A Debatable Solution for Disaster Recovery

I know after watching last night's Republican presidential debate in New Hampshire that I'm supposed to be amazed how no one went after Mitt Romney, surprised that Tim Pawlenty whiffed  when he had the chance to land a punch and and impressed  that Michele Bachmann can go two full hours without saying something outrageous. I'll leave that to the legion of other punditry peddlers to gnash and gush.

Instead, it was this small and little noticed moment that caught my attention, especially here, and as we mark another flood anniversary. It occurred while the hopefuls were scrambling to prove they would do the best job stopping the federal government from doing things.

From CNN's transcript:

KING: What else, Governor Romney? You've been a chief executive of a state. I was just in Joplin, Missouri. I've been in Mississippi and Louisiana and Tennessee and other communities dealing with whether it's the tornadoes, the flooding, and worse. FEMA is about to run out of money, and there are some people who say do it on a case-by-case basis and some people who say, you know, maybe we're learning a lesson here that the states should take on more of this role. How do you deal with something like that?

ROMNEY: Absolutely. Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that's the right direction. And if you can go even further and send it back to the private sector, that's even better.

Instead of thinking in the federal budget, what we should cut -- we should ask ourselves the opposite question. What should we keep? We should take all of what we're doing at the federal level and say, what are the things we're doing that we don't have to do? And those things we've got to stop doing, because we're borrowing $1.6 trillion more this year than we're taking in. We cannot...

KING: Including disaster relief, though?

ROMNEY: We cannot -- we cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids. It is simply immoral, in my view, for us to continue to rack up larger and larger debts and pass them on to our kids, knowing full well that we'll all be dead and gone before it's paid off. It makes no sense at all.

KING: All right, we need to work in another break. I know all the candidates want to get in on these issues and other issues. We will get back to them, I promise you that.

The main problem with Romney's assertion is that most states don't have the resources to bankroll recovery from major disasters, especially floods. Maybe the feds could provide big block grants to the states, but how do you decide how much states should get, or how much they need to spend on a flood like the one going on now in Western Iowa? That watershed stretches through multiple states. Who should pay for response/recovery? Does Montana owe Iowa anything for sending snow melt that wrecks homes and towns here?

The real problem is not that the federal government handles disaster response. FEMA does a good job in the critical moments after a disaster hits.

The problem is that it mishandles disaster recovery, badly in some cases. And that mishandling wastes time, resources and money.

As I've written many times before, it's astounding that a country with hurricane-prone shores, Tornado Alley, fault lines and scores of flood-prone rivers, has no solid, time-tested, streamlined and efficient post-disaster recovery plan, carried out by a single dedicated agency. Instead, the bureaucracy essentially makes it up as it goes along, ripping upt the playbook and writing new rules with each disaster. Multiple agencies stumble in, trying to retrofit programs never designed for disaster recovery.

We have one agency, the Army Corps, refusing to fund adequate flood protection based on an outdated formula, while another agency, the National Flood Insurance Program, runs a huge deficit paying claims for properties repeatedly flooded. We have the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which was never intended as a disaster response agency, in charge of scores of flood buyouts.

Confusion and delay are the result, at best. At worst, fraud and misuse of resources. Three years after the flood here we're still fighting with FEMA over an array of issues that should have been settled months if not years ago. Decisions have been made by local FEMA officials that are then vetoed by regional officials. Rules that were in effect at the time of the flood changed before recovery concluded. Victims get money from one federal hand without being told that later, another hand will subtract those funds from other benefits. Landlords aren't considered business owners. Business owners can't get the help they need despite jumping through many hoops. Home buyouts are an endless tangle of red tape.

Maybe states could do a better job in some instances, but its a matter of leadership and bucks. if you're lucky enough to get flooded in a state that has both, good for you. If not, tough darts, I guess. And as far as privatizing disaster response, there are many non-governmental groups who do critical work in disaster zones. But again, resources are always scarce.

Maybe the feds do lots of stuff that's not needed. Bureaucracy could use plenty of trimming. But I actually think disaster response is one thing that is needed. We can have 10th Amendment arguments, etc., but it's hard to argue that helping citizens survive and get back on their feet after a catastrophic event wouldn't fit withing the definition of promote the general welfare.

The solution is to revise and rewire the entire response and recovery process in a way that swiftly assists victims in their hour of need and then creates an easy-to-understand and predictable recovery process for going forward. That's not as flashy as slashing, burning and privatizing, but it's what the country needs. The current president hasn't done it. I'd like to hear from a candidate who would.