Federalism is defined as a mode of government administration that involves a combination of efforts from both the national (federal) government and the devolved (regional) government, consolidated into a single unified political system. By coming together, the disadvantages posed by these governments working independently are often curbed to create a cohesive front on which action is taken toward a specified goal. While power is divided within the combined political system, the ultimate goal is that both governments have merit in decision making and taking action. While federalism is a widely championed government concept, it does not always fall through as expected. This was witnessed in August 2005, following the occurrence of one of the most devastating catastrophes in American history.
During the time as mentioned above, one of the deadliest and most destructive tropical cyclones, classified as Category 5, struck the coast of Florida at Hallandale Beach, after which it receded, only to intensify and hit again in Mississippi and southeast Louisiana. Hurricane Katrina, as it was named, was responsible for damages estimated at $125 billion at the time, making it the costliest disasters in recorded American history, only paralleled by Hurricane Harvey, which occurred in 2017. It also claimed nearly 1900 lives, mainly due to the flooding attributed with it, and the failure of the flooding protection infrastructure that had been laid in the form of levees. In addition to flooding, wind speeds reaching 280 kilometers per hour were recorded, which were also responsible for a fair share of the cumulative damage.
Sparking from this disaster was mass criticism of the government’s response to the devastation and destruction. Federalism, which has been being practiced since America gained independence, came under scrutiny, with it being blamed majorly for the nature of relief efforts. Some of the blame can be squarely assigned on the infrastructure that was laid after 9/11 to curb terrorist acts. Another finger can be pointed at how this infrastructure neglected the country’s preparedness for more immediate and likely natural disasters primarily after the Department of Homeland Security was formed, which affected communicational relationship between the federal and local government in terms of management of an emergency.
127 our experts are availableright now
The rise of coercive federalism, which involves the government mandating cooperation from state and local governments, made the entire communication process complicated. Some of the requirements that are stipulated under coercive agreements have, to some extent deemed state and local governments powerless without access to the necessary funds that are thus provided by the federal government. This has caused them to cede leadership willingly to the federal government, probably due to lack of the required motivation.
Additionally, another more fitting description of the form of federalism that emerged during the dispatching of relief efforts was the use of the term ‘opportunistic’. It is more suitable because, during a disaster, actions are fluid and quick, and the predetermined policies are usually set aside. Others were hastily formed without any regard for long-term consequences. Some of these policies stuck from 9/11 to Hurricane Katrina, and since they had not been tested yet, any of the discrepancies that arose were discovered when it was already too late (Birkland & Waterman, 2008).
It is expected that with the interplay of state, local and federal governments, the response would be well orchestrated and hasty to help prevent loss of life and property. This was, however, not the case. Most of the blame rested upon the federal government, for example, because evacuation efforts were sluggish and did not account for most people. While more than 1.3 million people were evacuated, which cannot be ignored, a lot more could have been spared all the turmoil that came when the survivors were not evacuated in time. More of the blame that went around during the time was redirected by the federal administration to local leaders, with the then Louisiana governor Kathleen Blanco receiving most of it.
The federal government claimed that Blanco had not declared a state of emergency, but had declared it three days before the federal government did and before the storm hit Louisiana. The lack of communication between these forms of government resulted in further loss of life that could be prevented, because reportedly, Louisiana had asked for 700 evacuation vehicles from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), but received only 100, which curtailed evacuation efforts, prolonging them to a week. It could have been gross miscommunication due to the urgency of the situation, but all in all, the cracks in federalism were begin to show, and many Americans paid the price (Maestas et al., 2008).
As mentioned above, evacuation efforts were able to save the lives of more 1.3 million people by moving them from the affected areas. The problem with the evacuation efforts was that while it was necessary to move the people, some of them could not even afford the bus fare to leave, and they were left in the city as the storm raged on. In such a scenario, the governments could have come to their rescue and provided the necessary means for evacuation. Still, these people were left there as a result of what can be interpreted as the state’s overdependence on the federal government which did next to nothing to help in the name of federalism. The levels of poverty, especially in affected areas, are the reason why to date, the city of New Orleans has not fully bounced back from the disaster. Should another tragedy like this happen again, the loss and devastation would be proportional, and probably worse than what was witnessed in 2005.
The response to the hurricane was widely deemed incompetent with policy failures being the primary culprit. The United States Army Corps of Engineers was responsible for the construction of levees as ways to prevent any flooding from ravaging the city of New Orleans. Shortly after all the destruction occurred, the engineers owned up to the shoddy engineering work that had been done on the levees, claiming that they were working with outdated information from the previous time that floods nearing this magnitude ravaged the city, back in 1965. The incompetence of the engineers led to failure to account for various factors such as poor quality of the soil. The barriers that had been constructed were therefore liable to some of these factors, causing the creation of gaps. In addition to this, the government failed to provide adequate funding for the construction of levees. Therefore, the materials used were subpar, and the designs used were incapable of bearing any of the havoc caused by the floods.
Furthermore, it has since been proved that indeed a response plan had been developed. However, not everyone in the government was made aware of this plan. High-ranking government officials, as well as state and local leaders, were unable to discern their roles and responsibilities in the relief efforts, and this made the entire process very unreliable and inefficient. The plan was therefore not dispatched from the federal government to the other government levels, and the decision-makers in this situation were very uninformed.
Moreover, the federal government was unaware of the efforts that were required and the ability of agencies to deal with them (Menzel, 2006). Much confusion ensued from this, with the public in dire need of help being on the receiving end of the consequences of miscommunication. The command structure was poorly defined, and this was evident in the incompetence of those that were in charge of conducting relief efforts in the affected areas.
Nevertheless, Hurricane Katrina showed the level of unpreparedness that was present in the levels of government. Sometime before Katrina, a simulation which was dubbed ‘Hurricane Pam’ was conducted with similar intensity and magnitude as Katrina. Lessons might have been learnt from the exercise. Still, when Katrina came, as scientists and meteorologists had accurately predicted, all the levels of government proved that any lesson that might have been learnt was all for not because the actions following Katrina’s landfall indicated a lack of experience. During the simulation, the United States Army Corps of Engineers was supposed to discern that the levees would fail, and rectify them with updated specifications and reinforcements. Failure to learn from this exercise came at the peril of hundreds of citizens when the actual hurricane struck.
Further, the combination of efforts from all levels of government meant a combination of all the ills that were present among all the ranks. These included fraud and misappropriation of funds, with the cumulative waste of money being valued at close to $2 billion. Unverified information concerning the targeted recipients of funds was rampant in approximately half of this amount being released to ‘residents’ in non-existing homes within the affected areas. The overdependence on the federal government prevented the state and local governments from conducting due-diligence and conveying this information to avoid the misallocation of funds.
The agencies responsible for conducting relief efforts purposely obstructed those being provided by private agencies. The main culprit, FEMA, blocked the release of emergency supplies, evacuation, as well as denying volunteer doctors access to patients that needed them. The lack of collaboration inhibited relief efforts even further, and lives were lost amid this confusion.
