The Need for FEMA!?

First off, let me say that my prayers go out to all those affected by Hurricane Sandy.

This post is not to diminish their suffering.  I actually support having FEMA in order to coordinate relief efforts across state lines.  However, my point is to point out the faulty logic being used by "big government" supporters in order to politicize this tragedy.  Okay, okay, by responding to them, I am politicizing it as well.  Fine, argue that, but I am simply responding to them rather than instigating.  At any rate, here goes.

Is FEMA a necessary agency?  Is it even a constitutional one?  Let's take a look at this and see.  FEMA was established by a 1978 law under President Carter.  It began operations on April 1, 1979.  Since then, it has helped and assisted in several disasters, sometimes with good results and sometimes with not so good results.  However, the first and foremost question for me is always: is it constitutional?  Well, there is no delegated power in the Constitution that grants the federal government the power to run to the aid of the states in times of emergency.  That's why the states have national guards, etc.  Additionally, I don't recall any amendments to the constitution that have given the federal government this power and reduced the sovereignty of the states in any way.  That is why governors need to invite FEMA in to help, in fact.  FEMA's role is supposed to be one or coordinating efforts across state lines, which seems like a logical thing for the federal government to do, not to take over efforts and tell the states what to do.  At any rate, it seems that FEMA's constitutionality is questionable, at best.

So, what about the other question.  Are they really needed?  Well, to listen to people talk in the wake of hurricane Sandy, you'd think this country had never seen a major disaster before without having FEMA in place to "help".  That's rather laughable logic on their part since FEMA didn't start operations until 1979.  So, what disasters took place where there was no FEMA to help and what has happened since there has been a FEMA?  Since FEMA usually does not get involved when only one state is affected, I'll focus on disasters that impacted multiple states.  However, I may mention a few major disasters that only impacted a single state as well.

So, the early years in the U.S. had one major interstate disaster and many intrastate ones that could be mentioned.  First of all was the year with no summer.  This occurred in 1816.  A volcanic eruption of Mt. Tambora in modern Indonesia disrupted the climate enough that all of New England and much of the northeast of the U.S. say cold and freezing temperatures and snow during the summer months, which caused massive crop failures and famine.  I don't think anyone would claim that the U.S. didn't survive and thrive as a nation because there was no FEMA to help out.  Other notable events certainly bring to the light the need for the Coast Guard (which is entirely constitutional under the defense and commerce clauses).  This includes three notable shipwrecks where over 100 people lost their lives.  The Mexico, the SS Central America and the PS Lady Elgin all sank in coastal waters.  There are many other shipwrecks throughout history, but they are more evidence of a need for the coast guard than they are for FEMA.

There are other disasters like the various "great" fires.  Ones in New York, Michigan, Chicago, Seattle...in fact, many cities have stories that stem from some great conflagration in their past.  All of these cities were rebuilt and still exist today, even in the absence of FEMA.  I wonder how that happened since liberals seem to be claiming the states and local jurisdictions can't do it without the federal government.  But I digress.  The next major disaster killed over 2200 people in 1889.  The Johnstown flood in Pennsylvania was the result of a failed dam that flooded the entire town in a matter of minutes.  People lost their lives and their homes.  A major section of railroad track was destroyed which hampered relief efforts.  Yet, when you go to the Johnstown museum of this event, you see that people all over the country sent supplies or travelled there to assist in relief efforts and Johnstown is still there today, the burst dam a national landmark of how Americans can bring assistance to bear when and where it is most needed.  Amazingly enough, this was done without FEMA.  Go figure.

I'll treat storms separately...they tend to impact multiple states and so I'll look at them in that light.  However, some other major events took place before FEMA that were not "acts of God" as some people call storms.  There have been many railroad, air, and other transportation disasters over the years.  These, by their nature, are single state events most of the time, they are directly related to interstate commerce.  Therefore, they certainly are cause to have the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), but FEMA?  Other major events that weren't storms include the 1906 San Francisco earthquake that killed 3-6 thousand people.  These deaths though were mostly attributed to the resulting fire that followed rather than directly to the earthquake itself.  However, I'll point out that there was no FEMA and San Francisco is a living and thriving city today.  Then there was the massive flooding of the Ohio river in 1937 that affected 4 different states.  This would certainly call for FEMA efforts today, and having spent time growing up in Louisville, Ky., it is well remembered.  Yet...all the states impacted and the towns and cities along the river built flood walls and survive and thrive today, without FEMA.  Now, once you start getting into the 1930s, you can't say there was no federal response because of the various New Deal programs, etc.  I'd have to do a lot of research to see which of these disasters got later support from the Army Corps of Engineers or the Works Projects Administration or the like.  However, that isn't the point of this article.  Rather, I'm asking whether FEMA is required and necessary.  Next, were two more earthquakes.  The 1946 Aleutian island earthquake that caused a Tsunami that hit Hawaii.  Then again, in 1964, the Good Friday earthquake that again caused a Tsunami that hit Hawaii, Oregon and California.  Had you heard of these disasters and how awful they were because there was no FEMA to save us all?  Yeah, I hadn't heard that either.

Now the storms.  There have been lots of deadly storms over the years that impacted multiple states.  2 hurricanes in 1893, each of which killed over 1000 people.  The 1900 Galveston hurricane that killed 6-12,000.  The 1919 Florida Keys hurricane that killed 600.  The 1925 tornados in Mississippi, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky and Tennessee that killed over 700.  The Okeechobee hurricane that killed over 3000 in 1928.  The 1935 Labor Day hurricane.  The 1938 great New England hurricane that killed 600.  Camille in 1969.  The 1974 "super outbreak" tornadoes that hit Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, and New York that killed 315.  And the 1977 and 1978 blizzards in the Great Lakes region and in the Northeast.  All of these events had major impacts on the areas they hit and most of them impacted more than a single state.  I grew up hearing all sorts of stories about Camille, the 1974 tornado, even the great New England hurricane, as I moved around the country.  All of those stories talk about the devastation and loss of life and how the communities came together to rebuild.  None of them talk about how they couldn't have made it without FEMA.

So what has happened since FEMA was established?  Two things in 1980.  A massive heat wave that hit the south and the eruption of Mt. St. Helens.  The Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989 as well as hurricane Hugo.  The 1993 "storm of the century" blizzards that impacted all of the eastern United States which resulted in the Great Flood of 1993 in the midwest when all that snow melted.  While there were a lot of hurricanes in the early 2000s, I'll only mention those that affected more than one state.  Hurricane Ivan in 2004, Katrina in 2005, Ike in 2008 and Irene in 2011.  In addition, there was the Evansville tornado of 2005, the Super Tuesday tornadoes of 2008 and the massive tornado outbreaks of 2011.  Most of the time, when FEMA has been called in, they've done a perfectly fine job is providing aid and support to these areas.  Katrina is a notable exception where pretty much everything broke down.  However, based on past experience, are we really claiming today that the only way any of these disasters could be recovered from is because FEMA is there to help?  I think anyone making that claim needs to seriously reconsider it based on history.

Finally, many events do not impact multiple states, but only one state.  Who bears the brunt of the disaster in that case.  Sure, the state can and often does ask for assistance, but the brunt of rebuilding is on the states, the brunt of providing security during crises is on the states, the brunt of first response is on the states.  Living in Florida, we get hurricanes all the time, and it isn't FEMA I look to, but local fire fighters, local police officers, local power companies, local charities, and national gas companies and grocery store chains to provide what is needed most.  The local response is what is most important, not the federal one.  Just food for thought for all those who want to believe that FEMA and the feds is the only way to save ourselves in times of need.