Why Does The Federal Emergency Management Agency Exist?
I thought the agency was created to handle disasters that were larger in scope than local emergency management agencies were designed to respond to.
For example, a terrorist bombing of a building, subway, etc., could be handled by local authorities because their infrastructure still exists.
But a bombing or natural disaster that disables an entire major US city or region would destroy the infrastructure that local agencies rely on, thus requiring a large or complete response by FEMA.
So my question, which will be the same question being debated for months to come by politicians, newsmakers, and the general public: why was the federal response to hurricane Katrina so inadequate?
This has nothing to do with partisan politics. This is a serious question about why it took four days to get a decent response to a major disaster in a major US city. And I say decent because people in the region are still without food, water, medical supplies, and there are reports of people still drowning as late as Friday.
If it took four days for federal officials to respond to a major bombing in a US city, everyone would ask the same question.
The blame of the poor response to this disaster can be placed on many levels, but none as important as FEMA.
It's surprising that with all our new technology to predict and track hurricanes, with all our new infrastructure to handle communication, with all our billions in taxpayer dollars to prepare for and handle major national disasters, our response time at the federal level for Katrina was as poor as it was for Camille over 30 years ago.
Government reports listed a Katrina-like disaster in the Gulf region as one of the most likely disasters to hit our country. When it finally hit, even with days notice, FEMA was not prepared to move in and handle the situation.
Are you guys comfortable knowing that you could be stuck without food, water, and other necessities for 5 plus days if something hit your city?
I thought the agency was created to handle disasters that were larger in scope than local emergency management agencies were designed to respond to.
For example, a terrorist bombing of a building, subway, etc., could be handled by local authorities because their infrastructure still exists.
But a bombing or natural disaster that disables an entire major US city or region would destroy the infrastructure that local agencies rely on, thus requiring a large or complete response by FEMA.
So my question, which will be the same question being debated for months to come by politicians, newsmakers, and the general public: why was the federal response to hurricane Katrina so inadequate?
This has nothing to do with partisan politics. This is a serious question about why it took four days to get a decent response to a major disaster in a major US city. And I say decent because people in the region are still without food, water, medical supplies, and there are reports of people still drowning as late as Friday.
If it took four days for federal officials to respond to a major bombing in a US city, everyone would ask the same question.
The blame of the poor response to this disaster can be placed on many levels, but none as important as FEMA.
It's surprising that with all our new technology to predict and track hurricanes, with all our new infrastructure to handle communication, with all our billions in taxpayer dollars to prepare for and handle major national disasters, our response time at the federal level for Katrina was as poor as it was for Camille over 30 years ago.
Government reports listed a Katrina-like disaster in the Gulf region as one of the most likely disasters to hit our country. When it finally hit, even with days notice, FEMA was not prepared to move in and handle the situation.
Are you guys comfortable knowing that you could be stuck without food, water, and other necessities for 5 plus days if something hit your city?
