Tag Archives: FEMAs

FEMA’s Acting Administrator Steps Down

Posted on by
Reply

David Richardson, who served as the acting administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, tendered his resignation on Monday after approximately six months in the role, as confirmed by two administration officials to NBC News.

Richardson’s short tenure as FEMA administrator occurred during a challenging period for the agency. Under President Donald Trump’s administration, significant budget cuts were proposed, and Trump publicly suggested the agency be phased out following the end of hurricane season in late November.

In a statement released Monday, FEMA along with the Department of Homeland Security, which governs the agency, expressed their “sincere appreciation” for Richardson’s “dedicated service.”

A DHS spokesperson announced that Karen Evans, currently serving as FEMA’s chief of staff, will take on the position of acting administrator effective December 1st.

Richardson mentioned on Monday that he had agreed to serve as acting superintendent during this critical period, indicating that his resignation stemmed from a desire to return to the private sector.

“I took on the role of acting administrator during hurricane season when no one else was available,” Richardson stated. “Hurricane season concludes on December 1st. The threats are nearly over, so it’s time for me to explore another opportunity.”

The White House directed all inquiries regarding Richardson’s resignation to the Department of Homeland Security.

During his time at FEMA, Richardson faced significant criticism for his delayed response to the catastrophic floods in July that struck the Texas Hill Country. He was unreachable for more than 24 hours after over 130 individuals, including 27 girls and their counselors, perished at Camp Mystic, a Christian youth summer camp, on July 4.

Texas Department of Public Safety personnel assess debris at Camp Mystic following flash flooding in Hunt, Texas.
Julio Cortes / AP File

It was later disclosed that Mr. Richardson lacked experience in emergency management prior to his role as acting FEMA administrator. I was on a weekend vacation.

Richardson, a former Marine Corps officer, was appointed to lead FEMA on an interim basis in May after the previous acting administrator, Cameron Hamilton, was removed from the position following a brief tenure. During his time at FEMA, Richardson also served simultaneously as assistant secretary for the Office of Weapons of Mass Destruction Countermeasures at DHS.

This year, FEMA has faced increased scrutiny regarding its effectiveness in responding to hurricanes, floods, and other disasters, particularly as climate change has heightened the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events.

In a phone interview on Monday night, Richardson remarked that he understood his role at FEMA was to “shut things down” upon his arrival.

However, he noted that the agency’s experiences dealing with flooding in Texas and severe flooding in western Alaska underscored the agency’s necessity, albeit on a smaller scale.

“We need to empower states,” he asserted. He believes states can accomplish more but also trusts that Trump will implement reforms to the agency.

In an open letter issued in August, around 200 FEMA employees criticized the Trump administration’s disaster preparedness and emergency management effectiveness after the Texas floods.

The signatories expressed that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s request for the office to evaluate FEMA spending exceeding $100,000 impeded the agency’s response to the deadly disaster. They also pointed out that both Richardson and Hamilton lacked the “legal qualifications, Senate confirmation, and proven background” required for the role of FEMA administrator.

Following the publication of the letter, at least 21 FEMA employees faced suspension for signing it.

Richardson stated on Monday night that the $100,000 spending cap would not hinder FEMA’s response.

“If lives were in danger, we wouldn’t have surpassed the $100,000 limit,” he asserted.

Richardson succeeded Hamilton shortly before the commencement of hurricane season, after Hamilton testified on Capitol Hill claiming he believed it was not in the American people’s best interest to abolish FEMA.

This stance opposed President Trump’s proposal to dismantle FEMA and instead allow states to manage disaster responses.

Kristi Noem informed NBC News’ “Meet the Press” in June that President Trump aimed to reform the agency rather than eliminate it altogether.

Some of Richardson’s detractors, including former FEMA communications director Rafael Lemaître, expressed relief at his resignation on Monday. Lemaître is a member of the advisory board for Sabotaging Our Safety, an organization focused on disaster preparedness and emergency management issues.

“Choosing someone with no disaster management experience to lead FEMA is akin to putting a person in the cockpit of a plane during a hurricane who has never flown,” he commented in a statement.

Democratic members of the House Homeland Security Committee also welcomed the news of Richardson’s resignation.

“David Richardson was incompetent, inexperienced, and ill-suited to lead FEMA,” the group stated. “He will be remembered for vanishing when Texas families needed him the most. Thank you for your service.”

Source: www.nbcnews.com

How FEMA’s Outdated Flood Maps Foster Risk-Negotiable Systems

Posted on by
Reply

Lamer noted that detailed analyses and FEMA’s approximate maps can often exaggerate flood risk, which tends to be what clients typically seek.

“I was asked, ‘Please prove we aren’t in the flood plain.’ We’re working 30 feet above the river,” Lamer shared regarding FEMA’s initial mapping. “That’s the flaw in these maps.”

It’s a nationwide practice to adjust FEMA maps both before and after they are officially confirmed.

Syracuse Professor Prall, who has researched flood policy, alongside academic Devin Lee, analyzed five years of data on modifying the FEMA map. They found over 20,000 buildings in 255 counties across the U.S. were remapped outside special flood hazard zones from 2013 to 2017 via various appeal processes. Despite this, more than 700,000 buildings remain within the special hazard flood areas in those counties.

According to Prall, the agency has approved the majority of map revisions, with Lamer, who has processed hundreds of applications, noting only one rejection. Thus, achieving a 92% success rate with the Camp Mystic exemption is actually standard.

“If it’s not likely to be approved, we won’t submit it,” Lamer remarked. There’s little financial motivation for clients to pursue the process further unless the data demonstrates reduced flood risks compared to FEMA’s findings.

FEMA’s high-risk flood zones often expand after agents finalize new maps; however, property owners and communities can subsequently mitigate those zones.

A study by Pralle and Lee in their work, Risks of Public Policy, Crisis, reveals that alterations to special flood hazard zones are increasingly frequent.

Their research indicates that the appeal system presents consistent incentives for decreasing federal flood map designations.

“FEMA lacks the resources to double-check everything,” Prall stated.

A FEMA spokesperson mentioned that the agency reviewed the Camp Mystic case and submitted elevation data following its protocol, asserting that the approval of the amendment “will not significantly alter the reality of flood risks and dangers.”

Storms like those that have impacted Camp Mystic are projected to occur more frequently in a warming world. To address existing knowledge gaps, independent organizations are creating data-driven tools for better predicting heightened heavy rain risks.

For instance, First Street utilizes a global climate model to anticipate extreme weather events and integrate this data into risk maps. The firm provides information and analysis notably to individuals, banks, investors, governments, and more.

The national analysis revealed that more than twice as many buildings fell within the 100-year flood plain when compared to FEMA’s mapping. Porter noted that this inconsistency stemmed from heavy precipitation risks that FEMA maps failed to capture.

The company’s 100 Years of Flood Zone mapping for Camp Mystic indicates that events like this will impact both old and new campsites. In certain locations, flood zones extend beyond both Hewitt and the FEMA’s unenforced 100-year flood plain, while in other spots, they are much narrower and closer to the engineering work of Hewitt.

Steubing from the flood plains association mentioned that indications suggest the July 4 flood was anticipated to be the first significant event in 800 years, but emphasized that more assessments are necessary, as some engineering firms continue to evaluate the flood’s extent. It’s still unclear how accurately the flooding corresponds to various risk maps.

While First Street’s mapping includes climate risks, it too has its limitations, lacking the detailed river analyses completed by Hewitt.

“I don’t have boots on the ground,” Porter remarked.

In an ideal scenario, flood mapping would merge comprehensive ground engineering, current rainfall and river flow data alongside forecasts of future climate risks. According to Steubing, flood plain managers need more adaptive tools to represent different flood scenarios accurately. These should differentiate between rapid surface run-offs and slow, sustained storms, ultimately leading to better risk assessment for individual communities.

Texas is working to address various historical data gaps to move toward this goal, Steubing explained.

However, many regions, including some near Camp Mystic, have never been thoroughly studied or mapped.

To fill these gaps, the state is funding a new FEMA program called Basic Level Engineering. This initiative aims to estimate basic flood levels in under-researched areas using high-resolution LIDAR data and contemporary modeling techniques. The new mapping is intended to complement existing FEMA maps rather than replace them, and the updated mapping is now accessible statewide, including regions near Camp Mystic, representing an advancement that will aid in mitigating future disasters.

Source: www.nbcnews.com

Concerns Grow for FEMA’s Future Following Texas Flooding

Posted on by
Reply

The catastrophic flood in Texas, claiming nearly 120 lives, marked the first major crisis encountered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) under the current Trump administration. Despite the tragic loss of life, both former and current FEMA officials have expressed to NBC News that the effects on smaller geographic regions don’t adequately challenge the capabilities of the agency, especially as staffing has been reduced significantly.

They argue that the true tests may arise later this summer, when the threat of hurricanes looms over several states.

As discussions about the agency’s future unfold—with President Donald Trump hinting at the possibility of “dismantling it”—Homeland Security Secretary Christy Noem, who oversees FEMA, has tightened her control.

Current and former officials have mentioned that Noem now mandates that all agents personally authorize expenditures exceeding $100,000. To expedite the approval process, FEMA established a task force on Monday aimed at streamlining Noem’s approval, according to sources familiar with the initiative.

While Noem has taken a more direct approach to managing the agency, many FEMA leadership positions remain unfilled due to voluntary departures. In May, the agency disclosed in an internal email that 16 senior officials had left, collectively bringing over 200 years of disaster response experience with them.

“DHS and its components are fully engaged in addressing recovery efforts in Carville,” a spokesperson from DHS remarked in a statement to NBC News.

“Under Chief Noem and Deputy Manager David Richardson, FEMA has transformed from an unwieldy DC-centric organization into a streamlined disaster response force that empowers local entities to assist their residents. Outdated processes have been replaced due to their failure to serve Americans effectively in real emergencies… Secretary Noem ensures accountability to U.S. taxpayers, a concern often overlooked by Washington for decades.”

Civilians assist with recovery efforts near the Guadalupe River on Sunday.Giulio Cortez / AP

On Wednesday afternoon, the FEMA Review Council convened for its second meeting, set up to outline the agency’s future direction. “Our goal is to pivot FEMA’s responsibilities to the state level,” Trump told the press in early June.

At this moment, FEMA continues to manage over 700 active disaster situations, as stated by Chris Currie, who monitors governmental accountability.

“They’re operating no differently. They’re merely doing more with fewer personnel,” he noted in an interview.

While some advocates push for a more proactive role for the agency, certain Republicans in Congress emphasize the need to preserve FEMA in response to the significant flooding.

“FEMA plays a crucial role,” said Senator Ted Cruz of Texas during a Capitol Hill briefing this week. “There’s a consensus on enhancing FEMA’s efficiency and responsiveness to disasters. These reforms can be advantageous, but the agency’s core functions remain vital, regardless of any structural adjustments.”

Bureaucratic Hurdles

A key discussion point in the first FEMA Review Council meeting was how the federal government can alleviate financial constraints. However, current and former FEMA officials argue that Noem’s insistence on personal approvals for expenditures introduces bureaucratic layers that could hinder timely assistance during the Texas crisis and potential future hurricanes.

Current officials voiced that the new requirements contradict the aim of reducing expenses. “They’re adding bureaucracy…and increasing costs,” one official commented.

A former senior FEMA official remarked that agents need to procure supplies and services within disaster zones, routinely requiring their authorization for contracts over $100,000 to facilitate these actions.

“FEMA rarely makes expenditures below that threshold,” disclosed an unnamed former employee currently involved in the industry to NBC News.

In addition to the stipulation that Noem must approve certain expenditures, current and former staff members revealed confusion regarding who holds authority—Noem or Richardson, who has been acting as administrator since early May. One former official noted a cultural shift within the agency from proactive measures to a more cautious stance, as employees fear job loss.

DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin referred to questions regarding who is in charge as “absurd.”

Further changes are underway. Last week, agents officially ceased their practice of sending personnel into disaster areas to engage with victims about available services. This decision followed complaints regarding interactions that had been criticized last fall. Acting managers previously labeled this conduct by FEMA staff as “unacceptable.” Distancing from the scrutiny, the dismissed personnel claimed to have acted under their supervisor’s instructions to avoid “unpleasant encounters.”

Although many individuals access FEMA services through various channels like the agency’s website and hotline, two former officials emphasized that in-person outreach remains essential for connecting disaster victims with available resources. It remains uncertain if the agency plans to send personnel into Texas for door-to-door outreach.

This week, Democratic senators expressed frustration that Noem has yet to present the 2025 hurricane plans she mentioned in May, after they were promised to be shared.

New Jersey Senator Andy Kim, leading Democrat on the Disaster Management Subcommittee, plans to send another letter to Noem on Wednesday to solicit these plans.

“The delay in FEMA’s 2025 hurricane season plan report at the start of hurricane season highlights the ongoing slowness of DHS in providing essential information to this committee,” Kim asserted in his letter.

FEMA’s Future

Critical questions remain regarding FEMA’s role in disaster recovery: What responsibilities will it retain, and which will be delegated to states to manage independently?

Experts consulting with NBC News concur that while federal agencies should maintain responsibility for large-scale disasters, the question persists as to whether states could be empowered to handle smaller ones rather than deferring to federal assistance.

“Disaster prevention is paramount,” remarked Jeff Schlegermilch, director of Columbia University’s National Center for Disaster Response.

Natalie Simpson, a disaster response expert at the University of Buffalo, added that larger states could assume greater risk during disasters.

“I believe we could establish a local FEMA due to economies of scale in larger states like California, New York, and Florida, but I doubt their efficacy in smaller states,” she stated during an interview.

Current and former FEMA officials, including Texas Governor Greg Abbott, have criticized FEMA as “inefficient and slow,” asserting the need for a more responsive approach. They highlighted that the governor called for a FEMA disaster declaration within days of the flood.

On Sunday, the president sidestepped inquiries about potential agency restructuring, stating:

White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt commented that ongoing discussions are taking place regarding the agency’s broader objectives. “The President aims to ensure that American citizens have the resources they need, whether that assistance is provided at the state or federal level; it’s a matter of continuous policy discourse,” Leavitt remarked.

Source: www.nbcnews.com

NOAA and FEMA’s future hangs in the balance of elections

Posted on by
Reply

overview

  • As natural disasters increase in frequency and severity, FEMA and NOAA are becoming politicized. Their future hangs in the balance of elections.
  • Project 2025, a conservative policy roadmap, recommends “breaking up and downsizing” NOAA and shifting much of the burden of disaster recovery from FEMA.
  • Experts and current and former officials said the changes could make the U.S. more vulnerable to extreme weather events.

With the close 2024 election just days away, the future of federal agencies responsible for weather forecasting, climate change research and disaster recovery is at stake.

These agencies, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), have become increasingly politicized in recent years, despite a history of conflict. But natural disasters caused by climate change are now hitting the United States on a regular basis, with 24 weather events already occurring this year. Each caused at least $1 billion in damage — Government agencies are taking on a bigger role. As a result, it has become a target for some conservatives who are skeptical about climate change and want to cut government spending.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has promised deep cuts to the federal budget, and one of his most vocal allies, Elon Musk, said last week: He will cut at least $2 trillion Those who served in the second Trump administration will be exempt from the budget. project 2025A 922-page conservative policy roadmap compiled by the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank, recommends “dismantling and downsizing” NOAA and zeroing in on FEMA, which would shoulder much of the financial burden of disaster recovery. This suggests that the transfer will be made. to state and local governments;

If that happens, it could dramatically change the way disaster relief is provided in the United States.

Craig Fugate, who served as FEMA administrator under the Obama administration, said it has become “almost inconceivable that states will be able to recover without a lengthy and costly recovery period drawn from state and local budgets.” .

It's not entirely clear what a second Trump administration means for FEMA and NOAA. President Trump has publicly distanced himself from Project 2025, even though many of its authors were his advisers. “Project 2025 has nothing to do with President Trump or the Trump campaign,” Trump campaign officials said in an email to NBC News. “It's not the organization or its former staff.” The campaign did not respond to additional questions about the plan from NOAA and FEMA.

FEMA has already come under scrutiny and criticism from some Republican leaders in the wake of Hurricanes Helen and Milton. Mr. Trump and several other prominent Republicans even pushed false claims that FEMA funds were illegally flowing to U.S. immigrants. At the same time, rampant misinformation about the two storms made meteorologists the target of threats, even though their predictions were surprisingly accurate.

Because NOAA oversees the National Weather Service, these forecasts may no longer be freely available to the public or state governments if the Project 2025 recommendations are implemented.

Academics and current and former officials said in interviews that even an agenda based in part on a conservative roadmap would make the U.S. an outlier in a world where large-scale disasters are already intensifying and becoming more serious. He said it could make them more vulnerable to weather. frequently.

Currently, FEMA aid covers at least 75% of the cost of major disasters, but Project 2025's proposal would reduce that percentage to just 25%.

Restrictions on relief supplies could turn some communities into ghost towns, said Rep. Jared Moskowitz (Fla.), who served as Florida Emergency Management Director from 2019 to 2021 under Gov. Ron DeSantis. He said that there is a sex. He cited Hurricane Michael, which hit Florida as a Category 5 storm in 2018.

“These areas would not have recovered without the federal government stepping in and paying for the response and recovery efforts,” Moskowitz said.

He added that the hardest-hit areas that benefited the most from federal aid “voted for Donald Trump, voted for Rick Scott, voted for Ron DeSantis.”

Since Hurricanes Helen and Milton, the federal government has approved more than $1.2 billion in aid for recovery efforts. According to FEMA. This includes more than $185 million in assistance to 116,000 households in North Carolina and more than $413 million in assistance to more than 125,000 households in Florida, where both storms made landfall.

A home destroyed by Hurricane Milton on Thursday, October 10, 2024, in St. Pete Beach, Florida.
Tristan Wheelock/Bloomberg – Getty Images File

If Project 2025's proposals had been implemented during Helen's time frame, “more lives would have been lost, the response would have been much slower, and there would have been little financial assistance to help communities rebuild.” '' Fugate said.

Project 2025 recommends that NOAA be “disbanded, many of its functions eliminated, transferred to other agencies, privatized, or placed under state and territory control.”

Matthew Saunders, acting deputy director of Stanford University's Environmental Law Clinic, said privatizing weather forecasting could lead to a decline in the quality of forecasts by putting corporate profits ahead of providing robust public services. He said there is.

“A neutral, centralized government agency has an important role to play here that private industry cannot or will not play,” Sanders said.

Matthew Burgess, an assistant professor at the University of Wyoming's School of Business, said privatizing weather forecasting gives states and local governments with more resources access to higher quality forecasts, while leaving municipalities with fewer resources left behind. He said that a situation could arise. dark. Or areas with a higher risk of hurricanes or tornadoes may have to pay more for their predictions, he said.

“Right now, the state of Florida gets hurricane forecasts free of charge from the federal government,” Burgess said. “If you privatize it, the private sector will probably operate more efficiently on average, but will that be offset by price gouging incentives? Because basically, when a hurricane hits, , because we really need that forecast and will pay whatever they charge.”

The Heritage Foundation said in a statement: “Project 2025 is not calling for the abolition of NOAA or NWS. That claim is false and ridiculous.”

“There is a difference between privatization and commercialization,” the statement added. “Using commercially available products to provide better outcomes for taxpayers at a lower cost is nothing new.”

In addition to proposals for specific agencies, Project 2025 also calls for disbanding federal climate change research. But understanding the effects of climate change is an essential part of predicting storms in particular. That's because as the ocean warms, hurricanes strengthen more quickly, and as the atmosphere warms, they can produce more rain.

“That's why everyone wakes up every day to come out here and do research and prepare people to make decisions that matter to them and their families,” said Dena Karlis, NOAA's National Severe Storm Preparedness Director. he said. Laboratory.

Fugate said ending climate research would make the United States even more vulnerable to its effects.

“Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean the information isn't important,” he says. “If we ignore what's coming, how can we prepare for it?”

Sanders said deep cuts to research, weather and disaster agencies could further erode trust at a time when trust in government agencies is growing.

“Climate change, like most environmental issues, is a very unique problem in that it does not respect our political boundaries or our state boundaries,” he said. “We need a centralized federal agency to respond to climate change, an agency that can respond at scale to large and significant multi-state disasters.”

Source: www.nbcnews.com