from scratch some agencies or organizations.
They may be so broken, hopelessly outdated, or any number of other things, a reset is needed. Or perhaps something as simple as name
change? Don't call it FEMA anymore b/c of the stigma now attached to it b/c of its failings.

I totally agree, Boris. I also feel somewhat sorry for the states who will inherit this FEMA mess if the current administration gets its way, especially those with relatively small state budgets who will be ill-prepared to take on the additional disaster-relief workload, let alone find adequate, qualified new hires. I also agree with Mike Smith's approach. In the end, federal tax dollars will still be needed as part of the solution no matter what the current FEMA's fate becomes because the scale of all major natural disasters is beyond the appropriated budgets of most, if not all, individual states, and likely even that of a specific region, should several states agree to combine funds. This will not be an easy problem to solve, but a whole new way of thinking about how to provide and fund all government services is long overdue and should certainly not be dismissed out-of-hand.

 

[Randy Zipser]

To recap a bit better my thoughts from earlier this morning (after five hours of sleep!), here's my 2-cents worth:

If the administration gets its way (Noem, Trump), the states will face two crises at once: (1) the natural disaster itself, and (2) a fiscal/staffing crisis brought about by the imposition of the new, short-sighted Federal policy.

I think a better way would be to create a Federal-Private Partnership, where private "for-profit" companies handle the operational and logistical aspects and the Federal government is always there as a backstop (similar to reinsurance companies in the private insurance sector) to ensure that the necessary funds are available if/when needed. The latter funds should be set aside now in an emergency/disaster trust fund and built into the current and future budgets, and must never be raided or used for any purpose other than catastrophic disasters inflicted upon the American people. BTW, only the bipartisan U.S. Congress would have sole authority to oversee [and periodically (annually?) require audits of] this emergency trust fund and how its funds have been/are being used.

Logical, clean, efficient and simple way to handle disasters going forward, IMO.

 

[Mike Smith]

The "dog bites man" story of the day. The tornado struck St. Louis Friday. FEMA is AWOL.

What is especially infuriating is FEMA's public relations department publishes posters, etc., implying that FEMA is out there on rafts, etc., doing immediate rescues. So, it is not surprising everyone is asking, "Where's FEMA."

 

[Mike Smith]

We often talk about FEMA -- with good reason -- but what about local emergency management? While FEMA often sets a terrible example, it is no excuse. Consider:

1. Even though a tornado watch was issued 3 hours in advance, the entire St. Louis emergency management staff was offsite at a meeting when the tornado started. The sirens were never sounded!
2. The 2023 catastrophic Maui fire occurred with all eight Maui EM staff off the island in Honolulu for meetings. This in spite of the NWS doing a superb job four days in advance (with followups) forecasting an unprecedented wildfire risk on Maui and specifically contacting the EM office.
3. Heck, we can go back to Katrina when NHC Director Max Mayfield called (then) Mayor Ray Nagin at home two days before and saying, "you have to issue a mandatory evacuation or hundreds will die." and Magin doing nothing. My research for Warnings on Katrina found the document that called for using the school buses to evacuate the Lower 9th Ward (majority of deaths occurred there) that -- ini the runup to the storm none of the EM people said they could find! Of course, FEMA utterly botched Katrina, as well.

Given the overwhelming issues with EM at all levels, this is why I am convinced incremental, civil service-compatible changes to FEMA will never work.

 

[Randy Zipser]

We often talk about FEMA -- with good reason -- but what about local emergency management. While FEMA often sets a terrible example, it is no excuse. Consider:

1. Even though a tornado watch was issued 3 hours in advance, the entire St. Louis emergency management staff was offsite at a meeting when the tornado started. The sirens were never sounded!
2. The 2023 catastrophic Maui fire occurred with all eight Maui EM staff off the island in Honolulu for meetings. This in spite of the NWS doing a superb job four days in advance (with followups) forecasting an unprecedented wildfire risk on Maui and specifically contacting the EM office.
3. Heck, we can go back to Katrina when NHC Director Max Mayfield called (then) Mayor Ray Nagin at home two days before and saying, "you have to issue a mandatory evacuation or hundreds will die." and Magin doing nothing. My research for Warnings on Katrina found the document that called for using the school buses to evacuate the Lower 9th Ward (majority of deaths occurred there) that -- ini the runup to the storm none of the EM people said they could find! Of course, FEMA utterly botched Katrina, as well.

Given the overwhelming issues with EM at all levels, this is why I am convinced incremental, civil service-compatible changes to FEMA will never work.

I couldn't agree more, Mike.

The only thing that our Federal government is consistently good at doing is printing money and spending money! That's why we should get them out of the EM business entirely, except for the spending part...which got me thinking...

That is another reason to motivate Congress to take a serious look right now at your NDRB concept. Creation of the NDRB would go hand-in-glove with the creation of the Federal-Private Partnership (FPP) idea above in that the NDRB would be an excellent independent oversight reviewer (or even arbiter) for how the emergency/disaster trust-fund money is being spent, and even determine on a case-by-case basis whether a particular disaster meets the minimum criteria set forth by Congress to qualify for funds from the trust.

Bottom line: The NDRB and FPP, acting together and independently of government at any level, will take all politics, present and future, out of the equation. How could that formula not succeed going forward?

 

[Mike Smith]

Here is the report on the utter fiasco Friday in St. Louis: Issues With the Forecasts and Warnings of the 2025 EF-3 St. Louis Tornado You won't believe it!!

 

[John Farley]

Here is the report on the utter fiasco Friday in St. Louis: Issues With the Forecasts and Warnings of the 2025 EF-3 St. Louis Tornado You won't believe it!!

Thanks for this information, Mike. A few additional thoughts/pieces of information:

1. Venice is in Illinois, not Missouri. It is close to Granite City. So that probably was an accurate description of the location at the time, although Granite City is a much more recognizable/widely-known location. Probably should have said "near Granite City."

2. I was watching the KLSX radar on Radarscope at the time the warning was issued. Did not see the TDWR, which per your post seems to have picked up the storng rotation a little earlier. On Radarscope I did not see a lot of rotation when the warning was first issued, However, Radarscope is behind what the NWS is seeing, so that is probably why I did not see real strong rotation when the warning was issued. But very soon thereafter the debris signature was evident. So the tornado did form and intensify quite quickly. 3 minutes is not ideal, but like you said, the NWS local office did not do a terrible job on the warning, given how fast it formed and intensified.

3. They have been talking about "warn on forecast" for years, but do not seem to be using it to give information to the public. I think this is a case where what it was showing should have been communicated to the public in some way, even if just to say there was an increasing risk of a tornadic supercell impacting the metro area.

4. The St. Louis mayor has only been in office for a month or so. But one reason she defeated the incumbent mayor was that under the previous mayor, there were huge mess-ups in snowplowing after a big storm last winter, and voters remembered. Not the first time that has happened to a mayor, and probably will not be the last. But you would think that after that, the new mayor would have made fixing logistical problems like that a top priority. Like at least have a clear command and control structure in place. I guess now she does, but the horse is out of the barn.

5. If ever there was a case for a disaster review board, along with the others you mentioned, this is it. If anyone reading this post did not click on Mike's link above, do it. It will clarify what I am talking about here, and it will be an informative read for you.

Here is a link to an update from the Post-Dispatch. Sadly, multiple people who died may not have known there was a tornado warning.

Sharp criticism, unanswered questions follow tornado siren 'failure' in St. Louis

Anger continued to mount on Tuesday. City officials railed against Spencer. Families of those killed in the tornado said they believed the sirens could have saved lives.

email.mail.stltoday.com

 

[Mike Smith]

1. Venice is in Illinois, not Missouri. It is close to Granite City. So that probably was an accurate description of the location at the time, although Granite City is a much more recognizable/widely-known location. Probably should have said "near Granite City."

John, that makes it even worse! If the tornado is near Granite City, why the heck are they touting the tornado warning behind the tornado in Missouri. See attached. The warning is still in effect for the City of St. Louis and northeast St. Louis County!

What a fiasco!

 

[John Farley]

I think I can give them a pass on this. Venice is right on the river, and the tornado WAS a mile wide at one point, so when they issued that update they were probably covering the possibility that part of the circulation was still on the Missouri side. Better to have the polygon too big than too small.

 

[Mike Smith]

I think I can give them a pass on this. Venice is right on the river, and the tornado WAS a mile wide at one point, so when they issued that update they were probably covering the possibility that part of the circulation was still on the Missouri side.

John, look at the NWS wording again. The warning still included all of the City of St. Louis, the southern part of which was 12 miles behind the tornado! Never should have been included at that point.

 

[John Farley]

I added a map showing where Venice is. Close to O' Fallon Park, which had a lot of damage. Maybe should have said "northern St. Louis city" or something similar, though.