FEMA’s Response to Hill Country Flooding Under Scrutiny

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Democrats on Wednesday pressed David Richardson, acting head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, about his agency’s response to the devastating Hill Country flooding.

U.S. Rep. Greg Stanton, D-Ariz., highlighted heroic rescues executed by Coast Guard personnel and other first responders as people clung to trees to escape the floodwaters.

Stanton suggested FEMA could have acted more quickly to provide additional search and rescue assets.

“It haunts me that we could have had more urban search and rescue pre-positioned in place,” Stanton said. “We could have saved more of those people who were clinging onto those trees but weren’t able to hang on for long enough.”

Criticisms and Defenses

Richardson, appearing before the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Emergency Management, pushed back on such criticisms.

In response to questions, he said he couldn’t see anything the agency did wrong in its flooding response and described its work with Texas officials as a model for other states dealing with future disasters.

FEMA operations have come under scrutiny in part because President Donald Trump and Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem have talked about shrinking or eliminating the agency.

Administration officials have more recently described their vision as an overhaul of the agency that would include having state and local authorities take more responsibility.

Staffing and Budget Concerns

Under Trump, about 2,000 full-time FEMA staff, or one-third of its total, have been terminated or left voluntarily, according to Reuters.

Democrats highlighted reports that many calls to FEMA’s disaster assistance line went unanswered because it let relevant contracts expire.

Lawmakers also pushed Richardson over a policy instituted by Noem requiring her approval for contracts exceeding $100,000.

Critics have said that focus on budget restraint creates bottlenecks that prevent the agency from quickly responding to disasters.

Response to Criticisms

Richardson said Noem has been swift to grant approvals and he has never seen the policy cause any undue delay.

That includes the Texas response, which he repeatedly held up as a model for the rest of the country.

“The support that was so critical to the people in the state of Texas on their worst day was on target, on time and that is what they told me,” he said.

He pushed back on the reports of unanswered calls as well, saying the agency surges support to call centers in the wake of disasters.

“I would have to agree with Secretary Noem, that’s ‘fake news,’” Richardson said.

“The majority of the calls were answered.

There was never a lapse in contract.”

Lessons Learned and Future of FEMA

In response to questions about lessons learned in the flooding response, he said he couldn’t see anything FEMA did wrong.

He said his belief in the importance of personal relationships was affirmed by the experience and that he plans to share those “strengths” with other states.

Richardson was pressed on the future of FEMA, which he said the administration is returning to its “statutory mission” and original intent to assist state and local partners.

“FEMA needs to return to a model where disaster response and recovery are locally led and state managed with federal support available when needed,” he said.

“As the president has said, sometimes FEMA gets in the way.

FEMA should never get in the way.”

Next Steps

U.S. Rep. Brian Babin, R-Woodville, chairman of the House Science Committee, said his panel will be conducting a thorough review of the circumstances surrounding the flooding as it also works on weather-related legislation.

That bill must prioritize improving weather communication, strengthening coordination with local officials and accelerating innovation, Babin said.

“We owe it to every single family, camper, counselor, first responder, to make sure that their pain leads to progress,” Babin said.

Conclusion

The hearing highlighted the challenges faced by FEMA in responding to natural disasters and the need for the agency to be more effective in its response.

While Richardson defended the agency’s response, Democrats and some Republicans raised concerns about the impact of staffing and budget cuts on FEMA’s ability to respond to disasters.

The future of FEMA and its role in responding to natural disasters will likely continue to be a topic of debate in the coming months.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What was the topic of the hearing?

A: The hearing was about FEMA’s response to the Hill Country flooding.

Q: Who testified at the hearing?

A: David Richardson, the acting head of FEMA, testified at the hearing.

Q: What were some of the criticisms of FEMA’s response?

A: Some lawmakers criticized FEMA for not acting quickly enough to provide additional search and rescue assets, and for letting relevant contracts expire, leading to unanswered calls to the disaster assistance line.

Q: How did Richardson respond to the criticisms?

A: Richardson defended the agency’s response, saying that it had done nothing wrong and that the support provided to Texas was “on target, on time.”

Q: What is the future of FEMA?

A: The administration has said that it wants to return FEMA to its “statutory mission” and original intent to assist state and local partners, with a focus on locally led and state managed disaster response and recovery.