Thoughts from Engineers: FEMA: An Agency Long Linked to Crisis and Risk Prevention

Few U.S. agencies are so regularly at the center of the public’s attention like the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). It’s an agency with many responsibilities and statutory obligations, including oversight and administration of the National Flood Insurance Program and multiple grant programs, crisis-response duties, and other tasks. Its performance record is routinely examined—and routinely criticized.

Despite some truth to claims that its size, expanding responsibilities and bureaucratic nature compromise its ability to be effective, the agency still has an important role to play. Regional differences can be stark in the United States, and access to resources are variable. FEMA’s ability to step in and assist during and after a disaster seems to be unique and unmatched; few states—even those that would seem most well-equipped or capable—seem ready or willing to take on the work. Although many legitimately complain about flawed processes, FEMA so far appears to be the best positioned to partner with states and local governments to offer relief in critical situations.

FEMA also has assisted communities with the often-difficult process of getting resilient infrastructure projects built and flood-mitigation measures in place. It has served as a hub for public education and information, funding, data and technical expertise. As engineers, we know that sometimes the trickiest aspect of a project is getting it implemented. Whether the sticking point is capital, coordination among multiple parties or something else altogether, FEMA has helped move scores of projects along.

Notwithstanding some weakness in execution of core duties, it’s clear from recent letters in support of the agency that its work—and what it can offer communities around the country—is irreplaceable. This column isn’t an attempt to stray into politics, but rather an opinion and general analysis of an agency long associated with flood management and crisis relief in the United States.

Early Disasters Lead to FEMA

Several early disasters in U.S. history quickly established that a centralized “safety net” in the form of a federal disaster agency could be useful. Early examples of crises that shocked the nation included the Chicago Fire of 1871 that killed hundreds and devastated a city as well as the Johnstown, Penn., flood of 1889 that led to massive property losses and thousands of deaths. What the federal government could do at scale also became more apparent in the early 20th century in the form of flood-control projects and other engineering initiatives. The war effort also gave the country confidence that large corps of people could be organized for the public good and sent out to help in times of need.

The momentum to create a national disaster agency continued to build. Laws were passed in 1950 to authorize federal disaster relief and civil defense systems, followed by passage of the National Flood Insurance Act in 1968. The work of some 100 separate agencies involved in emergency management finally came together under one organization when FEMA was created by Executive Order in 1979. Since that time, the agency—and the context in which it operates has evolved—but the primary reason behind its formation hasn’t changed.

As many of us recognize, devastating U.S. disasters are on the upswing. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, between 1980 and 2024, the annual average number of weather disaster events with losses exceeding $1 billion was nine events (CPI adjusted). But by separating to just the years between 2020 and 2024, that number more than doubles to 23.

A Necessary Agency When Disaster Strikes

Following a recent request for comments and feedback on FEMA, thousands of letters were submitted. The many comments I reviewed came from a variety of groups—from the American Association of Retired Persons to state community-development agencies to regional housing-assistance organizations, professional organizations and other nonprofits representing multiple local relief organizations. All letters I read included extensive and detailed recommendations for how FEMA could improve its delivery of services.

One recurring comment underlined the often-complex process associated with qualifying for and applying for emergency assistance. Another frequently repeated point underscored the need to continue to coordinate the emergency response with local partners familiar with conditions on the ground. Most importantly, all letters I read—even those with multiple pages of suggested improvements—unequivocally supported the continued existence of FEMA.

Shoring Up Vulnerable Infrastructure

The agency has acted as a source of expertise and guidance as it promotes safety standards and flood-resistant building practices and provides funding for mitigation, resilient infrastructure and occasionally relocation. The many important success stories around the United States should be highlighted because most of these projects likely wouldn’t have moved forward without the funding or any number of other services that FEMA provides.

Moreover, these projects aren’t just about creating safer living conditions in the face of flood risk, but also about restoring a community’s quality of life and confidence going forward, which is invaluable. Shortcomings in policy implementation will occur—failure to update flood maps come to mind—but the overall result of the agency’s work is overwhelmingly positive—and necessary, with each passing year.

Building on FEMA’s Strength and Potential

The claim of bureaucratic inefficiency is an age-old complaint routinely leveled at public agencies even though public and private organizations alike can be affected by systemwide performance issues.

But after irregular or flawed processes are recognized, large-scale reform can begin. Segments of the population that have witnessed a severe storm event, assisted local communities struggling to recover or directly benefited from FEMA’s assistance clearly emphasized FEMA’s value. Many of these same letters supporting FEMA included valuable insights on how FEMA’s processes could be improved and streamlined.

At a minimum, these recommendations serve as a blueprint for improving how FEMA operates going forward. The agency can reorganize where necessary, streamline and rework key processes, and continue to deliver on a mission that’s just as valuable today as it was when the agency was first created some 50 years ago.

 

Chris Maeder CivilGEO Thoughts From Engineers