Thousands are homeless in West Virginia this week after torrential flooding that left at least 23 dead. Clay, Fayette, Greenbrier, Jackson, Kanawha, Monroe, Nicholas, Pocahontas, Roane, Summers and Webster counties were all damaged in the floods. Bodies were found days after the rains began, having been dragged miles from their homes by the rushing water. But for West Virginia, the reconstruction won’t just be physical, it will be emotional too.

Let’s start with the massive need for rebuilding–FEMA has already approved over $18 million in individual assistance for medical and housing support, but this is just the beginning of the disaster relief process. FEMA began by coordinating disaster centers and donation centers for those who lost their homes to the flooding but it will now need to provide temporary housing and unemployment benefits, assist with home repair, and provide low-cost loans to cover uninsured property losses. With over 4,000 flood victims registered to date, FEMA is looking at years worth of construction and economic assistance. If a similar natural disaster strikes other communities this summer, FEMA’s budget will be stretched thin. In the 2016 financial year, FEMA was granted $7.37 billion for the Disaster Relief Fund, a sum that seems somewhat less significant once we factor in that the Disaster Relief Fund is used not only for disasters that occur in 2016 but for the costs of past disasters as well, including Hurricane Sandy. West Virginia’s reconstruction has only just begun and there is no way to fix a deadline for when it will end.

But beyond the physical reconstruction, there is also a need for emotional support. In the wake of natural disasters, communities are more vulnerable to a rise in mental health issues. Consider that in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, a survey of 392 low income parents affected by the storm found that the prevalence of serious probable mental illness doubled and that nearly half the participants studied exhibited probable PTSD. The American Psychological Association operates the Disaster Resource Network, a group of approximately 2,500 licensed psychologists who work with the Red Cross to integrate mental health into disaster preparedness training, but with so many communities at risk, it is difficult to reach every town that is vulnerable.

FEMA’S Crisis Counseling Program (CCP) provides funding for a variety of counseling services, including both individual and group counseling, but there is no guarantee that the counselors provided will be able to work with victims of disaster indefinitely. Building trust and making progress with a counselor can take months or years, and with so few qualified counselors available to work in disaster areas, those who cannot seek counseling on their own dime may never return to counseling once the CCP grant runs out. In West Virginia, an economically disadvantaged state with one of the highest rates of unemployment in the nation, the likelihood of most flood victims being able to attend counseling without a CCP grant is almost nonexistent.

In a nation where communities are constantly grappling with floods, hurricanes, tornadoes and wildfires, FEMA’s work is never done. The agency has worked to transform itself, in a post-Katrina world, into an effective disaster relief agency that can anticipate every need of a community in its darkest hour. Yet FEMA is not beholden to stay in the community forever–it will rebuild and aid as much as it can, a process that may take years, but that does not undercut the fact that FEMA relief is only temporary.

The deeper effects on the community, particularly the scars left by grief and PTSD, last long after the aid money has run out. Organizations like Counselors without Borders are doing critical work in disaster scenarios but they do not have the resources or staff to reach every victim of every crisis. Individuals will play the greatest role in creating positive mental health in disaster communities. Trained counselors and psychologists can donate their time, volunteers can work on emergency and suicide hotlines, school administrators can strive to create safe spaces for students–this type of holistic, community-based dedication to protecting mental health can truly rebuild a town after it has been destroyed. However, when flood victims are focused on rebuilding their homes and businesses, these efforts can fall by the wayside—why focus on mental health when poor physical health is the greater threat to a flood victim’s immediate well-being? How can a community choose to spend money on group counseling for a family instead of spending that grant on rebuilding that family’s home? This is our next great challenge when dealing with natural disasters: making mental health as important as bricks and mortar.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Needed: Mental Healthcare in the Aftermath of a Disaster appeared first on Law Street.

Rivers from Texas to Illinois have flooded as a severe storm system moves through the Midwest. There have been numerous flood related deaths in Missouri and Illinois; many of these deaths were related to drivers being trapped in their cars as the flood waters rose. The Midwest is currently recuperating during a brief reprieve from rain but Southern states have begun preparations for massive flooding. Thousands of people have been displaced by the evacuation process, seeking shelter in hotels or with family members while their homes are claimed by the rising water. The Midwest is usually hit by flooding hardest in the spring and summer, and was expecting snow during December rather than rain. Whereas summer floods are easily contained and property damage is often minimal, the winter flooding has been catastrophic. Read on for a look inside the disaster relief process that has swung into action over the past few weeks.

FEMA and El Nino

Earlier in December, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) organized a specialized El Nino task force to tackle the oncoming weather phenomenon. FEMA operates under the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security, coordinating efforts between regional, state and federal relief teams. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

An El Nino is a weather phenomenon in which warmer tropical Pacific Ocean waters cause changes to the global atmospheric circulation, resulting in a wide range of changes to global weather. Over North America, the Pacific jet stream (a river of air that flows west to east) often expands eastward and shifts southward during El Nino, which makes precipitation more likely to occur across the southern tier of the United States.

El Nino is also responsible for the nationwide temperature spikes that have made this winter season relatively mild for most of the Eastern seaboard. The current El Nino moving through the Midwest is the strongest since 1998. El Nino’s impacts do not only impact the Western hemisphere. According to BBC News,

Aid agencies like Oxfam are worried that the impacts of the continuing El Nino in 2016 will add to existing stresses such as the wars in Syria, South Sudan and Yemen. They say that food shortages are likely to peak in Southern Africa in February with Malawi estimating that almost three million people will require humanitarian assistance before March. Drought and erratic rains have affected two million people across Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and Nicaragua. More floods are expected in Central America in January.

Weather services provide FEMA with consistent updates on El Nino weather patterns, information which FEMA then uses to design response plans for individual states and regions. FEMA coordinates with regional and federal officials to manage disaster response and evacuation. After Governor Jay Nixon declared a state of emergency and deployed the National Guard in Missouri, he spoke with President Obama to discuss federal aid and intervention. According to a recent NASA report, the El Nino pattern is not waning and will continue to hit the country with significant force in the coming week. NASA satellites have tracked sea surface heights and temperatures over the past several weeks and will continue to work with disaster relief teams throughout the duration of the floods.

The History of FEMA

FEMA was founded in 1979, created via an executive order by President Carter. The federal government had completed informal disaster relief for domestic weather emergencies since the 1930s but the establishment of FEMA merged multiple agencies and marked an official commitment to aiding communities. In 2003, FEMA became part of the Department of Homeland Security, largely as a result of 9/11. According to FEMA’s website,

The agency coordinated its activities with the newly formed Office of Homeland Security, and FEMA’s Office of National Preparedness was given responsibility for helping to ensure that the nation’s first responders were trained and equipped to deal with weapons of mass destruction. Within months, the terrorist attacks of Sept.11th focused the agency on issues of national preparedness and homeland security, and tested the agency in unprecedented ways. Billions of dollars of new funding were directed to FEMA to help communities face the threat of terrorism. Just a few years past its 20th anniversary, FEMA was actively directing its ‘all-hazards’ approach to disasters toward homeland security issues.

But in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, FEMA was criticized for a number of reasons. Critics claimed that the evacuation process was not coordinated well enough and the number of supplies set aside for evacuees was not sufficient. Attempts to ensure that the process was running smoothly were in some cases interpreted as massive mistakes that slowed down the relief process on purpose. FEMA was considered to be uncoordinated on the ground, and images of New Orleans’ citizens baking in the heat of the SuperDome became synonymous with an ineffective FEMA response.

Hurricane Katrina was FEMA’s first massive challenge after becoming part of the Department of Homeland Security and was considered an embarrassment both for the agency and the Bush administration as a whole. FEMA director Michael Brown was considered by some to be insufficiently experienced in disaster management, although he claims that he did not have access to a great deal of information on the ground until days after evacuation began. The difficulties of Katrina evacuation and aid were not solely FEMA’s but the agency became the poster child for bureaucratic inefficiency.

The Difficulties of the Current Evacuation

As evacuation orders went into effect across the region, escaping the oncoming surge was made difficult because of compromised transportation routes. Interstates flooded, forcing travelers onto local roads that quickly became jammed. Trucks transporting commodities along set driving routes got stuck on the flooded roads and drivers were forced to abandon their cargo as the waters rise. Police forces and volunteers have been adding sandbags to major roads in preparation for flooding but the effects of these preventative measures have been minimal as multiple levees have broken across the region. Evacuees are forced to abandon their cars on the road, often after waiting on the roofs of their vehicles for hours for rescue teams. The majority of businesses and buildings have shut down during the floods, essentially turning several counties in Missouri and Illinois into ghost towns. People who tried to stay in their homes to wait out the flood found themselves fleeing to higher stories to escape more than water–untreated sewage filled the water of towns in Missouri and thousands of people were left without access to drinking water. In agricultural areas, pigs, horses and other livestock are often casualties of massive flooding. U.S. News reported yesterday that:

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers says it is not planning to open a southeastern Missouri floodway in response to the swollen Mississippi River – at least not yet.

Opening floodways to divert the flow of water is one solution to local flooding but it will likely not be significant enough to impact the whole state. When flooding occurs this heavily over such a wide stretch of land, there is no easy solution. Even if water can be diverted out of certain communities, it would be held by levees that may be incapable of successfully containing the rivers, endangering other towns further downstream. The activation of the National Guard should provide extra manpower and resources for evacuation efforts but as long as the El Nino weather pattern persists, the flooding will continue in full force. Without an end to the incessant rain and flooding, conditions will likely only worsen in the Midwest and South.

 Conclusion

The flooding in the Midwest presents a daunting challenge for rescue teams across the country, but if FEMA has learned from Hurricane Katrina, it will tackle it efficiently and quickly. Evacuation is a challenging process that requires dozens of teams to coordinate transportation and rescue efforts during any time of year, but winter weather conditions make the task Herculean. Flooding is only expected to increase and expand to the South in the coming days. As FEMA, the National Guard and various regional officials coordinate their efforts, thousands of residents await aid as their homes sink deeper and deeper under the flooded rivers. If handled correctly, these floods may redeem FEMA’s public image and create a functional template for future evacuation scenarios. If handled poorly, these floods may cement FEMA’s reputation as ineffective and disorganized in the face of tragedy.

Resources

Primary

FEMA: About the Agency: A New Mission: Homeland Security

Additional

ABC News: 22 Dead, 2 Missing in Record Flooding Across Midwest

Reuters: Midwest Braces for More Flooding as Rain-swollen Rivers Rise

Eastern Arizona Courier: FEMA preparing for possible El Nino disasters

Scientific American: Record Flooding Hits U.S. Midwest, Threatens South

PBS News Hour: FEMA Faces Intense Scrutiny

BBC News: El Nino Weather: Worries Grow over Humanitarian Impact

US News: The Latest: Flooding Forces Closure of 3 Historic Sites in Illinois Because of Unsafe Roads

Hexa News: Missouri Residents Told To Evacuate Immediately Due To Flood Danger

NBC News: ‘Historic’ Floods Threaten 19 Levees Along Mississippi River

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Flooding in the Midwest: The Challenges of Disaster Relief appeared first on Law Street.

The devastating 7.8 earthquake that recently struck Nepal caused untold damage to buildings and has killed thousands of people, with many more missing. Following the devastation, the usual influx of aid began, as did finger pointing over who was to blame for the devastation. However, what this catastrophe has revealed most clearly is the disparate ways in which countries respond to disasters. Read on to learn about the response to the Nepalese earthquake, and the various global responses to disasters.

Responding to a Disaster

Emergency Management

Disasters, natural and man made, have been around since the beginning of time. However, the response to these disasters has not always been the same, and methods have varied as widely as the civilizations that have suffered them.

In the United States for example, we have FEMA (the Federal Emergency Management Agency). FEMA was founded in 1979 when five separate agencies that dealt with disasters consolidated into one. Although it perhaps best known now for its poor handling of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, it has served as the point agency for every natural disaster the United States has dealt with since its inception.

Emergency Management Cycle

While the methods for emergency management vary, one of the commonly accepted tools is the emergency management cycle. The cycle’s origins go back to the 1930s when phases were first used to describe the ideal response to a disaster. The cycle gained its central place in the emergency management lexicon in 1979 when FEMA was created by President Jimmy Carter following recommendations from the National Governors Association, and versions have now expanded to other nations. This cycle is generally broken into three or four parts, although newer variations can include more steps. Usually the four steps are mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. You can see an example here.

The first two phases, mitigation and preparedness, actually occur before the potential disaster strikes. In the preparedness and mitigation phases a country plans for a potential disaster through steps such as developing evacuation plans, raising awareness and improving current infrastructure.

Once the disaster actually strikes, there’s a response section of the cycle. During this time, emergency management workers attempt to rescue people, provide basic services, and prevent any further damage. The final phase is recovery. In this final stage, once the disaster has passed, authorities go to work returning basic services to full operational capabilities. Additionally, infrastructure and other institutions that were damaged during the devastation are rebuilt.

While these distinctions seem clear, steps often overlap and become blurred, further complicating the process. In addition, it’s important to remember that these steps apply equally to both man-made and natural disasters. However, maintaining an appropriate balance of preparedness for the two types is important, otherwise one can become neglected at the expense of the other. A chilling example is the focus on defending against terrorism in the United States that left other shortcomings unnoticed. Critics claim this led to an underfunding of the levee system in New Orleans, which ultimately failed during Hurricane Katrina and had devastating results.

The Finger Pointers and the 20/20 Crowd

Unfortunately not every country has such a system or even a plan in place, including Nepal. These programs are very expensive. For example, in 2015 FEMA’s requested budget was $10.4 billion. To put that into context, Nepal’s entire GDP for 2013, the most recent year available from the World Bank, was only $19.3 billion. While no one expects Nepal to have an agency or program on the scale of FEMA given the lower population and wealth gap between it and U.S., in the wake of this disaster, concerns have arisen that the nation was unprepared.

These considerations did not stop the criticism from pouring about the failure of the Nepalese government. These criticisms have come from several high profile sources, including numerous relief agencies, namely the United Nations. Criticisms range from insufficient infrastructure to the difficulty aid groups have delivering supplies to those who need them. Despite the disaster, many protective tariffs are still in place, making it difficult to distribute goods. There are also concerns over widespread corruption and the reported looting of supply convoys by authorities who want to disperse the aid along ethnic lines.

These criticisms should not be entirely surprising given Nepal’s governmental history. The country only just began recovering from a civil war in 2006, which had lasted ten years. That conflict pitted the newly established democratic government against Maoist insurgents. Since the end of the civil war, there have been a succession of ineffectual governments who have been unable to create any sort of a unified front. For example, in January 2015, the current government was unable to agree on changes to its constitution because of political infighting.  The video below depicts many of the issues facing Nepal’s relief efforts:

International Community

When countries such as Nepal and others suffer a horrendous disaster, the international community usually steps up to aid them in their suffering. While variations of aid can be separated into many different branches, the two clearest distinctions are financial and direct intervention.

Financial Assistance

While not every country has an emergency response team to spare to help in a disaster zone, many can offer another valuable commodity: money. As of April 28^th 60 million dollars in financial assistance had already been pledged to the earthquake ravaged area. This type of giving is not surprising, especially following natural disasters such as earthquakes. In fact two other examples, the deadly 2013 typhoon in the Philippines, and the 2008 cyclone in Myanmar (Burma) illustrate that in circumstances such as these, it is not uncommon for the aid a country receives to as much as quintuple from one year to the next.

Although this is good news for Nepal, it may not be enough. While financial pledges can be easily won in the immediate aftermath of a disaster, the ability to continue to elicit them tends to fade as the story does from the headlines. Costs to repair the damage in Nepal have been estimated to be as much as five billion dollars. This massive undertaking is especially difficult for a nation like Nepal whose GDP, as previously mentioned, is only around 20 billion total each year, with a significant portion of that coming from now-lost tourist revenue.

In addition to these considerations, a working paper on the political economy of disaster preparedness by Charles Cohen and Eric Werker of the Harvard Business School also raises additional considerations. While money is useful in dealing with a disaster, giving away large sums reduces the incentive of a government to be adequately prepared in the first place. According to the study, rich countries as well as poor would be better off if more aid was provided for preparedness than response–it’s smarter to be proactive than reactive.

Concerns also abound over a dishonest government stealing aid money. In some cases, leaders want to reward their constituents first in order to maintain their good graces. Thus, it is also imperative in these types of situations to have a decentralized aid distribution system as much as possible. The video below provides some dos and don’ts in regards to helping following a disaster:

Physical Intervention

Another means to assist an ailing nation is through direct assistance by countries and private organizations. In the case of Nepal, this aid can be divided into three sub-categories. First, countries such as Japan and Australia sent experts and aid teams to help recovery. Relief organizations such as the Red Cross provided money and experts to help, basically serving as microcosms of the nations they represent. Lastly corporations such as Coca-Cola and Kellogg provided bottled water and food to satiate survivors whose access to basic goods may have vanished in the wake of the disaster.

Like financial assistance, direct intervention can also have drawbacks. An example of this comes from the 2010 Haitian earthquake. In that case, relief efforts were hampered and stagnated due to an inefficient infrastructure in place. The United States took full control of the response efforts, at one point legally taking possession of the main airport in the capital Port-au-Prince during the relief efforts. However, subsequent American prioritizing of its own relief planes over other nations’ led to an international row that threatened to divert focus from the main crisis as hand. The accompanying video depicts the controversy:

The Wealth of Nations

Additionally the acceptance of aid either through financial aid or direct intervention can also be influenced by the existing wealth of a nation. For example, while Nepal is basically dependent on other countries for assistance, richer nations who are less beholden may refuse aid when it is offered. A prime example is the United States, which politely declined nearly one billion dollars in aid from allies following Hurricane Katrina in 2005. While part of this was due to government inefficiency in distributing assistance, most offers were simply declined out of hand.

The U.S. declined most of the aid because, while it was adept at distributing aid to other countries, it was less skilled at dispensing aid within its own.  Thus rather than accept more aid that would often spoil or remain unclaimed, it instead declined many offers.  While this stagnation is criticized in other countries as a result of underdeveloped agencies, in the U.S. it was accepted because the U.S. is perceived as being a more capable nation due to its relative wealth.

Conclusion

Although countries such as Nepal and Haiti may serve as examples of how not to handle a disaster, there is no telling how any nation will respond once it actually experiences one. The prime example here is the United States. Even with its large bureaucracy dedicated to disaster relief and readiness, with an equally large budget, the U.S. has repeatedly been accused of being unprepared.

There are numerous examples of these failings, perhaps the two most glaring in recent memory are Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Sandy. Hurricane Katrina essentially wiped out one of the most historic cities in the US, New Orleans, while also killing over a 1000 people and causing over $135 billion dollars in damage. Hurricane Sandy saw a lower fatality count, approximately 100 dead, but saw major parts of eastern states such as New York and New Jersey effected to the point of $50 billion dollars in damages.

Disasters, whether they are man made or natural, can strike anywhere, anytime. While some nations, either through financial means or previous experience are more prepared than others, ultimately no nation is ever ready for something as deadly as Nepal’s earthquake or a massive hurricane. This is a global issue, and one that has no easy answer.

Resources

Primary

FEMA: The Four Phases of Emergency Management

World Bank: Nepal

Ottawa County Sheriffs’ Office: Four Phases of Emergency Management

Central Intelligence Agency: World Factbook Nepal

Additional

Time: These are the Five Facts That Explain Nepal’s Devastating Earthquake

Brookings: Counter-Terrorism and Emergency Management Keeping a Proper Balance

MNMK: Disaster Management – A Theoretical Approach

VOA: Nepal Officials Slammed Over Aid Response

Fierce Homeland Security: 2015 Budget Request

Harvard Business School: The Political Economy of Natural Disasters

CNN Money: Nepal Earthquake Donations, Who’s Sending What

Vanderbilt Center for Transportation Research: The Phases of Emergency Management

Guardian: US Accused of Annexing Airport as Squabbling Hinders Aid Effort in Haiti

Washington Post: Most Katrina Aid from Overseas went Unclaimed

The Data Center: Fact for Features Katrina Impact

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Do Nations Respond When Disaster Strikes? appeared first on Law Street.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) just announced that they’re not playing nice with climate change-deniers anymore. FEMA has officially proclaimed that unless states create plans that consider how to combat climate change, they may not be eligible for disaster preparedness funds from the agency.

The new FEMA guidelines acknowledge the problems that have come or may develop from climate changes, including things like more intense storms, heat waves, drought, and flooding. Given that all of those are situations in which states often turn to FEMA for funding and assistance, the agency is asking that when making their disaster preparedness plans, states “assess vulnerability, identify a strategy to guide decisions and investments, and implement actions that will reduce risk, including impacts from a changing climate.”

It’s important to note that this change won’t affect how much aid FEMA will give to states affected by natural disasters such as earthquakes, storms, and hurricanes. That’s called disaster relief, and it’s not part of this change. Rather, if states don’t provide adequate hazard-mitigation plans that acknowledge climate change and its effects, it will withhold the funds for that disaster preparedness. These funds are used for things like training and purchasing equipment. Overall, FEMA gives out grants of this sort that total about $1 billion each year.

This creates a big political problem for some of America’s most visible and prominent Republican governors, many of whom have long either advocated that climate change is not a product of human activity, or that it’s simply not happening. Deniers who are now on the chopping block include Governors Rick Scott (Florida), Bobby Jindal (Louisiana), Chris Christie (New Jersey), Greg Abbott (Texas), and Pat McCrory (North Carolina).

Jindal and Christie have, at the very least, been floated in talks about possible 2016 Republican contenders. Ironically, Louisiana gets the most disaster preparedness money and New Jersey comes in at number three, so Jindal and Christie, as well as the other Republican governors who deny climate change, are faced with an interesting catch-22. They can either sign off on plans that comply with FEMA regulations and lose some political clout among the conservatives they may have to woo in a presidential primary, or refuse to acknowledge climate change and lose funding that their states probably need.

This policy shift comes amid many debates happening around the country over how states should individually handle climate change. There are allegations that in Florida, for example, there’s an “unofficial policy” to not use the words climate change, even when discussing the phenomenon and its effects.

No matter what, this is certainly a bold move on FEMA’s part, and shows that politics can’t always take the front seat when it comes to safety. FEMA is making a move that it thinks will help mitigate the results of climate change–if it ruffles a few political feathers in the meantime, so be it.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post FEMA to States: Recognize Climate Change or Lose Funding appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been two-and-a-half years since Hurricane Sandy last dominated headlines, but recently the storm has been pulled back into the media. From the 60 Minutes special “The Storm After the Storm,” to this funny yet poignant spot on “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart,” and an article in last week’s edition of The New York Times have all described problems along the road to recovery.

Some residents of the New York/New Jersey area who received the brunt of the hurricane’s wrath are still waiting to receive full compensation for their damaged homes and businesses. Daily Show correspondent Jordan Klepper created a satirical news package that brought to light the struggles of one Staten Island neighborhood. The spot revealed that victims of Hurricane Sandy are still waiting to receive money to rebuild their destroyed houses. One woman explained that she was frustrated because organizations such as “Build It Back” lose paperwork and do not do enough to help affected communities.

The coverage on “60 Minutes” attributed the delayed or missing compensation to intentionally doctored paperwork, claiming there is evidence that insurance and engineering companies often falsified reports. In one example, a company claimed that the damage caused by the storm was long-term damage that existed before the hurricane rolled into town, even though paperwork from a previous visit to the home determined the damage was due to the storm. The resident maintained that the damage was indeed caused by the events of Hurricane Sandy, producing evidence of the paperwork from the original visit.

How is FEMA reacting to all this hoopla? Well, the organization will be reviewing every flood insurance claim filed by homeowners affected by Hurricane Sandy. FEMA’s message was announced by Senators Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, along with Senators Robert Menendez and Cory Booker, Tweeter Extraordinaire, of New Jersey. (Seriously though, check out Senator Booker’s on-point Twitter account here).

Along with reviewing every flood insurance claim, FEMA will also be launching its own internal inquiry. While all of these reviews and inquiries sound great in theory, there is still not a concrete plan of attack as to when (or how) Sandy victims will be compensated. Steve Mostyn, the lead lawyer representing New York homeowners, remained cautiously optimistic:

We are happy that FEMA now agrees to reopen all Sandy claims. However, that process has not been worked out and the details of that process will determine if it is real or just window dressing.

Hurricane Sandy caused 117 deaths and more than $60 billion worth of damage, second only to Hurricane Katrina in 2005. If America does not improve its process for addressing national disasters, what will happen to homeowners seeking compensation in the future? How many years will they have to wait to rebuild? Is the United States ill-equipped to handle the aftermath of the next deadly tornado in Nebraska, or future large-scale fire in California? Hurricane Sandy might have been an East Coast problem, but fair–and timely–post-storm compensation is a national issue.

Corinne Fitamant

Corinne Fitamant is a graduate of Fordham College at Lincoln Center where she received a Bachelors degree in Communications and a minor in Theatre Arts. When she isn’t pondering issues of social justice and/or celebrity culture, she can be found playing the guitar and eating chocolate. Contact Corinne at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hurricane Sandy Recovery Drags on For Devastated Communities appeared first on Law Street.

The Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act was passed in 2012 in an attempt to save the failing National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) that was deeply in debt and spiraling toward insolvency. As a result, homeowners in flood-prone areas, many of whom had never legally been in a flood zone prior to FEMA’s re-mapping efforts under the act, were required to buy flood insurance at outrageous premiums, with some homeowners seeing a 55 percent increase in their annual premiums. As a result, Congress has stepped in to delay Biggert-Waters’ implementation until these unforeseen side effects can be mitigated, though we have yet to see how this will be done. Read on to learn about the Biggert-Waters Act, flood insurance in the U.S., and what the next steps are.

How does flood insurance work?

While most of us know insurance is often sold by private companies consisting of comedic cavemen and geckos with accents, many types of insurance exist that are sold directly by or backed by the federal government, sometimes in conjunction with private companies. The National Flood Insurance program sells flood insurance, a highly risky type of insurance that most companies normally would not want to sell. It is sold through private insurers who perform the administrative work concerning policy issuance and premium collection, while the federal government collects the final premiums and pays all claims. Homeowners in designated flood zones are required to purchase this insurance, and since its creation in 1968 many policies are partially subsidized by the government to keep premiums reasonable. As of 2011, the program had 5.6 million policies in effect and $1.246 trillion in total insured value. Watch this adorable commercial created by the NFIP (who knew flood insurance could be cute?)

What is the Biggert-Waters Act?

The Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 was a piece of bipartisan legislation aiming to correct growing problems with the NFIP by bringing premiums in line with the actual risks they represented, and to establish flood zones that coped with the effects of climate change. As government subsidies of flood insurance premiums continued, the amount policyholders were paying into the program became gradually less commensurate with the actual risks being insured. Prior to the passage of Biggert-Waters, many flood insurance policies were subsidized. Despite this, the NFIP had remained stable until Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy struck the Gulf Coast and the Eastern Seaboard, requiring massive claims payments in addition to disaster relief, which severely depleted the resources keeping the NFIP afloat. After Hurricane Sandy, the NFIP needed $28 billion in bailouts, and currently the program is running $24 billion in the red.

Biggert-Waters sought to reform the National Flood Insurance Program in a number of ways. The bill aimed to increase the amount subsidized homeowners pay for their insurance, bringing the premiums paid in line with the actual risks and generating more revenue for the bankrupt NFIP. The NFIP would also no longer be able to provide a free pass for homes built before the NFIP came into effect, which had previously been grandfathered into the program. The program also commenced an extensive re-mapping project to make more homeowners aware of shifting and growing flood zones and to encourage them to purchase flood insurance, instead of remaining unaware until they require federal disaster aid. These mapped flood zones, as they had before Biggert-Waters, impose strict regulations on new home construction that require homes to be built at certain heights or with various loss-prevention methods. All of these reforms were meant to stabilize the NFIP financially and to accurately insure actual flood risks, reducing the strain on federal disaster relief funds.

 Why is there an effort to delay Biggert-Waters?

Some unforeseen side effects of the Biggert-Waters Act have caused many politicians, including Representative Maxine Waters (one of the bill’s authors), to seek a delay in implementation of the bill. She, and others, have done so through the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014, which amends and delays the effects of Biggert-Waters. As a result of the re-mapping done by FEMA, many homeowners have found themselves in a higher-risk flood zone than they had been previously, which have stricter requirements governing the construction of homes, such as the height to which homes should be raised and the addition of flood vents or break-away walls. If these requirements are not met, a homeowner’s insurance premium can skyrocket.

Such was the case with Richard and Sandra Drake of Union Beach, New Jersey, who saw their annual flood insurance premium jump from $598 in 2013 to $33,000 in 2014 after they were re-mapped into a higher-risk zone. After Hurricane Sandy, the couple rebuilt their home and raised it three feet above the federal requirements for their flood zone. After re-mapping, however, their home was too low for the requirements of their new flood zone, and this was reflected in their annual premium. The new premium threatened to force them to sell and find a new home before Senator Robert Menendez stepped in and worked with FEMA to lower their premium back to pre-mapping rates. New York was forced to set up the Special Initiative for Rebuilding & Resiliency to combat the hikes in rates. Even residents whose homes are built to federal regulations may see premium increases. These rates simply are not feasible for many people who rely on federal flood insurance, which covers regions that range from secondary beach houses to low-income coastal communities.

How is Biggert-Waters being modified?

In 2014 Congress passed the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act (HFIAA), which repeals and modifies the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Act. It limits rate increases to 18 percent annually to prevent steep jumps in premiums while mandating increases to subsidized policies, in order to create a more gradual and cushioned path toward the end results sought by Biggert-Waters. It also provides options for homeowners placed into higher-risk flood zones in the new FEMA maps to become eligible for Preferred Risk Policies (PRP), which help lower individual homeowners’ premiums. In addition, it reinstates “grandfathering” in order to help those homeowners who have been re-mapped into higher-risk flood zones.

In essence, the HFIAA is meant to move toward some of the goals of Biggert-Waters at a more gradual pace, allowing homeowners to grow accustomed to unsubsidized rates instead of being confronted with them all at once; however, many homeowners point out that, while gradually achieved, the future unsubsidized premiums will still be too much to pay in high-risk areas, especially in later years when many homeowners will be living on fixed incomes. While the HFIAA cushions the blow of Biggert-Waters, it does not altogether remedy the controversy.

Who opposes the HFIAA?

Critics of the HFIAA argue that the continued subsidies on homes in high-risk areas leave communities unprepared when the next disastrous flood strikes. By paying unrealistic premiums, critics believe homeowners will be less proactive in elevating their homes, constructing their homes with preventive measures, and working with insurance agents to find a workable financial solution to flood insurance. Many critics also oppose “grandfathering,” in which policies created before the NFIP was implemented in a given community receive lower rates, instead of being prompted to modify their home to be more prepared for potential floods. In response to homeowners who claim that modifying their older homes may not be financially or physically feasible, these critics argue that the effort and resources required to modify a home are negligible in comparison to the effort and resources required to rebuild after a devastating flood. In all, critics are disappointed with a Congress that triumphantly passed bi-partisan legislation aimed at balancing the federal budget, and when citizens began to complain, “bowed to short-term constituent demand.”

Why do we continue to build homes and live in flood-prone areas?

When digesting all of this information one might be prompted to wonder, “Why don’t people simply move away from flood zones? And why are people living there in the first place?” The answer, as is the case with most socio-political questions, is not so simple.

Many homeowners find themselves in flood zones because, historically, cities were often built along rivers or the coast for the accessibility of water transportation. The areas affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy are located near cities–New Orleans and New York, respectively–that rose to prominence due to their accessible harbors, and now these metropolitan areas, suburbs and all, are at the mercy of storm surges and fluctuating rivers and coastlines. In the modern era, prompting entire communities to pack up and move is simply not practical. Many of these communities date back decades and are multi-generational, making it difficult to abandon the area for higher ground. Many new development projects are also taking place in these areas because they are often profitable regions. A beach or a river valley can be an important tourist destination, and so construction in these areas continue despite the risk and the rising cost of flood insurance.

Opponents to flood-zone development are becoming more vocal, however, and are questioning why these areas remain filled with homes. At a certain point, opponents argue, the cost of living in flood zones will become too great and populations will be forced to evacuate. The United States is not the only country struggling with the question over the habitation of flood zones. Severe flooding that affected various parts of the British Isles in February 2014 caused a storm of political bickering and thorough media coverage. Many sources condemned coastal townships and politicians alike for lack of preparedness and for the approval of new development projects in flood zones. Thirteen percent of all new development projects in the United Kingdom in February 2014 were on flood plains, despite well known flooding in those areas. Similar to the U.S., the British government partnered with the Association of British Insurers to create a not-for-profit company to keep flood insurance available and affordable for the U.K.’s citizens. While the dispute over flood-plain communities has existed and will exist for some time, the impending insolvency of the National Flood Insurance Program demands immediate action.

Resources

Primary

House of Representatives: Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012

House of Representatives: Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014

Additional

USA Today: Flood Insurance Bill Clears Congress

Think Progress: How the New Flood Insurance Reforms Make Costly Future Climate Disasters More Likely

Times Picayune: How Controversial Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Bill Became Law

NJ.com: Union Beach Couple Gets $33K Flood Insurance Bill After Raising Their Home Above New Federal Standards

Insurance Journal: Rep. Waters, Author of Flood Reform Act, Calls for Delay in Implementation

PropertyCasualty360: House, Senate Reject Efforts to Delay NFIP Rate Increases

Union of Concerned Scientists: The Biggert-Waters Act: Fix it, Don’t Abandon it

The New York Times: Outrage as Homeowners Prepare for Substantially Higher Flood Insurance Rates

The New York Times: Homes in Flood Zone Double in New FEMA Map

Independent: Why Do We Insist on Building on Floodplains?

Architects Journal: Flood Debate: Should We Build on Floodplains?

BBC: Why Do People Buy Houses in Places Prone to Flooding?

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post American Flood Insurance: The Biggert-Waters Act and Beyond appeared first on Law Street.

Folks, today marks the one-year anniversary of Hurricane Sandy.

Last year, on October 28^th, I walked to a nearby pub called Onieals to grab dinner for me and my wife (then fiancée). Onieals has the best burgers in Hoboken, and I figured it would be our last opportunity to eat meat for awhile.

The storm was supposed to roll in that night. As I walked the three blocks to pick up our order, it was dark, cold, and cloudy, the wind biting sharply against my sweater. The streets were eerily empty. Back at home, we had stocked up on cases of bottled water and plenty of non-perishable food. The whole town waited with baited breath for the worst.

Finally made it to the grocery store to stock up. No more bread. Who needs bread anyway? Too many carbs. #Sandy pic.twitter.com/lF8iJPBG

— Casper Andreas (@CasperAndreas1) October 28, 2012

As it turns out, the storm didn’t hit until the next day. From morning until night on the 29^th, my wife and I watched the local news, our heat cranked up, making the most of our final electricity-filled hours. We watched as the storm submerged Atlantic City, working its way up the coast. Rain pelted our windows. The lights stayed on.

Until they didn’t. Around 9 p.m., I took a peek out of our bedroom window, hearing screams from outside. The streets were empty. All was well.

Then, ten minutes later, when the screams got louder, I looked again. All of a sudden, there was three feet of water in the street, and rising. Our car was floating. Our apartment building—and all the buildings around us—became an island in a sea of gasoline-tinged floodwaters. The lights went out. My wife and I huddled in bed, trying to block out the screams of thousands of car alarms blaring outside. It sounded like the end of the world.

Morning came, and the water was higher. Firemen paddled through the streets on inflatable boats, looking for people to rescue. I called out to them from our open window, asking if there were any evacuation orders. No, they told me, stay where you are. It took my wife and I days just to get out of our third-floor apartment—the flood waters filled the first floor of our building, along with an array of garbage it had washed in, blocking our exit.

Taken by yours truly, from our apartment window.

On day three, the waters in our neighborhood had drained. Stir crazy, we went outside to survey our destroyed car. We took a walk through the town, detouring around the areas that still hadn’t drained. Every basement and ground floor apartment in town was destroyed. Every car was totaled. Abandoned ambulances floated in the middle of flooded streets, signaling failed rescue attempts.

Once again, taken by yours truly.

FEMA set up camp downtown, and volunteers from around the world gathered to help. Wealthier residents, who paid to live on higher ground, offered their newly recovered electricity to the public, stringing power strips out of their front windows. They served hot food and drinks while strangers—including us—charged their phones at their front doors.

My wife and I had no power for 8 days. We lost our car. Our apartment was so cold, we spent most of our time huddled together, napping under mountains of blankets, trying to ignore the visibility of our breath. When the heat came back on, we both nearly cried for joy.

That was a year ago, and we were pretty lucky. Tons of other Hoboken residents lost everything. Our families in southern New Jersey lost a lot of things too. And those epic photos you’ve seen of the destroyed boardwalks along the Jersey Shore? That’s where we grew up. Things still aren’t quite the same.

Since the storm, I like to joke that we’ve all come down with PTSD—Post Traumatic Sandy Disorder. Nowadays, we all sleep with a flashlight on the nightstand, with an extra tank of gas in the garage, with a zillion spare batteries in the fridge. The sound of car alarms still makes me want to hide under the covers. And the word hurricane strikes a new kind of fear into our hearts.

But the fact is, while we were all deeply affected by Hurricane Sandy, memorializations of tragedies like these tend to gloss over the realities of wealth inequality and marginalization. I’ve stumbled across countless stories detailing the destruction of the storm, and the resilience of communities who are rebuilding and bouncing back. But that ability to bounce back isn’t the same for everyone.

I’ve written before about how women, queers, and people of color are more likely to struggle with poverty. So, let’s take a wild guess as to who was hit hardest by a storm like this, and who would have the most difficulty recovering afterwards?

In Hoboken, it was easy to see. This city is basically a tiny microcosm—it’s an incredibly small town geographically, but it’s filled to the brim with people, spatially divided by race and socioeconomic class.

The projects and low-income housing options are located in the lowest section of town—that means that the poorest people experienced the worst flooding, and went without power for the longest period of time. By contrast, there’s a whole other neighborhood that’s filled with multimillion-dollar condos—unsurprisingly, their elevated position meant they experienced the least flooding, and lost power for all of (maybe) 24 hours.

Not to mention, early childhood education programs and local emergency healthcare—all crucial services for the economically disadvantaged—were completely destroyed in the storm. These facilities were closed unceremoniously, and no alternatives were provided. Many of them have only just reopened, if they’ve managed to do so at all. Add that to the reality that many of the folks affected by these closings could have easily lost their cars, homes, and jobs in the storm, and you’ve got a situation that’s overwhelmingly difficult to get out of.

A destroyed Hoboken basement apartment, next door to our building.

My wife and I were lucky. We lost plenty, but neither of our jobs were destroyed in the storm, we had good insurance coverage, and a healthy savings account. We had the economic resources and infrastructure to rebuild our lives post-Sandy, and these days, things are pretty much back to normal.

But we’re white, college-educated, working to middle-class women. We have a certain level of privilege that tipped the scales in our favor. Not everyone has that. And as a result, not everyone could bounce back from this storm as well as we did.

So this Halloween season, while you’re reading all of these post-Sandy retrospectives in the news, think critically about who the storm affected and how. Is there something you can do to help those who haven’t been able to bounce back—and who, likely, haven’t been featured in the upbeat, restore the shore narrative?

Because when economic disadvantage is a problem before a tragedy like this happens, it’s not always so easy to pick up the pieces afterwards.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Images courtesy of [Hannah R. Winsten]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Post Traumatic Sandy Disorder – One Year Later appeared first on Law Street.