(Too often) Politics doesn't favor proactive responses by government, especially when the threat is averted

Redundancy.  In college, not for a class, I came across work by Charles Perrow about the concept of "redundancy."

That's the point that you have multiple systems and backups for elements that have the potential for fault. It's been a strong influence on my thinking about organizations and systems ever since.

Separately, in business there is the concept of "resource slack," where resources are not fully committed or constrained and thus available.

In times of reduced financial capacity and "just in time" manufacturing and tightly linked supply chain management and logistics, there's little room in business or government for redundancy or slack resources that are able to be drawn upon in times of need.

For example, if a subway line goes out of service, it's not like a transit agency has hundreds of buses sitting around in reserve or the drivers to operate them.

Preparedness as a fault.  It's unfortunate that sound practice in emergency management -- "be prepared" -- is seized upon by political opponents when it turns out that the advance preparations were unneeded.

This is happening in Virginia, which mercifully wasn't really hit by Hurricane Florence although earlier predictions expected it ("'Somebody's gouging us': Virginia lawmakers question $60M price tag for storm response," Richmond Times-Dispatch). From the article:

Virginia lawmakers on Thursday sharply questioned the costs of the state’s preparations for Hurricane Florence, saying they were shocked to learn officials committed to spend up to $60 million to set up shelters and deploy response teams for a storm that ultimately veered south.

Members of Gov. Ralph Northam’s administration have stood by the decision to order the first-ever mandatory evacuations of low-lying coastal areas, saying it was a call based on scientific predictions about the potential path of a storm that had minimal impacts in Virginia but devastated eastern North Carolina.

Flooding in Lumberton, North Carolina after Hurricane Florence, CNN photo.  The area had been hit similarly two years ago as a result of Hurricane Matthew.

It'd be worse for Gov. Northam had he been Governor in North Carolina.

In 2012 the NC State Legislature passed laws forbidding government agencies from acknowledging climate change, and by extension extranormal weather impact, on building regulations for fear it would reduce property values and harm real estate development interests ("North Carolina didn't like science on sea levels … so passed a law against it," Guardian). From the article:

But dire predictions alarmed coastal developers and their allies, who said they did not believe the rise in sea level would be as bad as the worst models predicted and said such forecasts could unnecessarily hurt property values and drive up insurance costs.

As a result, the state’s official policy, rather than adapting to the worst potential effects of climate change, has been to assume it simply won’t be that bad. Instead of forecasts, it has mandated predictions based on historical data on sea level rise.

Preparedness costs money.  And recognition of the necessity.

But the problem with the response of Republican legislators in Virginia to the so-called waste of money in response to a threat that never materialized is that the next time, officials could be hesitant to take proactive steps, fearing political consequences.  Then, the consequences could be much worse.

Floodwaters from Hurricane Florence inundate the town of Trenton, N.C., Sunday, Sept. 16, 2018. (AP Photo/Steve Helber)

FEMA.  WRT FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, I've been thinking that it needs to be extracted from the politics of governance altogether, and constituted as a kind of sixth branch of the military, functioning like the Coast Guard.

The Coast Guard is a hybrid agency with both military and civil elements--reconstitute FEMA as focused on the "defense of the US from disasters" in terms of mitigating the potential effect of disasters as well as responding to disasters--but somewhat disconnected from vagaries of politics.

The old Civil Defense agency focused on saving lives in case of nuclear war.  Why can't we take a similarly serious approach in those areas that are particularly vulnerable to various effects emanating from climate change including hurricanes, storms, and wildfire?

-- "Organizing to Reduce the Vulnerabilities of Complexity," Charles Perrow, Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 1999

Yes, the military is subject to politics too, but the way military bases and units function day-to-day, month-to-month, and year-to-year is relatively exempt from that.  That's the way FEMA needs to be functioning.

Flood waters isolate homes in the aftermath of Hurricane Florence September 19, 2018, in Lumberton, North Carolina. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

As currently constituted, the leadership of the agency changes with each change in government, and can be worsened depending on how seriously politically-focused officials take the management and crisis responsibilities seriously in terms of agency management, leadership and operations and its need for experienced professionals.

-- 2017 HURRICANES AND WILDFIRES: Initial Observations on the Federal Response and Key Recovery Challenges, Government Accountability Office

Plus, in terms of disaster preparedness and emergency management, way more money needs to be spent proactively in terms of reducing risk rather than in post-crisis response.

This New York Times opinion piece, "What Trump Doesn't Get About Disasters," isn't really about "President Trump" and his failure to understand epidemiology ("Nearly a Year After Hurricane Maria, Puerto Rico Revises Death Toll," New York Times) so much as it is a discussion of how emergency management practice in the US has been shaped in favor of thinking about disasters as discrete events, rather than as certain types of disasters such as hurricanes having elements that are addressable in advance of a specific event.

Articles such as "How To Build Hurricane-Proof Cities After Irma and Harvey," The Atlantic, and "Hurricane Florence’s floods caused severe property damage. Here’s a solution | It’s time to talk about managed retreat from the coasts," Vox, offer proactive proscriptions, from better zoning and building regulation requirements. From the Vox article:

Mostly, though, we're stuck with a harder question: What to do before the next storm to prevent such losses?

One solution is strategic retreat: moving out of harm’s way. As seas rise, flooding is becoming almost a weekly occurrence in cities up and down the East Coast. Wilmington, North Carolina now is subject to chronic tidal flooding due to sea level rise. As storms grow stronger, so are the calls to walk away from the most flood-prone places.

For many, the notion of retreat brings to mind post-apocalyptic visions of empty highways, rusty skeletons of buildings, and houses grown over with weeds. It’s daunting. But scenarios that involve retreat don’t need to be. Innovative thinking about the role of relocation can foster cohesive, rich communities as some move to safer, higher grounds.

Not taking measures in advance of weather events that we know are going to come sooner or later is the height of political and governance failure.