Now Is the Time for Radical Honesty in Flood Policy
This past weekend, the sermon at my church was about dedication to the mission and how Jesus Christ had to be focused, ignoring distractions, especially during the events that are remembered during Holy Week. There were also radically honest conversations with the Disciples about what was to come. In contemplating the sermon afterwards, I was struck by how relevant the message was to what we individually and as an association can do during this time of change when it seems everything we do in the sphere of floodplain management is up for reconsideration.
Consider just a few of the public policy questions that have arisen recently:
- Should FEMA exist? Or, should FEMA be reformed — and if so, what are the reforms?
- What is the role of the federal, state, and community in emergency management?
- How should states and communities better invest in preparedness, response, and recovery?
- Should the federal government be in the business of hazard mitigation or in long-term recovery for that matter?
- Do floodplain standards matter? What if post-disaster rebuilding requirements get in the way?
- Should we continue with a 50-year-old standard for floodplain management (the NFIP minimums)?
- Why should climate change be a priority?
- Why does science and research matter?
Here is the problem: Many of the responses I hear to these answers are not truthful, support the position of the ideological camp the respondent represents, or invoke some loftier fuzzy goal rather than being a thoughtful or serious response.
Case in point: I met with the staff of one of my newly elected Senators recently. I posed the question: What happens, due to budget cuts, when only 50% of FEMA shows up after you have been asked to sign onto a federal disaster declaration as part of the Congressional delegation? How do you respond to a flood survivor who is also your constituent? Do you think they will get the service level that they — or you — expect? The response that I received didn’t answer the question at all. And that was unfortunate, because there are some great ideas on how to reform FEMA being proposed by Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals — and agency staffers too. Wanting a government that works effectively and efficiently for the people it serves (us) is not confined to one party or ideology. But instead of an honest answer, I got the soundbite.
Folks, we must have radically honest conversations about these important public policy questions, and we cannot let our leaders off the hook with a soundbite response. Policy changes have consequences that matter to our families, businesses, and communities. This includes the Kozlanski family in Scranton, Pennsylvania whose lives have been on hold since a 2023 flood. Their hope was in a BRIC project that was almost ready to be used for the flood buyout when, just last week, they were notified that the approved grant was being canceled. Any floodplain manager who has had to deal with the aftermath of a flood and used FEMA’s mitigation programs knows what it is like to be so close to the finish line — only to be told that the federal government is reneging on its commitment. It is shameful, as was FEMA’s announcement that almost seemed to celebrate the ending of a program that Congress and several previous administrations had deemed worthy of investment (see the great commentary by David Maurstad in this issue).
When I think about ASFPM’s mission, especially when it comes to policy issues, there’s still so much work to do if we’re serious about reducing flood losses nationwide. But at the end of the day, it is all about the mission. How can we reduce flood losses in the nation? How can respect the natural benefits and functions of floodplains? How can we engage policymakers in a serious discussion about these issues?
I am seeing a few green shoots that give me some hope. There have been two House hearings on the future of FEMA where I saw both Democrats and Republicans having an honest conversation about the agency. (Watch the recording of the March 4 and March 25 hearings.) Just last week, Senators Tim Sheehy (R-MT) and Adam Schiff (D-CA) introduced a bipartisan bill to incentivize hazard mitigation through tax credits (ASFPM has long advocated for changes in tax policy to give incentives for hazard mitigation). But as we are now in the middle of flood season in the Midwest, and hurricane season will start in June for our coastal states I worry. How will cuts to NOAA and the National Weather service impact preparedness and response to the next flood disaster? Will the president even approve a request from a governor for HMGP in a future disaster?
Despite the policy maelstrom happening around us, I’m hopeful that with dedication to the mission — backed by facts, science, and information — we can find policymakers who want to assist their constituents in their time of greatest need and help keep their communities safe from future events. And through radical honesty in our discussions, we can make change for the better.
Your partner in loss reduction,
