Hurricane Katrina: The US Emergency Management

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Hurricane Katrina
Hurricane Katrina Preparedness
Disaster Recovery Participation
Public Knowledge Regarding Emergency Plans
Making Predictions and Forecasting
Conclusion
References

Introduction

Hurricanes are tropical wind storms that are characterized by high constant speed. They are formed in warm tropical ocean water and move down the land because of the latitude pressure difference. Hurricanes rotate in a counterclockwise and clockwise direction in the northern and southern hemispheres, respectively. They develop when the storm moves across a war ocean with a high volume of moisture in the atmosphere. This makes the regions that border the Atlantic Ocean, such as Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana, prone to hurricanes. Although these natural disasters are not always dangerous, they sometimes become strong and significant, covering a wider area. When they approach the land, they result in strong waves in boarding areas, which, in turn, leads to flooding of rivers and areas close to coastal lines.

The United States of America is among the countries that have experienced the effects of such storms, and Hurricane Katrina was one of the most fearsome and devastating disasters in the country’s recent history. Emergency management measures adopted by the responsible authorities both at local and state levels are significant factors in ensuring disaster relief and recovery and citizens’ safety.

Hurricane Katrina

Despite being a deadly natural disaster, whenever it is large and wide, hurricanes can be forecasted. The forecast is usually accompanied by warning in areas that will be hit by the storm so that people can evacuate when necessary. Weather scientists can track the hurricane’s path and provide information on the battery (Rodriguez et al., 2018). Although forecasting provides critical information on hurricanes, this disaster has never been handled effectively to the point that casualties become minimal, which may be because of the policy and the plan of the U.S. disaster management. The assessment of emergency management measures, including disaster preparedness and appropriate mitigation solutions, can help describe the process that guides the provision of the necessary relief and recovery procedures at the local level.

Hurricane Katrina was among the deadliest tropical wind storms that have ever hit the United States of America. On August 29, 2005, it made landfall in the region bordering Mississippi and Louisiana (Diaz et al., 2020). The region had a population of about 800,000, and they had to evacuate the area (Diaz et al., 2020). As a result, this was the largest evacuation in the history of the United States of America. Evacuation plans were already put in place even before the tragedy. Depending on the region, the area of damage was different, but in all the affected territories, tens of miles of destruction were observed (“Pre-landfall preparation,” n.d.).

In areas such as Mississippi and Alabama, the storm left many people homeless as most of the area was destroyed by the floods and strong winds (“Pre-landfall preparation,” n.d.). For almost a week, people along the Gulf Coast spent days without basic needs. As a result, the hurricane left significant suffering in people even after the tragedy had ended. The preparations appeared not effective as the destruction was beyond the expected level.

In Texas, many people were provided evacuation and other emergency services, such as food and shelter. The response was made nationally to ensure that the affected group was able to get aid. Hospitals in the regions were overwhelmed with the population as many people’s health was affected by the tragedy. The local center served approximately 37,170 people (Diaz et al., 2020). Direct relief was connected to the affected areas like Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana. In the first week of the tragedy, direct relief provided $10 million in cash grants and medical materials to support local clinics and health centers all over the region (“Pre-landfall preparation,” n.d.). Citizens with low incomes and those who lost most of their property were the target audience, and that support initiative was one of the areas of work to mitigate the consequences of the tragedy.

Hurricane Katrina Preparedness

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) prepared for the disaster in several ways, such as resource positioning before Katrina’s landfall. The efforts of the organization helped manage the disaster. For instance, FEMA placed 11,322,000 liters of water, 5,997,312 ready meals, and 18,960,000 ice pounds (“Pre-landfall preparation,” n.d.). Additionally, 17 truckloads of tarps were placed strategically before the hurricane (“Pre-landfall preparation,” n.d.).

FEMA stationed 18 medical teams, rescue task forces, equipment, an incident support team, and medical supplies (“Pre-landfall preparation,” n.d.). In Louisiana, rapid assessment teams and 36 trucks each carried 18,000 liters of water (“Pre-landfall preparation,” n.d.). The stakeholder team included emergency management officials from local and state authorities, and their coordinated efforts were focused on identifying potential storm damage sites and alerting responsible services. The communication was aimed at ensuring that during the Katrina landfall, rescues and other emergencies were quickly transmitted to the team responsible. FEMA also reached out for support from other departments, such as the Department of Defense (DoD). Its role was to provide airlift support, as Katrina was expected to be destructive. Thus, initially, basic steps were taken to prepare for the disaster.

Since the neighboring southern states of U.S. were most affected by the hurricane, the emphasis on local storm preparedness and mitigation efforts is key. As the target regions, the activities of the authorities from Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana need to be considered to reveal the nature of the decisions made before and after the disaster. Through evaluating stakeholder actions, interested parties’ activities, resource allocation regimes, and other emergency management procedures can be identified.

Mississippi

In Mississippi, preparation for the hurricane involved various activities aimed at anticipating the potential consequences of Katrina. Disaster response training and preparedness were conducted several months before the storm, and the funds allocated for this work were part of the state budget (“Pre-landfall preparation,” n.d.). Command structures by various bodies, including state, federal, and local, were set up through emergency proclamations (“Pre-landfall preparation,” n.d.).

Emergency operation centers were activated, and people in areas prone to the dangerous effects of the hurricane were subjected to mandatory evacuation. Emergency shelters were set up for individuals that have fled their homes. The military was also involved in emergency preparation as they activated National Guard and other programs such as Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC) (“Pre-landfall preparation,” n.d.). The program provided support in security, helicopters, and engineering services. Mobilization steps contributed to creating operational headquarters that not only controlled the situation with weather conditions but also prepared the necessary resources, for instance, the control of water supplies (“Pre-landfall preparation,” n.d.). As a result, different interested parties were involved in responding to the imminent threat and reducing the risks to the population.

Alabama

Compared to Mississippi, the preparatory procedures for addressing the threat of the upcoming hurricane began later in Alabama. Four-five days before the disaster, full-fledged target work began to take place, and the Governor’s staff was involved in overseeing all steps (“Pre-landfall preparation,” n.d.). A corresponding letter from the state authorities was sent to the federal government with a request to implement a special preparation plan in Alabama, including alerting the population and taking the necessary measures (“Pre-landfall preparation,” n.d.). In addition, decisions to restructure the emergency management services were made to address the threat comprehensively.

Local emergency operations centers needed to be reorganized to form a stable reporting system and ensure high-performance work planning. Based on the decision of the state authorities, these centers were restructured to establish the activities of five nodes – emergency services, support and infrastructure, human services, planning, and operations support (“Pre-landfall preparation,” n.d.). This practice helped distribute the responsibilities of the control authorities to the minimum territorial units (counties) and create operational response teams that provided relevant information timely on the dynamics of the hurricane. The activation of healthcare services and the repurposing of public medical facilities into emergency centers were also mechanisms for mitigating the consequences of the threat. As a result, preparatory measures in Alabama may be said to be more organized than in Mississippi.

Louisiana

Preparatory emergency procedures in Louisiana began later than in Alabama. Although the Governor asked the federal government and directly the President for approval of the state of emergency, major disruptive effects were not avoided (“Pre-landfall preparation,” n.d.). According to eyewitness accounts of the tragedy, large areas of the state remained inundated for several weeks, complicating evacuations and worsening the humanitarian disaster (Ramsey, 2021). Of the three states considered, Louisiana has the largest area adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico. As a result, a serious blow to the infrastructure was such that the preparatory measures did not prevent the catastrophe to the extent that it had been planned.

Many public services were involved in addressing the upcoming threat and forming a stable communication mode for the timely processing of incoming data. Particular attention was paid to the supply of necessary resources, including to the northern counties of the state, to prepare local regions for the hurricane (“Pre-landfall preparation,” n.d.). By the time the storm hit, the state was able to offer shelter and evacuation services to those in need (“Pre-landfall preparation,” n.d.). At the same time, as the results of the disaster show, the local authorities failed to ensure the complete safety of the population. A large number of tasks to address was one of the reasons for the difficulties that the involved stakeholders had to face.

Disaster Recovery Participation

Along with the economic support provided by the government to the southern regions of the country most affected by Hurricane Katrina, the recovery program implied involving human power. Pyles et al. (2017) mention the engagement of citizens in voluntary assistance to rescuers who carried out evacuation and search operations. The researchers note that after some time, the state governments of the damaged regions were accused of insufficiently competent preparation for the upcoming threat (Pyles et al., 2017). Disaster recovery measures took significant efforts, and along with the general principles of work, addressing individual problems required no less close public attention.

Some population groups felt the effects of the hurricane much more acutely than others. As Pyles et al. (2017) argue, in Louisiana, the African American community was hit harder than white citizens. Moreover, according to the authors, the black residents of New Orleans “confronted more barriers to recovery, and institutional racism arguably played a role in the slow governmental response” (Pyles et al., 2017, p. 504).

This outcome indicates the lack of attention to the socio-cultural factors of recovery practices, and despite the allocation of funds from the state and federal budgets, some problems were not addressed comprehensively. The researchers also pay attention to the differences between the level of preparation of rural and urban areas because, based on the effects of the hurricane, regions with less developed infrastructure suffered significantly more (Pyles et al., 2017). Therefore, disaster recovery participation was a necessary activity related to the involvement of volunteers to eliminate the consequences of Katrina and form objective strategies for the restoration of residential and public facilities.

Effective housing policies were an indispensable element to address as part of mitigation and recovery solutions after the disaster. Local and state governments were to have built reliable programs that could help the homeless and get the public services running smoothly in a timely manner. However, as Sax (2021) remarks, controversy arose in the course of those activities. The aforementioned problem of racial inequality was obvious; after Hurricane Katrina, thousands of heirs of private landowners were denied FEMA assistance, and black citizens were the predominant vulnerable category (Sax, 2021). The development of effective recovery projects could not take place under conditions in which not all residents of the affected areas might count on help from the state. Therefore, within the framework of disaster recovery participation, the voluntary assistance of caring citizens was an essential aspect of social support.

Public Knowledge Regarding Emergency Plans

Along with the destruction of infrastructure in dozens of communities, Hurricane Katrina caused mass casualties. Given the gaps made by local and state governments in some regions, it is also essential to note the importance of preparing the population for possible natural disasters. The public knowledge of emergency plans and guidelines to follow is crucial as a valuable factor in reducing potential risks and ensuring evacuation, supply, and other procedures are in accordance with the highest safety standards (Rodriguez et al., 2018). If more attention had been paid to the interaction with the population before the tragedy, it is possible that many consequences caused by the flooding of most residential areas could have been avoided (Diaz et al., 2020). All this speaks to the importance of open communication with citizens and conducting educational activities designed to increase the understanding of risks and the sequence of actions in the case of threats of natural disasters.

Among the tasks that FEMA policy sets as a priority, familiarization with logistics routes is an important task for preparing the population. As part of targeted public outreach, as Hurricane Katrina approached, the authorities began alerting citizens to possible evacuation options and safe directions to travel (“Pre-landfall preparation,” n.d.). However, as the practice has shown, many residents of vulnerable areas were not notified in advance, and insufficient preparedness was one of the reasons for the mass casualties.

Even after the natural disaster subsides, people should receive the necessary information about which routes are involved for the delivery of humanitarian supplies, the arrival of rescuers, and other solutions aimed at helping the population. Otherwise, the period of recovery in the affected areas may be delayed, and fewer citizens will receive qualified assistance.

The assessment of the prospects for population education should proceed from the needs of specific communities. In evaluating the impact of Hurricane Katrina, Lichtveld et al. (2020) draw attention to the importance of analyzing the community as a whole and argue that the dissemination of knowledge to target citizens should not be scattered. The communication mode should be established in accordance with pre-prepared guidelines to exclude the possibility of missing significant nuances in the process of interaction with the population. Rodriguez et al. (2018) offer clear conditions to follow when drawing up such a plan. According to the researchers, the public should be informed about the steps to take in case of Internet connection failure, telephone connection breaks, and other issues (Rodriguez et al., 2018).

Special means of communication in case of emergency should be prepared, for example, satellite phones. The rules for using mass media, such as radio, should be communicated to citizens so that, in case of signal problems, all those in need can hear up-to-date reports and recommendations (Rodriguez et al., 2018). These measures are mandatory to increase public knowledge about actions both before and after emergencies.

Making Predictions and Forecasting

In implementing the recovery and relief phases, local and state authorities should take into account not only the current consequences of the threat but also make adequate forecasts regarding potential danger in the future. Hurricane Katrina was a clear marker of problems in preparedness for such risks. As Diaz et al. (2020) note, this applies not only to hurricanes but also to other natural disasters, such as floods or droughts. Given the effects of Hurricane Katrina on the damaged states, the responsible local authorities should have learned the lesson and, if necessary, turned to higher authorities to implement preventive strategies. It was an adequate step to address the planning gaps and introduce effective protection policies for the population.

Effective forecasting implies making relevant additions to existing emergency plans. Diaz et al. (2020) remark that along with local and state authorities, the federal government should also be involved in this process. The allocation of funds, the appointment of responsible analysts, timely supplies, and other tasks must be implemented in accordance with clearly defined algorithms. Hurricane Katrina was an event that helped redefine the importance of preparatory work. Any tragedy is easier to prevent than to deal with its disastrous consequences. Therefore, in cooperation with the parties concerned, responsible persons should develop effective projects aimed at ensuring the safety of the population.

Conclusion

The recovery and relief phases of emergency management require the coordinated work of local and state authorities, and the example of Hurricane Katrina is proof of this. Mass casualties and the destruction of urban and rural infrastructure confirm the relevance of preparatory procedures and relevant safety guidelines. Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana were the hardest hit by the disaster, and the lack of preparedness for the hurricane was one of the reasons for the large scale of the tragedy. Involving volunteers, educating the public, and making adequate predictions are significant steps to take. Government assistance in the form of funding and productive emergency policies is also a valuable tool to prevent future threats.

References

Diaz, J., Brisolara, K., Harrington, D., Hu, C., & Katner, A. (2020). The environmental health impact of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans. American Journal of Public Health, 110(10), 1480-1484. Web.

Lichtveld, M., Covert, H., El-Dahr, J., Grimsley, L. F., Cohn, R., Watson, C. H., Thornton, E., & Kennedy, S. (2020). A community-based participatory research approach to hurricane Katrina: when disasters, environmental health threats, and disparities collide. American Journal of Public Health, 110(10), 1485-1489. Web.

Pre-landfall preparation and Katrina’s impact. (n.d.). A Failure of Initiative. Web.

Pyles, L., Svistova, J., Ahn, S., & Birkland, T. (2017). Citizen participation in disaster recovery projects and programmes in rural communities: A comparison of the Haiti earthquake and Hurricane Katrina. Disasters, 42(3), 498-518. Web.

Ramsey, J. (2021). Hurricane Katrina chronicles. OffBeat Magazine. Web.

Rodriguez, F., Petersen, J., Selvaratnam, R., Mann, P., & Hoyne, J. (2018). Hurricanes: Are you prepared?Laboratory Medicine, 49(2), e18-e22. Web.

Sax, S. (2021). Black families passed their homes from one generation to the next. Now they may be lost. The Guardian. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!