Who Will Manage Our Response?

The nation mourns the more than 100 people who perished following the flash flooding through central Texas on July 4 and over the weekend. It is a tragic reminder that extreme weather has become a more common event. In addition to the Kerrville disaster, there have been severe flash floods earlier this year in western New York State, Tennessee, Kentucky, and last summer in Vermont. Unlike hurricanes and earthquakes, there is no “flash flood” season. It is arguably one of the most dangerous natural catastrophes that strikes communities; moving with such velocity that the ground cannot absorb the water fast enough.

What we do know, though, is that flash flooding is apolitical, agnostic as to whether its victims reside in red, blue, or purple districts and states. Survivors need disaster relief, not political blame games. After all, disaster management at the federal, state, and local levels is executed by professionals dedicated to saving as many lives as they can.

But disaster management policy is entering a period of change under the second Trump administration. Soon after he took office in January, the President established the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Review Council. He also contended that there was “political bias” at the agency, noting that the “$30 billion in disaster aid” each of the past several years left “vulnerable Americans without the resources or support they need when they need it most.”

Then in May, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem doubled down by testifying, “…we are reorienting the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s responsibilities…This alignment seeks to empower state and local jurisdictions and individuals to engage more actively in national resilience and preparedness.”

The president followed up in early June, announcing that he would begin “phasing out” FEMA, with the goal of outright disbanding the agency by the end of this year’s hurricane season and transferring responsibility for disaster management to the states.

In other words, change is coming, whether this disaster season or the next.

There are pros and cons to FEMA’s disaster relief efforts being shunted to states. On the plus side, having one body responsible can simplify relief efforts that typically have an all-of-government presence, including federal, state, and local resources. Coordinating multiple relief agencies can be inefficient. On the downside, cuts to the NWS and NOAA may have gone to the bone, leaving them insufficiently equipped to fulfill their life-saving missions. What is more, what are the state pay-fors? In other words, when a state takes on large new expenditures, how will those services be paid for? Will Texas, for example, be forced to make cuts in critical services it provides, raise taxes, or some other activity entirely? Other open questions include how FEMA mitigation grants will be funded. After all, a dollar spent on mitigation translates into six dollars invested in mitigation.

These are just a few of the questions that the Trump administration and state leaders, on both sides of the aisle, will have to grapple with if they’re looking to reimagine disaster relief in the country. There will be countless others that follow when human lives and billions of dollars that we invest in early warning systems, disaster prevention, and rebuilding come into play.

The most important insurance news,in your inbox every business day.

Get the insurance industry’s trusted newsletter

from Insurance – Techyrack Hub https://ift.tt/wjUhbIi
via IFTTT