Emergency Management Schneider Case Study 3

Schneider Case Study #3

Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana

One of the most devastating catastrophes to strike America was Hurricane Katrina that hit Louisiana’s shore on 29th August 2005. This hurricane led to significant havoc and claimed over 1,800 lives (Schneider, 2011). One especially vulnerable city was New Orleans, since it already lies below sea level, although it did have protective measures in levees and floodwalls. But after the storm struck land, the above protective measures were unable to endure its impact, resulting in deadly flooding that swept the entire city. Before this massive hurricane’s arrival, domestic officials urged the city residents to evacuate their homes while simultaneously establishing shelters to accommodate residents who dwelt in high-risk places where the hazard was to be expected. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) moved its human and material resources into the city for effective, timely response in affected regions (Schneider, 2011). Federal, state, and local governmental authorities seemed to be well-prepared, equipped, and aware of their responsibilities. After the onset of the storm, the process of milling commenced swiftly. Residents impacted by the calamity displayed pro-social and positive conduct. In other words, they were cognizant of the destruction wrought by it and were enthusiastic in their efforts to assist each other (Schneider, 2011). They led their respective search parties to aid their fellow city residents in locating their kith and kin who were missing in the storm’s aftermath. But a few residents did not display such favorable conduct and instead, as has been recorded by Schneider, took to burglary, shoplifting, and mugging in several areas throughout the city of New Orleans (Schneider, 2011).

Furthermore, violent offenses were being perpetrated, with even law enforcement officials (shockingly) engaging in such illegal conduct. Emergency response endeavored to adopt a bottom-up approach to implementation, but this pattern was not meant to be utilized in case of a massive scale calamity. Ineffective communication between governmental authorities resulted in increased expenses and delays concerning the delivery of aid. Concerned authorities swiftly tried to adopt a top-down approach to a response that resulted in a greater amount of delay in delivering aid, as well as a confusing pattern of implementation. Authorities at the local, state and federal levels failed to fully comprehend their respective responsibilities through the emergency response process. Owing to local authorities and the government’s delayed actions, Hurricane Katrina’s response was perceived as a failure (Schneider, 2011).

Hurricane Katrina in Mississippi

The devastation that Hurricane Katrina wreaked was not limited only to Louisiana. Later that very same day, it made its way to the boundary of Mississippi and Louisiana. When this Category 3 hurricane swept across Mississippi State, it left a whopping eight percent of its residents devoid of power, in addition to destroying several thousand edifices (Schneider, 2011). It claimed as many as 231 lives, besides costing several billion dollars in property damage (Schneider, 2011). The government moved in to respond to this disaster even before it left the Gulf. Residents were alerted regarding the approaching storm by local authorities, and evacuation procedures commenced (Schneider, 2011). FEMA directed personnel to aid in evacuating and undertake resource mobilization (Schneider, 2011). Many personnel were already trained in the NIMS (National Incident Management System) that ensured they were ready to respond to the impending storm (Schneider, 2011). After it struck, power outages were reported, and the streets were covered in debris, which resulted in the shut-down of several transport services. Residents who needed to evacuate their homes were both afraid and confused, which resulted in unconventional conduct such as theft that state authorities were unable to prevent. In the end, the state’s National Guard had to step in; even then, it was greatly challenging to stabilize conditions in the state (Schneider, 2011). Residents grew agitated since supply delivery took several days; furthermore, sufficient relief wasn’t supplied to the affected individuals.

But contrary to Louisiana’s state, Mississippi witnessed a swift end to milling (Schneider, 2011). Governmental response to the catastrophe commenced on a good note since it took care to allot funding to train personnel to be ready for the storm. However, issues arose when it proved incapable of aiding efforts at the state level (Schneider, 2011). The absence of effective communication resulted in a state of utter disorder and chaos. FEMA could not direct its trained personnel to the state, coupled with federal-level operations becoming dysfunctional (Schneider, 2011). Slow-paced relief attempts left many local authorities and residents stranded and in a state of frustration. On account of the disorder mentioned above and delays in providing effective relief on government authorities, Hurricane Katrina’s response within Mississippi may be considered more failure than success (Schneider, 2011).

Flooding in South Carolina

In October 1990, a couple of powerful storms arose off South Carolina State’s coast, leading to huge rain quantities (Schneider, 2011). These rains led to such severe flooding that several hundred persons were forced to evacuate their houses, 9 lives were claimed, and the flood was recognized at the national level as a disaster (Schneider, 2011). Certain areas witnessed such swift flooding that their residents were at a complete loss to know what they must do in reaction. Though milling commenced instantly, it didn’t persist for long; matters stabilized in the state in a matter of some hours (Schneider, 2011). Affected persons were collected and composed, handling the situation calmly (Schneider, 2011). Milling came to a rapid end as some individuals failed to understand the situation’s gravity, continuing to travel to areas marked as dangerous. Others, meanwhile, were quite lucky and escaped the flood’s impact. A second factor that is found to be responsible for the short duration of milling in the state was transport and communication system availability (Schneider, 2011). Even if certain railway lines or streets were blocked, alternate means of transport were easily accessible. Since residents managed to take care of themselves and their families throughout the disaster, public authorities worked within the established emergency response system (Schneider, 2011). Federal, state, and local governmental organizations could effectively evaluate the situation, determine the right response strategy, and effectively deploy resources on hand (Schneider, 2011). Hence, a smooth emergency response process ensued, with only small mishaps taking place on account of the swift flooding (as mentioned previously) and emergency officials being incapable of promptly alerting some residents (Schneider, 2011).

On the whole, the government effectively and efficiently reacted to this catastrophe. They adopted a bottom-up pattern of process execution, both smooth and methodical (Schneider, 2011). Local-level emergency management effectively tackled the situation initially, concentrating on citizen evacuation, restricting movement in heavily flooded regions, and averting dam failure instances (Schneider, 2011). Hence, the government’s response to South Carolina’s severe flooding has been considered a success (Schneider, 2011).

Flooding in Tennessee

At the start of May 2010, the state of Tennessee witnessed 18-20 inches of rainfall (that was concentrated largely in Nashville) – the greatest quantity of rainfall it saw in a hundred and forty years (Schneider, 2011). Nashville alone incurred two billion dollars in the area of property damages, with 45,000 residents left without power (Schneider, 2011). This flooding was so sudden and unexpected that citizens were left overwhelmed and astonished. They weren’t certain whether to stay at home or evacuate. Local governmental authorities offered them guidance and urged them to do the former, staying off the streets, which started flooding (Schneider, 2011). But after floodwaters started rising, local authorities instructed residents to evacuate, a directive it should have issued earlier, as several had no option but to remain wherever they were. Structures were destroyed, power outages occurred, and transport and communication systems were affected (Schneider, 2011). Some residents attempting to evacuate drowned in their vehicles; others trapped at home also lost their lives (Schneider, 2011). However, milling came to a rather swift end following the storm (Schneider, 2011). Citizens and emergency response personnel worked in unison to rescue stranded individuals.