The Emergency Management and Storm Warning Mess in St. Louis Friday, May 16, 2025

[Todd Lemery]

I personally like having more local and private responses to local disasters. They know the area and can quickly get resources to the area. Large disaster areas do benefit from an influx of the military and emergency funding from our federal government when state and local resources will be exhausted, but red tape and top down leadership has a way of slowing critical aid. The reason I said all of this is to bring up the United Cajun Navy. They were loosely formed during the Katrina disaster. The Cajun Navy has grown greatly since then and has been providing excellent disaster response all across the country because they having people and resources all across the country. If you feel you have the ability to provide help in times of need please consider becoming a member. There’s many ways you can help!

 

[Randy Zipser]

Bureaucrats are overwhelmingly Democrats. So, FEMA's people in DC view the R's, especially rural R's, with contempt.

I don't see where you're coming from with a blanket, stereotype statement like that, but I don't want to get into the politics of it: so I'll let it go as far as any further discussion is concerned. And since Obama is no longer in office, there's no further need to bring him into the present discussion either. Yes, many mistakes were made and obviously still exist. Let's move beyond the politics. Please understand I mean this in a constructive, not adversarial, way.

I have been so busy with the NDRB, I haven't read it. Why don't you read it and report back?

For similar reasons as you state, I neither have the time nor patience to slog through this piece of legislation. Let's be patient and give Congress the chance to complete its work, and then maybe debate the highlights or any changes that they propose for FEMA' s role, if any, in handling natural disasters. Bottom line: I do agree that the Federal government should not have the dominant role in natural disaster recovery, but should still have some role, because natural disasters (major hurricanes, floods, and tornado outbreaks) often affect multiple states and many municipalities. That said, experience (at least in my state) says that local and state governments can respond much more quickly. The key is to find the right roles for each and the most practical, workable mix.

 

[John Farley]

Mike, I think you missed my point in my post linking the USA Today article. My point was not that FEMA does not have major problems, or that there is anything wrong with shifting responsibility during the recovery phase to state and local governments, as long as there is adequate federal funding. As I have said, I favor that approach. So I AGREE with Trump, and I think with you, on that point. And the problems with FEMA are institutional and transcend whether Bush, Obama, Trump, or Biden is in the White House. They just seem to be unable to get much done during the recovery phase, for a variety of reasons ranging from excessive indecision to too many rules and procedures to a lot of other things. To keep that somewhat on the topic of this thread, that indecision and slowness has been very evident in the St. Louis tornado recovery, at least until this week's announcement regarding debris removal. I think you and I agree on all of that, or at least most of it. My point was, as I said, that the devil is in the details

As to the article, a lot of what it says about the NC floods and other disasters is pretty much the same as you have said. Things are nowhere near where they should be this long after the disaster, and that reflects dysfunctions in FEMA's approach to disaster recovery. So shift direct responsibility in the recovery phase to the state and local people who know best what they need, but keep the federal funding at least at the current level. Because the states do not have the resources to respond properly to large-scale disasters. The article does note uncertainty about the funding level, and that is what concerns me. Not the administration's shifting responsibility to the state and local level - as long as there are adequate resources.

I do think we need FEMA, or something like it, to marshal federal resources quickly during the immediate response phase, so I do not favor completely abolishing it. As to the recovery phase, I am open on the question of who handles the distribution of funds to states and localities - as long as the funding is adequate and independent of politics. And does not take so long that we end up changing the structure but perpetuating the same problems we have now.

 

[Mike Smith]

John,

I agree with every word you wrote. I apologize for misinterpreting your earlier statement.

Mike

 

[Mike Smith]

Read this. FEMA in its present form needs to go out of business.

 

[Randy Jennings]

Read this. FEMA in its present form needs to go out of business.

Mr. Cardone's post is a little misleading. While I don't know the details of his case, it sounds like he is referring to what is commonly called the "FEMA 50% rule". FEMA has requirements for any local government that wants to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). NFIP is the program that lets you buy flood insurance. If your local government does not participate you can not buy flood insurance.

One of these requirements is that the local government must require that if any building that is in a Special Flood Hazards Area (SFHA) has repairs or improvements whose costs exceed half of a building’s market value, the entire structure must meet current floodplain regulations. Generally this involves elevating the lowest floor to the Base Flood Elevation (BFE). Local ordinances can require a higher standard, with a "freeboard" of one to three feet or more above the BFE. The reason for this is to prevent the NFIP from paying for losses over and over because someone keeps rebuilding in a floodplain. Some flood insurance policies have Increased Cost of Compliance (ICC) that pays extra to help offset the costs of bringing a home into compliance with regulations. Many homeowners policies have law/ordinance provisions that pay extra when any type of loss causes you to have to spend more to rebuild to current standards.

A quick google search shows that Malibu does have freeboard requirements, although it isn't clear what they are. In addition all of Malibu is in the California Costal Zone and thus is subject to the freeboard requirements of the California Coastal Commission. So Mr. Cardone would be required to raise his home even higher than the FEMA established BFE because of local and state rules.

While Mr. Cardone says his home has never been threatened by water, he clearly is in a floodplain. A lot of the folks along the Guadalupe River in Texas this summer said "we've never been flooded before". Also, it is his local government that will not give him permits without requiring him to raise his home if he wants to rebuild - not FEMA (although FEMA does force their hand somewhat to at least the BFE level).

I know this stinks, but having taxpayers hand out money to the same flood victims over and over because they keep rebuilding in a flood plain would stink also.