FEMA worse off now than during Katrina.

[Rex Kickass]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/04/...in1468890.shtml

 

In light of all the criticism heaped on the Federal Emergency Management Agency after Hurricane Katrina, is the agency ready for another disaster of Katrina proportions?

 

A former chief of staff says the agency is even worse off today than it was when Katrina stormed ashore late last August.

 

Jane Bullock told The Early Show co-anchor Harry Smith Tuesday she doesn't think the nation is ready for another Katrina.

 

"I don't think the steps have been taken that the federal government would be there to help the state and local governments should we have another Katrina disaster," Bullock said.

 

With forecasters predicting that the upcoming hurricane season will be bad, though perhaps not as bad as the last one, FEMA hasn't done anything to change itself fundamentally to assure that it will be ready next time, despite the unrelenting barrage of criticism fired its way over its post-Katrina performance, Bullock says.

 

"In fact," she said, "things have gotten worse. They've separated the preparedness from the response. People who normally would work together getting ready to prepare for the hurricane and then respond no longer work together. What's the coordination going to be like? State and local governments are not interacting with the federal government so that, when it occurs, we're not sitting down with the state saying, 'What are your needs? What can we do to help you?'

 

"And, has the federal government exercised? Have they gotten together and said, 'OK, if we have another major Category 4 or 5, what is my role, and will I have the supplies there?'

 

"Will there be enough helicopters to bring in generators and to evacuate people? Have they done anything to pre-deploy assets? I don't think those steps have been taken."

 

Bullock said the fault wouldn't be at the local level: "Some of our state and local governments have made great strides, and we have excellent state and local emergency managers. But, if we have a major hurricane, their assets are going to be overwhelmed, as we saw in Katrina, and they're going to look to FEMA and the federal government. The question is, will the federal government be there? And who will be in charge? We currently don't even have a (permanent) head for FEMA."

 

She added: "I don't think there's a prospect of (the system) being fixed until the administration and the Department of Homeland Security make a commitment to helping people in disasters. During the '90s, FEMA worked. FEMA was there to help people. They knew they could count on the government. I don't think anybody, now, can count on the government being there for them during times of disaster.

 

"I think people living behind levees in places like New Orleans and other areas really need to be worried and really need to think about what they're going to do when a storm comes."

[Balta1701]

So wait...you're saying Brownie was doing a heck of a job?

 

Seriously...the worry right now isn't a hurricane...because if one does come towards the mainland...Chertoff, Bush et al. are going to do everything possible to make sure no one's left in the path, just because it would look so damn bad if another one shredded this country.

 

The worry, IMO, is something else...like a terrorist attack, pandemic flu, major earthquake/tsunami, volcanic eruption, etc., because that's where the lack of management experience and the fact that the smaller government/crony folks haven't thought about them as a problem this year will set up another disaster.

 

Of course...if a Hurricane were to go after New York...all bets are off.

[NorthSideSox72]

Of course...if a Hurricane were to go after New York...all bets are off.

You've been watching those silly Weather Channel "It Could Happen Tomorrow" shows, haven't you?

[southsider2k5]

You've been watching those silly Weather Channel "It Could Happen Tomorrow" shows, haven't you?

 

 

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/hurricane/...-forecast_x.htm

[Balta1701]

You've been watching those silly Weather Channel "It Could Happen Tomorrow" shows, haven't you?

Surprisingly...no. That's just on my list of likely disasters in the next decade or two. The demolition of New Orleans was at the top of that list before it happened. Now we've got the obvious ruptures along the San Andreas (within 50 years, there will be major quakes in both S.F. and north of L.A.), a Hurricane hitting a major east coast city, a tsunami in an area the U.S. is't prepared for, a major quake along the Cascadia megathrust (almost certain within the next 0-500 years), etc. The probability goes down for some of them, but they're still possibilities. There isn't likely to be a major collapse in the Azores tomorrow, but if it happens, there's nothing left of the Eastern seaboard, for example.

[NorthSideSox72]

Surprisingly...no.  That's just on my list of likely disasters in the next decade or two.  The demolition of New Orleans was at the top of that list before it happened.  Now we've got the obvious ruptures along the San Andreas (within 50 years, there will be major quakes in both S.F. and north of L.A.), a Hurricane hitting a major east coast city, a tsunami in an area the U.S. is't prepared for, a major quake along the Cascadia megathrust (almost certain within the next 0-500 years), etc.  The probability goes down for some of them, but they're still possibilities.  There isn't likely to be a major collapse in the Azores tomorrow, but if it happens, there's nothing left of the Eastern seaboard, for example.

I know, its a possibility. I was just giving you crap.

 

I agree that all of those are strong possibilities. You can add to that list major volcanic activity in the Cascades, Utah, Wyoming or New Mexico. The USGS did a broader report about possible activity in the next century, highlighting the current activity and likely risk levels for volcanoes. There are quite a few possibilities, even in that short time span. I can't find the PDF at the moment.

 

And I heartily agree that we are just not even close to ready for any of these possibilities. Plus the non-natural events.

[Balta1701]

I know, its a possibility.  I was just giving you crap.

 

I agree that all of those are strong possibilities.  You can add to that list major volcanic activity in the Cascades, Utah, Wyoming or New Mexico.  The USGS did a broader report about possible activity in the next century, highlighting the current activity and likely risk levels for volcanoes.  There are quite a few possibilities, even in that short time span.  I can't find the PDF at the moment.

 

And I heartily agree that we are just not even close to ready for any of these possibilities.  Plus the non-natural events.

Actually, at least in terms of the locals, I think we're probably better prepared for a major cascades event than we are for most of the other potential disasters. The biggest risk to nearby major cities is Mt. Rainier, and the biggest risk from Rainier is from Lahars. We got a very nice view of what those things can do about 25 years ago when St. Helens blew, so most of the communities nearby have installed lahar alarms and have plans for how to get to high ground. Lots of the schools even run lahar drills. Oregon may have a few problems also...but there is heavy monitoring of those mountains, and they're not likely to surprise without some warnings.

 

The air traffic and transportation issues could still be a problem (you fly a plane into a volcanic cloud and it may be going down), but one of the advantages for the U.S. is that our population centers really aren't near major volcanic epicenters, unlike in some other countries.