The wildfires raging in California are still ongoing. According to the latest reports from U.S. media, as of the afternoon of January 19, local time, 56% of the fire in the Palisades area had been contained, and 81% of the fire in the Eaton area had been controlled. However, with high winds expected this week, there is an increased likelihood that the fires will intensify in many areas of Southern California. Experts suggest that it could take weeks for residents to return to the most severely affected regions. California’s struggle to control the current wildfire has sparked reflection among U.S. media and the public about the region’s and the nation’s disaster response mechanisms. On January 10, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace stated that California’s wildfires could “upend” the United States’ disaster response system.
Municipal Water Systems Unable to Handle Large-Scale Fires
“Southern California is facing high winds, which increases the risk of the wildfire worsening,” reported the Associated Press on January 20. As the National Weather Service issued a warning, firefighters were battling blazes in western Los Angeles County and Eaton, trying to contain the fires in these two areas. Since January 7, the Palisades and Eaton wildfires have destroyed more than 14,000 buildings. These wildfires have already claimed at least 27 lives, with the estimated economic damage preliminarily pegged at around $250 billion. Evacuation orders for dozens of neighborhoods in western Los Angeles County were lifted last weekend, allowing residents to return to their homes.
Why has California, a state frequently affected by wildfires, struggled to control the current blaze, becoming a hot topic of intense debate among U.S. media and the public? Many Americans believe that the causes of this wildfire are complex, involving not only natural factors but also numerous institutional issues. The first of these is local urban planning. Media outlets such as The New Yorker have noted that the Bel-Air fire in 1961, which was the largest fire in the area in half a century, highlighted major fire risks in the Los Angeles region. The local climate is naturally prone to wildfires, and urban expansion into narrow canyon areas has put surrounding homes and residences at long-term risk. These areas are not only adjacent to highly flammable regions but also complicate evacuation and firefighting efforts. However, over the past five decades, local governments have failed to adjust urban planning in response to repeated wildfires, allowing similar situations to arise in areas like Palisades and Eaton.
Reports from the Associated Press suggest that California’s fire prevention plans are severely outdated. As early as 2020, the state legislature passed a bill aimed at improving fire resistance in homes, requiring the clearing of dead plants and combustible materials such as wooden furniture within 1.5 meters of homes in fire-prone areas. This law was scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2023, but has yet to be implemented due to funding and political issues.
Water and power shortages have become some of the main points of frustration for Americans regarding California’s wildfire response. According to the Los Angeles Times and other media outlets, the nearby San Ynez Reservoir was dry when the Palisades fire broke out. Some firefighters discovered that fire hydrants lacked water while fighting the blaze. On January 13, some residents of Los Angeles County affected by the fires sued the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, accusing the agency of mismanaging water resources, which led to a lack of firefighting water during the crisis. The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power responded, stating that the water demand in Palisades had quadrupled the normal level for 15 consecutive hours, which led to a drop in water pressure. The municipal water system was not designed to handle such a large-scale fire. The agency explained that all available firefighting water tanks in the city were filled before the strong winds that fueled the fire arrived, but within one day of the Palisades fire igniting, three firefighting tanks, each holding millions of liters, were already depleted.
Furthermore, cuts to firefighting budgets at all levels of California government have drawn significant criticism. The New York Post reported that when Los Angeles Fire Department began responding to the Palisades fire, only 5 out of 40 available fire trucks were deployed, and 1,000 firefighters were on standby but not dispatched, causing response times to be nearly double the recommended time by the U.S. Fire Association. Budget cuts at the local government level have resulted in insufficient rescue personnel, a shortage of firefighting equipment, and many fire trucks being unusable. Additionally, some argue that the Los Angeles Fire Department’s emphasis on “diversity, equity, and inclusion” in recent years, prioritizing the hiring of women, ethnic minorities, and other “marginalized groups,” has impacted the department’s ability to perform its duties effectively. The New York Post also pointed out that the “California Coastal Commission” used environmental regulations to block the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power from constructing fire prevention infrastructure in Palisades to protect about 200 endangered plants in the area, further complicating the disaster response.
Everett, an American citizen, told that California’s inability to control the wildfires indicates that political figures have not prioritized what is truly important—the safety and well-being of the public. “Every year they say they are taking measures to reduce wildfire risks, but it’s just empty talk, and they have not taken any real action,” he stated.
FEMA Coordinates U.S. Federal and Local Disaster Response
California is a state frequently affected by wildfires. According to data from the German company Statista, in 2023, California recorded 7,364 individual wildfires, making it the state with the highest number of wildfires in the U.S. that year. Despite its frequent wildfire occurrences, California has struggled to control this latest wildfire, leading to criticism of both the state and the U.S. disaster response mechanisms.
In fact, this is not the first time that the U.S. disaster relief system has faced criticism. In September and October of last year, powerful hurricanes “Helenie” and “Milton” swept through the southeastern U.S., causing significant loss of life and property damage. However, the government’s disorganized relief efforts left residents in the affected areas to fend for themselves. This was not the first time the U.S. government struggled with responding to hurricane disasters. On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans, resulting in 1,800 deaths and over $135 billion in damages. Despite the federal government providing billions of dollars for reconstruction in the coastal communities, The New York Times reported that congressional investigators harshly criticized the federal government, claiming that a lack of clear command structure had hindered disaster response efforts.
The partial collapse of a residential building in Florida in 2021 further exposed deep flaws in the U.S. disaster response system. On June 24 of that year, a 12-story residential building partially collapsed in Florida. From one hour after the incident until July 7, when search-and-rescue operations were halted, no survivors were found. NBC News reported that after the incident, local authorities spent 16 hours “going through the motions” before gaining access to federal rescue resources, delaying the critical response time.
So, how does the U.S. disaster response system function? According to the U.S. think tank Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), local governments typically handle small-scale disasters and emergencies on their own or with assistance from nearby jurisdictions and volunteer groups. When the scale of a disaster exceeds the local government’s capabilities, they can request help from the federal government. Typically, the federal government intervenes only after the state governor formally requests assistance from the White House. These requests are generally based on preliminary damage assessments made by a team of local and federal officials. Once the president decides that federal assistance is necessary, a major disaster or emergency declaration is issued, providing material and financial support to the local areas. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), under the Department of Homeland Security, coordinates the response between federal and local governments during domestic disasters.
In most cases, after the president declares a state of emergency or issues a disaster declaration, state and local authorities remain responsible for disaster relief. The federal government mainly plays a role as a coordinator and provider of resources, supplementing the actions of state and local authorities. FEMA works in collaboration with local governments to organize various federal agencies in disaster relief efforts.
The Australian Dialogue website states that the U.S. Disaster Relief Act, enacted in 1974 and later amended to become the Stafford Act, outlines how the federal government responds to natural disasters and other emergencies. After the president issues a declaration, FEMA can begin assisting local governments, which includes coordinating federal agencies as well as civilian and private organizations like the Red Cross. A large number of federal agencies and employees are involved in disaster relief, such as thousands of federal workers from FEMA, the Coast Guard, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Department of Health and Human Services, who assisted in the aftermath of hurricanes “Helenie” and “Milton” in September and October of last year.
According to the Stafford Act, “major disasters” include natural disasters and man-made events such as hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, fires, and explosions, but generally exclude disease outbreaks. The article on the CFR website notes that after the U.S. president declares a state of emergency, FEMA’s initial assistance may amount to up to $5 million, and if the amount exceeds that, the president must notify Congress. In cases where there is no responsible party or private insurance, the government covers the cost of disaster relief. The U.S. government usually covers at least 75% of reconstruction costs.
In recent years, disasters have become increasingly frequent in the U.S. In 2021, 20 “major disasters” resulted in an economic loss of $145 billion. In 2022, 18 “major disasters” caused total losses exceeding $165 billion. Although the total losses from “major disasters” dropped to $93 billion in 2023, it was still the year with the highest number of billion-dollar disasters on record, with 28 incidents. The year 2017 saw the largest disaster losses, with 16 “major disasters” totaling more than $306 billion in damages. According to CFR, since taking office until October of last year, the Biden administration had issued more than 250 major disaster declarations in response to issues in regions such as Alaska and Florida.
“We Hope to Incorporate Prevention into Treatment”
The U.S. disaster relief system may appear well-organized, but it faces several operational issues. According to the U.S. National Public Radio, FEMA’s analysis shows that low-income disaster victims have a harder time accessing essential federal emergency assistance compared to their wealthier counterparts. Increasing research also indicates that people of color face more significant barriers to receiving adequate disaster relief.
The Dialogue website states that the implementation of the U.S. Stafford Act requires the establishment of cooperative, healthy relationships between the president, federal agencies, and local governments. If executed well, the U.S. disaster relief system could serve as an example of the advantages of federalism. However, the Stafford Act has created a highly decentralized emergency management system. This decentralization means that officials involved in disaster relief may prioritize different issues due to varying perspectives, leading to potential conflicts. Moreover, the differing political leanings of U.S. officials further complicate disaster relief efforts.
“Disaster politics” also plays a significant role in U.S. relief actions. According to reports from The New York Times and other media, when hurricanes “Helenie” and “Milton” hit the U.S. last year, they coincided with a crucial time in the U.S. presidential election cycle. As a result, the two party candidates launched attacks on each other over the issue of disaster relief, highlighting how some American politicians have historically exploited disasters for political gain.
Regarding the current California wildfires, the U.S. Congress has already begun debating reforming the relief policies. The Hill reported that during a House session on January 13, many Republicans called for additional conditions to be attached to federal aid to California, while Democrats strongly opposed this idea. Although Republicans have yet to reach a public agreement on the specific conditions that should be tied to the aid, at least one Republican has suggested changing policies at the local level, and some Republicans have proposed linking the increase in the federal debt ceiling to the relief efforts.
“As the old saying goes: ‘You can’t keep pouring water into a leaky bucket, hoping to fill it; eventually, you have to fix the bucket,'” said Representative Tom McClintock, a Republican from California’s Central and Northern San Joaquin Valley. He emphasized that California’s policies that exacerbate wildfires cannot continue. Representative Darrell Issa, a Republican from San Diego, said, “We hope to incorporate prevention into treatment.”
Researchers at the Brookings Institution, a U.S. think tank, have proposed four principles for pushing disaster relief policy reforms: fairness, efficiency, effectiveness, and environmental value. They define “fairness” as the equitable distribution of resources based on needs and the vulnerability of the affected populations before, during, and after a disaster. Efficiency in disaster relief refers to streamlining federal financial and human resources needed to achieve the desired outcomes. These researchers also believe that disaster response plans must be monitored, evaluated, and certified as effective. U.S. officials often declare, after a disaster, “We will rebuild” or “We will rebuild better,” but without specific and measurable indicators for housing, the economy, or ecosystems—this, they argue, needs to change. Additionally, disaster relief policies should emphasize the environmental impacts of disasters and incorporate environmental changes into disaster response system reforms.
CFR quotes analysts who suggest that, even with significant reforms, the U.S. federal government “will still struggle with long-term disaster relief efforts.” Federal disaster loans and grants are often insufficient and may take months or even years to reach disaster victims. Government resources are often overburdened, especially when severe or consecutive disasters occur. In response to debates over federal disaster relief, some experts and policymakers have called for shifting more responsibility to state and local governments.
Leave a comment