POLITICAL ROUNDUP: NOAA, FEMA under scrutiny in election season

Oct. 25—TAHLEQUAH — Hurricanes Helene and Milton incurred tens of billions of dollars in damage in seven southern states, and many home insurance policies won't cover the cost of recovery, due to not having supplemental flood insurance.

This leaves individual homeowners applying to the Federal Emergency Management Agency to recover their losses, experts say. FEMA regulations require applicants who receive FEMA assistance to purchase flood insurance for future flood damage to any insurable property, states the FEMA website.

Mark Friedlander, director, Corporate Communications, Insurance Information Institute, told Newsweek in an article headlined, "Helene Brings Flood Insurance Crisis as Majority of Properties Not Covered," Oct 4, that only about 6% of homeowners have the necessary coverage.

"Yet, 90% of natural disasters involve flooding," Friedlander said.

Climate scientist David Easterling works for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and lives in Asheville, North Carolina. Even though he has been expecting events such as these two hurricanes due to his work in Asheville, North Carolina, at National Centers for Environmental Information, the central repository for weather and climate data, he was shocked at the amount of rain that fell and how quickly it happened.

"To walk out and see [the gauge] almost full was incredible. It just rained and rained and rained. It was mind-boggling to see that much rain," Easterling said in an interview with National Public Radio, Oct. 3.

These two agencies are under scrutiny during this election season. An article in Newsweek, Oct. 4, headlined, "Full List of Republicans Who Voted Against FEMA Funding Before Helene Hit," reported that Congress had approved $20 billion for FEMA's disaster relief fund but left out billions of requested funding for supplemental disaster funding.

"The Senate approved the measure by a 78-18 vote on Sept. 25 after it passed the House in a 341-82 vote. Republicans supplied the no votes in both chambers," states the article. "Some of the Republicans who voted against the bill represent states that have been hard hit by Helene, including Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz."

U.S. Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Oklahoma, said it is important that Congress carefully consider whether agencies and programs are serving their intended purpose.

"While it is important that Congress carefully considers whether agencies and programs are serving their intended purpose and providing value to taxpayers, there is a role for the federal government to play in forecasting, tracking and alerting the public to severe weather events," Mullin said. "In particular, the [National Weather Service] Center in Norman — an essential federal, state and academic partnership — is a valuable resource for Oklahoma and the region."

Both U.S. Rep. Josh Brecheen, R-District 2, and Mullin, from Oklahoma, voted against extending funding to FEMA, according to the list of House and Senate members who voted against the measure. The vote happened just before Hurricane Helene hit.

The weekly TDP Facebook Forum Saturday, Oct. 19, asked readers how they felt about FEMA and NOAA, what problems they see with the agencies and what role the agencies should play.

Eric Swanson believes a president should be able to propose eliminating or scaling back a federal agency, but only if the agency is no longer serving its original purpose and can back up their proposal with facts. Due to his lack of personal experience, Swanson can't speak to the agencies efficiency. He suspects that calls to scale back or abolish the agencies are driven more by ideology than facts.

"However, the president would have to work in concert with Congress on such a plan, since federal agencies are provided for by law," Swanson said. "I certainly do not think federal workers should be fired just because they are perceived as being disloyal to the president. Federal staffers should be free to do their jobs without political interference."

Monica Ford said she would like to see the cost of FEMA administration versus the money that is actually put in the hands of weather victims.

Rustie Ann Miller said outside sources advertising to help on the internet are clashing with NOAA and making the agency's job harder.

"I think they should crack down on some of them," Miller said. "There's ones you can clearly see are only in it for the money and not the safety of people. [The] only way they respond to a comment [and] reply to a live video, [is] if you pay them. I could go on for hours on this subject."

What you said

In a poll on TDP's website, readers were asked, "What is your opinion about federal agencies, specifically FEMA and NOAA?" The answer that received the most votes was, "They serve an essential purpose and must be maintained," at 59.6%; votes for "they serve a purpose but should be scaled back," came in at 3.8%; 1.9% answered, "FEMA should be kept but NOAA eliminated"; those that voted, "NOAA should be eliminated but FEMA eliminated," came in at 3.8%; 7.7% voted "both agencies should be maintained but the next president should eliminate staff who disagree with his or her plan of action; 19.2% voted, "both agencies should be eliminated; they are a waste of taxpayer money; and 3.8% voted "undecided."

___

(c)2024 the Tahlequah Daily Press (Tahlequah, Okla.)

Visit the Tahlequah Daily Press (Tahlequah, Okla.) at www.tahlequahdailypress.com

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.