Now What?

Now What?

By Jim Mullen

As climate change impacts and political challenges grow, local and state governments must focus on building resilience. This article highlights the critical role of emergency management in preparing for future disasters.

The federal election is over. A new Administration will assume the reins on January 20. There will be concern that federal budget priorities may not be geared toward resolving FEMA’s annual funding shortfalls despite evidence that successive administrations (and Congress) have failed to adequately provide sufficient resources on an annual basis, even in the face of increasingly complex events. However, local and state governments are not powerless to address their own vulnerabilities, and now is the time to do so.  

The national failure to meaningfully address climate change will exacerbate future weather disasters, also impacting the severity of wildland fires that interface with urban areas, shortages in water supply, earthquakes, floods, interruptions in the power grid, etc. The incoming federal administration could advance an expectation that local and state governments should assume a greater financial role in preparedness and mitigation initiatives to render their jurisdictions more resilient. They’ll claim, not without some justification, that more could be done at the “ground zero” level to mitigate the consequences of disasters.   

It’s past time for local and state governments to invest substantial resources into building resilient communities. That is easier to say than to do from a political and financial standpoint. I know this from years of petitioning supervisors, mayors, governors, and legislators for resources for advance planning. Disasters that have yet to occur are comparatively low on the priority list compared to the everyday challenges confronting local and state governments. They already have full plates, and “maybe next year” or “maybe next term” are predictable responses.  

Hoping for the best is fine, but preparing for the worst case is the better choice. The mission of helping communities to be more resilient is imperative not only during the period of crisis but also for the periods before and between crises. Emergency managers will need political cover from their leaders to advance measures to increase resilience, regardless of the unpalatable political and financial resistance they will encounter. Will they get it? I submit that to do otherwise is a dereliction of duty.