Pros And Cons Of FEMA Disaster Relief Program

Congress should not allocate $1 billion to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) disaster relief program to relocate climate-threatened native villages in Alaska because it is not the right solution to the problems these communities face due to climate change. Not only is one billion dollars not enough money to relocate all threatened communities, but FEMA is also not the right organization that should be responsible for this effort. Furthermore, relocation is a temporary solution to an enduring problem—eventually, climate change impacts will catch up to the new locations. Instead, money should be granted to the Denali Commission and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) incrementally to 1) help relocate villages under immediate threat and 2) to work with the communities to build sustainable and resilient infrastructure.
FEMA is not only the wrong agency to be handling relocation as it does not have a clear understanding of the various communities and their needs, but also the disaster relief program is a reactive measure rather than a mitigative one.
FEMA’s disaster relief program is

Government spending is known to be reckless, and allocating these funds is likely to lead to one of two scenarios. Due to the use-it-or-lose-it structure of budget allocation, the agency will rush to spend the money– resulting in funding based on insufficient research, potentially causing more harm to the communities. Or, if FEMA is unable to spend the money, the funds will be canceled, meaning money that could have been used for other crucial purposes—like building resilient infrastructure in these villages—would go to waste.
Relocation is a reactive response to climate change; mitigation and adaptation are far more crucial and, while it may cost more upfront, will provide a far greater return on investment over