Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities and the STORM Act

Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities
Student's Name
University Affiliation
Professor's Name
Course Title
Due Date
Introduction
Although several policy changes in disaster management have been made in the last few decades, the changes made after hurricane Katrina have been the most impactful in the Emergency and Disaster Management field. There are several reasons why I hold this position. First, the consequent shift from response focus to mitigation has proven to reduce the negative impacts felt by the areas most prone to disastrous events (Gall & Cutter, 2019). Secondly, the aftermath of the hurricane prompted several initiatives to be enabled at the federal level. The Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities and the STORM Act are key among the initiatives. These initiatives have equipped communities with the key infrastructure necessary to avert or reduce negative effects in the event of a disaster or emergency.
Thirdly, although it is hard to quantify the return on investment due to the above-mentioned shift, there is compelling evidence to show that it has greatly increased community benefits. These benefits include a reduction in the negative effects brought about by consequent hurricanes/disasters. This paper will discuss the above-mentioned points in detail. Additionally, the paper will also discuss the future of disaster management. The policy changes made after Hurricane Katrina have been the most impactful in the disaster management arena.
Disaster Management Model Prior to Hurricane Katrina
To understand the impact of Hurricane Katrina on policy changes, it is important to review the disaster intervention model prior to this deadly hurricane. The United States had experienced several hurricanes before Katrina. New Orleans, for instance, had experienced at least five hurricanes in the 20th century. In those hurricanes, the focus of the federal government was majorly based on response and recovery. Although hurricanes could cause great damage, the government's main focus remained pegged on response for decades. However, when hurricane Katrina struck, it came with some dynamics that made it inevitable to change the disaster management model employed by the federal government. The following is a discussion of some of these factors.
First, although about 80% of the population had left New Orleans by the time the hurricane started, thousands were still left at home (National Hurricane Center and Central Pacific Hurricane Center, 2005). Consequently, when the hurricane struck, response interventions were inevitable. Evidence reveals that ordinary people did a significant part of the rescue process. Additionally, the Coast Guard also rescued at least 34000 people (Gall & Cutter, 2019). While all the rescue was happening, the federal government seemed very unprepared for the disaster. The federal government took several days before intervening. When the Federal Emergency Management Agency did intervene, it did not seem to have a well-planned plan of action. The government was largely blamed for its lack of preparedness. In fact, most government officials, including the then president George Bush, did not have an idea of the extent to which the hurricane had caused damage. In the words of one of the journalists who was covering the damages, the hurricane had led to a situation of utter desperation.
Secondly, both the state government demonstrated critical failures in taking care of those who were rescued. To start with, most people who survived the hurricane had nowhere to go. The New Orleans government officials had set aside a Superdome to accommodate some people. However, this Superdome soon became filled, and its doors closed. It is worth mentioning that people in the dome were not receiving sufficient supplies (Gall & Cutter, 2019). The city leaders did not have a proper plan of action, and thousands of people found themselves in dire need of food, shelter, and clothing.
Thirdly, a large percentage of people who were living in New Orleans before the disaster were people from the lower social class. Credible data suggests that more than 65% of the people were poor (Gall & Cutter, 2019). When the hurricane came, their businesses and source of livelihood were utterly destroyed. Further, key infrastructure was also destroyed. From these observations, it is clear that the livelihoods of a majority of the affected people just moved from bad to worse. To the government, this also presented a significant challenge since it had to find a way of sustaining the affected people. Additionally, the government had also to suffer great cost implications in rebuilding the infrastructure.
Fourthly, the hurricane demonstrated a severe lack of good cooperation between the state and federal governments. Officials from the state governments blamed the federal government for not providing key intervention necessities such as helicopters and other aid forms. Further, criticism mounted on the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, forcing him to resign. The mayor of Orleans at one time told the reporters that the state and federal governments were playing a two-step dance. The failure of adequate cooperation came to the detriment of the affected citizens (Gall & Cutter, 2019). After the hurricane, congress launched a critical investigation to understand the government’s response to the storm. The critical report that was made out of the investigations was referred to as “A failure of initiative.”
The key observations made above led to a great shift in the disaster management model of the United States. Although the disaster led to the loss of lives and property, it had one key positive effect. The positive impact was that it prompted the government to shift from a response-based model and find other efficient ways to deal with disasters. It would be true to say that the hurricane woke the state from its deep slumber of unpreparedness and forced it to come up with more effective ways of dealing with disasters in the long term. Since it is not known when the next disaster may strike, the best thing is to be adequately prepared for it long before it occurs. The following section will discuss how the factors described in this section prompted the government to shift its focus.
Shift from Response Focus to Mitigation
After Hurricane Katrina, there was a shift from response focus to mitigation. The shift has proven to reduce the negative impacts of disasters, especially in areas that are most vulnerable/ prone. This section will highlight some of the ways in which the shift from response focus to mitigation was made. Additionally, the section will also highlight some of the ways in which the shift had enabled the consequent disasters to have reduced negative repercussions.
One of the things that led to poor response to Hurricane Katrina was poor leadership. An academic analysis of the Federal Management Agency showed that most people working at the agency were unqualified. Consequently, they needed to be replaced with professionals with the requisite experience and skills. One of the key issues considered when hiring new officials was their ability to put mitigation measures in place rather than wait for disaster to occur and respond.
Secondly, to ensure sufficient preparedness and resilience, the Federal Emergency Management Agency introduced an initiative called the whole community initiative. This initiative was introduced during President Obama’s administration and aimed at involving all community members in disaster preparedness and resilience. Particularly, the initiative targeted the private sector, various community groups, and individual citizens. The initiative’s main aim was to ensure that the assets of the civil society improve coordination in disasters and draw the attention of all members of the community to disaster resilience. This initiative has had positive impacts on disaster management. For example, in response to Harvey, store owners played an instrumental role in distributing supplies to affected individuals. This initiative was a genius one since it greatly reduced the chances of disaster spiraling out of control and strengthened all community members to be well-prepared for disasters.
Thirdly, the sustainability model that had hitherto been used in disaster management was significantly abandoned in favor of resilience. The focus has had several impacts, including some introduction of new forms of training in resilience. In the modern day, the United States has a significant number of resilience officers who help develop resilience to disasters. The focus on resilience was pegged on the premise that communities can achieve much more than just rebuild. In fact, rebuilding is so costly, and there is no guarantee that another hurricane will not occur. Consequently, measures have been put in place to heighten preparedness. Some of these measures include building levees and canals and investing in insurance to ensure that the most vulnerable areas are well protected.
Fourth, Congress granted authority to move key resources to disaster zones ...