Annenberg Classroom - Speak Outs - What do you think of FEMA’s response to tornadoes in the South?

Speak Outs

Speak Out

What do you think of FEMA’s response to tornadoes in the South?

In late April, a powerful chain of tornadoes ripped across the southeastern United States – leveling small towns, destroying homes and businesses, and killing at least 340 people.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) snapped immediately into action, working with President Barack Obama, who declared the region a disaster zone, and mounting a response. W. Craig Fugate, administrator for FEMA, toured the storm-ravaged region the day after the 312 tornados touched down. By the following week, 11 disaster recovery centers opened, and 18,000 households had registered for assistance in Alabama, the state hit hardest by the twisters.

This is a striking contrast to previous responses to natural disasters. When Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans in 2005, FEMA and then-President George W. Bush issued an emergency declaration four days after the storm made landfall, and the initial wave of National Guard members that resulted was criticized as woefully insufficient.

Some of the lag time was caused because the process of declaring an emergency took longer. Federal law was changed after Katrina to allow FEMA to spring more immediately into action. Nonetheless, after last spring’s explosion at the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico, Obama took heat for not immediately touring the coastline affected by the leaking oil.

The government seemed eager this time to escape such disapproval. Before departing to Alabama the day after the storms, Fugate told reporters, “If you can’t tell me it’s not bad, I’m going to assume it’s bad.”

But while FEMA has been praised for its quick response to the tornadoes, some analysts wonder if it will be criticized for doing too much too soon. The first response to disaster is technically the responsibility of the states. The federal government isn’t supposed to step in until it’s clear that the states cannot handle the relief effort on their own; even though it has been criticized for doing so in the past.

Additionally, a National Public Radio report checked in with Hacklesburg, Ala., a town of 1,400 that the Red Cross reports is “75 percent destroyed.” Residents said they felt “ignored” in comparison to the harder-hit urban centers of Birmingham and Tuscaloosa.

What do you think?

What do you think of FEMA’s response to tornadoes in the South? Was it right in acting immediately, rather than waiting for requests from the states? Or did it do too much too soon? Why should the states be the first responders to disasters? What should be the criteria for the federal government stepping in? Join the discussion!

Join the Discussion

Your First Name:
Your Teacher/School:
Your City/State:
Your Comment: limited to 2000 characters including spaces

Thank you for commenting.
Your comment is awaiting approval.
Click here to view all Speak Outs

Comments

5/26/2011
Irving, TX

Bailey M
Bradley/Nimitz
I think that FEMA responded quickly to the storms. It was better that they acted fast instead of waiting for the states to go through the rubble on their own. It made it easier to recover after the destruction. I don't think that the families that had destroyed homes will complain about how quickly that FEMA responded. In a situation like this there can not be “too much too soon.” The states should see the destructing in the area first to see if they can handle it easily, but if not then national help should be called in quickly. The federal government should step in if there is a large area that is devastated and not wait for the state to ask them to come in to help.

5/24/2011
Irving/Texas

Christian Castillo
Bradley/Nimitz
I think the manner in which FEMA responded to the tornadoes was great. Even if it was only to bolster its public image, the fact that it responded quickly and efficiently to people that needed help is great. If the states do not wish to have aid during a crisis, then they should respond as quickly and efficiently as FEMA has.

5/24/2011
Irving/TX

Shelby Z
Bradley/Nimitz
In my opinion, FEMA was right in acting immediatly. With the amount of tornadoes that powerful and the number of people who died along with the number of houses and buildings they destroyed, Alabama needed as much help as they could get and im sure by FEMA opening 11 disaster recovery centers and households being registered for assistance helped alot.

5/24/2011
Irving/ Texas

Dalton E.
Bradley/ Nimitz High School
FEMA's response to the tornadoes was the right thing to do, if the disaster scope is to big, we can assume that the state will need, and want all the help it needs. If in the past, the public has been complaining about how long it takes FEMA to react then yes. The only people who will complain about FEMA being there to soon are the ones who believe that there state can survive on its own. Who would not like to get help or money on a disaster? The criteria of federal relieve should be the cost of damages done and the death toll.

5/24/2011
Irving/ Tx

Demi S
Bradley/ Nimitz High School
Initially, it is the states right to be the first responders to the disasters that strike their locations. In doing so, this saves the federal government a ton of money by forcing the states to assess the situation before all others to see if they are in need financial assistance- but this was not just an average situation. The 312 tornadoes that demolished many areas in the South not only killed at least 340 people, but left many wondering what steps to take next. FEMA's instant response to the disasters was not only admirable, but well-needed. In my opinion, after such a hard-hitting disaster, help should not and can never be measured in amounts of “too much, too soon”- obviously backed by the President of the United States' immediate declare of the region as a “disaster zone”. I also believe that the alteration to the federal law after Katrina allowing for FEMA to respond to disasters in a more timely fashion, was one of the greatest decisions that should be taken into greater consideration in our future.

5/23/2011
Philadelphia/Pennsylvania

Shuwn
Mr.Frank/Northeast High Scool
I believe that FEMA's response to act immediately after the tornado incident was absolutely correct. That tornado not only killed lots of people but caused plenty of damage as well so FEMA's help was needed. The South needed help and FEMA did the right thing by responding right away. States should be the first responders to disasters because it's their responsibility to take care of the damage done but if they can't than the federal government should step in to help handle the relief effort. It doesn't matter why FEMA responded early, all that matters is that they were there to help unlike other natural diasters that were left without help for days.

5/23/2011
Irving/TX

Sharon J.
Bradley/Nimitz
In my opinion, human welfare should be above all else. First off, just because something isn't dubbed an emergency doesn't mean that people aren't in need of help. Second, is it better to wait and see if the shark is attacking before we pull the people out of the water? If a natural disaster hits that has the potential of being devastating on an area, help should be deployed immediately. Not after the shark has killed all the women and children. Its better to be safe than sorry.

5/23/2011
Irving/Texas

Dennis N.
Bradley/Nimitz
In my opinion, FEMA's response to act immediately after the tornado incident rather than waiting was right. The help and support that FEMA gave out was needed due to the huge disaster that the tornado caused. How can you do too much too soon? Help should be brought immediately after a major incident such as a tornado. It was also clear that the state could not handle the damage on its own. The criteria for the federal government to step in should be helping immediately rather then delaying the help and taking negative criticism such as the delayed aid response to Hurricane Katrina.

5/23/2011
Irving/Texas

Jacob Q
Bradley/Nimitz
I believe FEMA was in the right to respond immediately in the disaster area. It was painfully clear from just looking at pictures of the decimated South to see that the respective states damaged were not going to be able to deal with it on their own. Am I saying that in all cases where it's asusmed the damage is great that FEMA should step in? No, but I am stating that in this case the inability of the states to handle the disasters was obvious to all. In smaller crisises, like the fires that plagued Texas, the states should have the right to deal with it if the find that the state can handle it; this whould probably prevent the people of the state from getting into worrysome debt while they try to rebuild. Thus, the entire reason we founded a federal system comes into play.

5/23/2011
Irving, Tx

Kimberly O
Bradley/Nimitz
I think FEMA did the right thing by immediately stepping in and helping. If it is that big of a disaster, I dont think they should have to wait for the requests from the states. When disasters hit like that, the city/state and the people injured can use all the help they can get, so it shouldn't be a bad thing to immediately start getting help right after the destruction.

5/20/2011
Irving, TX

Mauricio N.
Bradley/ Nimitz High School
FEMA did the right thing in stepping in during the large amount of tornadoes in the South. Mother Nature was a threat to the nation, not just a single state. Tornadoes occur in the wide region of the Great Plains. FEMA is a federal organization that has the right to take action against the threat of tornadoes. We need to react as quickly as possible and recover the affected areas in the south.

5/20/2011
Irving/TX

Hector G
Bradley/Nimitz
In many situations like this, quick and decisive action needs to be taken to ensure the safety and well being of the disaster victims; this wasn't just any storm, hundreds of tornadoes destroyed the southern states and needed assistance quickly. Although the responsibilty seems to be held by the states, unless otherwise declared by the states; FEMA should continue to help as long as there is no friction between them and the state governments. The federal and state governments share a combined effort for the responsibility to help citizens, as they are both state and federal citizens.

5/15/2011
Irving/ TX

Josh A.
Bradley/ Nimitz High School
I believe that FEMA's quick response was necessary in this situation. People should not critisize FEMA for possibly overstepping its role in a government based on cooperative federalism. The real focus on the issue should be on the victims. The goal of FEMA should be responding to disaster in the quickest fashion, regardless of overstepping its jurisdiction. So, I believe that FEMA should continue to aim to respond to disasters in the quickest fashion.

5/15/2011
Irving/Tx

Richard L
Bradley/Nimitz
I believe that FEMA did a good job on the immediate response to the tornadoes because this natural disaster had caused a lot of damage. Every second they stall, is another person struggling to survive without food or a home. Sometimes the disasters are too great to be faced by the states, especially when 312 tornadoes hit and cause about 340 deaths. When this many deaths occur, the states should accept anyone who is willing to help. However, I understand that it is the state’s job to fix natural disaster problems, but sometimes the issues are national, especially when several states are involved. I believe that when more than one state gets affected by natural disasters and kills numerous of people, the federal government should step in and help.

5/14/2011
Irving/TX

Jennifer
Bradley/Nimitz
FEMA's response to the tornadoes that devastated the southeastern states was prompt and completely appropriate, in my opinion. If the situation was backwards, and FEMA did not act as quickly as people thought they should have, I think that things would have been ten times worse, and there would be more to complain about. While I do agree that it is the state government's duty to have the upper hand when it comes to damages caused within their own state limits, I think that this is a special case. With 312 tornadoes circling around in the region, there's no telling whether the state governments alone could have solved all of the problems. Therefore, I thought that FEMA did a great job of ensuring that things were taken care of as promptly and effectively as possible.

5/13/2011
Irving/TX

Mirna L.
Bradley/Nimitz
I think that FEMA's response to the tornadoes in the Southeastern states was very quick and it should be praised. It's true that state governments should be the ones who take care off the damages until they can no longer do so, but I think that since it wasn't just one tornado, but 312. Personally, I don't think FEMA acted too soon, I think they took the necessary measures to ensure that nothing like what happened in Katrina ever happened again. I think once there are more than a few disasters, FEMA should have the freedom to step in and help out.

5/13/2011
Irving/Tx

Ashley J
Bradley/Nimitz
I am largely impressed the fast response by FEMA, the president, and other organizations to the states affected by these disasters. Although I personally don't understand why recognition of a disaster by a president can actually mend the situation, I do understand how it is a smart move on Obama's part. It shows that he cares, which is important especially after the flub by George bush after Katrina, and even Obama's own delay after the oil spill in the Gulf.

5/13/2011
Irving/TX

Baldemar Martinez
Bradley/Nimitz
Twisters pop up along the great south of the United States during the summer and I personally believe it is too soon to begin reconstruction fro more twisters can pop up. If a state does have enuff money to repair some mayor segments of their state it should be done by them to their best budget and not that of the federal government and FEMA. It is true some families can not wait for repairs, but states should be prepared for back up plan such as this. The first step the state should begin is start reconstruction, for hot air is a waste of time knowing that the federal government will not help at the time, but a response should be done later to receive help from the disaster that can damage the states budgets.

5/12/2011
Irving/TX

Josh J
Bradley/Nimitz
I believe that the FEMA's instant reaction to the disasters in the south means that the government is losing faith in the state's power to take care of themselves. The FEMA did do an act of good to help the states, but I personally believe that their actions were not needed. States have governments too and they also have disaster programs in case of such actions that might happen. States should always be the ones to have the first action because they know the land well and the people that reside in the state. They also have all of the resources capable to do a major wipe-out if necessary. The federal government should only step in automatically if they see the disaster as a national crisis that could lead to further destruction, or many people are in struggle to stay alive.

5/6/2011
Philadelphia/PA

Cierra
Ms.Agnew/Overbrook High School
I Think This Is A Big Issue.And Hurricanes and Tornadoes Are Very Scary and Everyone Should Be Aware Of Them, The Govt. Should Be More Involed In This Situation.