Source: United States Senator for New Mexico Martin Heinrich

“FEMA was originally structured to respond to large-scale hurricanes and disasters on the East Coast, and its current – and outdated – model reflects that legacy.”

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) and Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) urged the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to implement practical reforms to better address the unique and growing disaster risks faced by Western U.S. communities, particularly in the aftermath of catastrophic wildfires.

The letter requests FEMA modernize its outdated response model, improve infrastructure reimbursement policies to facilitate smarter rebuilding, and expand individual and community assistance to reflect actual recovery costs. The letter also calls for FEMA to address gaps in support for high-risk areas where insurance is no longer accessible.

“Western states face a distinct and growing threat: namely, catastrophic wildfires followed by cascading disasters such as landslides, flooding, and water system failures that compound damage and slow recovery. These cascading events – which can happen years after an initial fire – are devastating, and FEMA has repeatedly struggled to respond effectively,” the lawmakers wrote.

“As New Mexicans learned in the wake of the Hermit’s Peak/Calf Canyon fire and Californians in the wake of the Palisades fire, and Hawaii residents after the Maui wind-driven fires, FEMA’s protocols and funding mechanisms aren’t built to address the rapid domino effect that occurs after major wildfires. Events that are interconnected are treated as isolated occurrences, leaving affected communities without the timely, comprehensive support they deserve,” the lawmakers continued.

Heinrich, Luján, and the New Mexico Delegation have secured $5.45 billion for recovery efforts following the Hermit’s Peak/Calf Canyon Fire. The fire, which was started by the U.S. Forest Service, caused widespread damage and uprooted the lives of many New Mexicans.

The full text of the letter can be found HERE and below:

Dear Secretary Noem and Acting Administrator Richardson:

Thank you for the opportunity to provide public comments on FEMA’s disaster response and recovery operations. We are writing to ask you to consider practical reforms to improve the organization and administration of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). FEMA was originally structured to respond to large-scale hurricanes and disasters on the East Coast, and its current – and outdated – model reflects that legacy. Practical reforms are warranted to better serve communities in the Western United States.

We want to emphasize that serious, targeted reform is the answer to these pressing problems – not dismantling FEMA altogether. The federal government has an important role to play in assisting state and local governments in the wake of natural disasters. Weakening or eliminating federal disaster assistance when state and local resources across the West are overwhelmed and depleted would be a dangerous step backwards. FEMA’s mission is simply too important to abandon.

Western states face a distinct and growing threat: namely, catastrophic wildfires followed by cascading disasters such as landslides, flooding, and water system failures that compound damage and slow recovery. These cascading events – which can happen years after an initial fire – are devastating, and FEMA has repeatedly struggled to respond effectively. As New Mexicans learned in the wake of the Hermit’s Peak/Calf Canyon fire and Californians in the wake of the Palisades fire, and Hawaii residents after the Maui wind-driven fires, FEMA’s protocols and funding mechanisms aren’t built to address the rapid domino effect that occurs after major wildfires. Events that are interconnected are treated as isolated occurrences, leaving affected communities without the timely, comprehensive support they deserve.

FEMA’s reimbursement formulas and policies currently require that public infrastructure be rebuilt to its pre-disaster condition in order to qualify for full reimbursement. While we understand the intent behind these rules—to restore essential infrastructure equitably—they do not adequately address the unique and escalating risks associated with post-wildfire environments, especially with regard to flood-related infrastructure such as culverts, bridges, and drainage systems.

After a wildfire, watersheds are severely destabilized. Vegetation loss, soil degradation, and hydrophobic soils result in dramatically altered runoff patterns, increasing both the speed and volume of post-fire flooding. The City of Las Vegas, New Mexico lived this harsh reality during the Fiestas last year, when floods paralyzed the city over a year after the Hermit’s Peak/Calf Canyon fire. As a result of these floods, the business community lost out on their largest income-generating event of the year. These harsh post-fire flooding conditions mean that infrastructure like culverts, which may have been appropriately sized before a fire, are no longer adequate or safe in the changed landscape. Rebuilding these structures “as they were” effectively ensures that they will be overwhelmed during the next major rain event. FEMA’s reimbursement formula should be revised to allow and encourage local governments and agencies to rebuild smarter and stronger, particularly in high-risk post-wildfire areas. If infrastructure is likely to fail under new, foreseeable conditions like post-wildfire floods, federal policy should not prohibit communities from adapting their designs accordingly.

In addition, individual assistance offered by FEMA is insufficient to help families and small businesses get back on their feet. Many disaster survivors are shocked to learn that reimbursements for personal property loss, home repairs, or temporary housing fall far short of the actual costs. This disparity leaves middle- and low-income families and businesses facing a steep financial cliff, even after receiving federal aid. While Congress has stepped in to fully reimburse New Mexico families for losses from the Hermit’s Peak/Calf Canyon fire after the Federal government started the largest fire in the state’s history, comprehensive financial reimbursement is not the norm. In Maui, recovery is estimated to exceed $12 billion, a total of four times what the federal government is anticipated to contribute. The property and economic damage in California is as high as $275 billion. We need to revisit how individual assistance is calculated and ensure it reflects real-world rebuilding and living expenses.

Last but not least, a growing number of Western disaster survivors lack insurance altogether. In high-risk areas like wildfire zones, insurance has become prohibitively expensive—or unavailable entirely. This leaves many households completely dependent on FEMA for recovery support. Yet FEMA’s systems and standards often assume a baseline level of private insurance coverage that no longer exists for a significant portion of affected residents. FEMA must adapt its policies and funding levels and work with other Federal agencies to meet the needs of those who fall into this widening gap and ensure that recovery is possible for those who, through no fault of their own, can’t obtain insurance.

Thank you again for the opportunity to contribute to this critical dialogue. We hope FEMA will take this input seriously and act swiftly to adapt to the changing landscape of disaster response.

Sincerely,

Source: United States Senator Ben Ray Luján (D-New Mexico)

“FEMA was originally structured to respond to large-scale hurricanes and disasters on the East Coast, and its current – and outdated – model reflects that legacy.”

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) and Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) urged the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to implement practical reforms to better address the unique and growing disaster risks faced by Western U.S. communities, particularly in the aftermath of catastrophic wildfires.

The letter requests FEMA modernize its outdated response model, improve infrastructure reimbursement policies to facilitate smarter rebuilding, and expand individual and community assistance to reflect actual recovery costs. The letter also calls for FEMA to address gaps in support for high-risk areas where insurance is no longer accessible.

“Western states face a distinct and growing threat: namely, catastrophic wildfires followed by cascading disasters such as landslides, flooding, and water system failures that compound damage and slow recovery. These cascading events – which can happen years after an initial fire – are devastating, and FEMA has repeatedly struggled to respond effectively,” the lawmakers wrote.

“As New Mexicans learned in the wake of the Hermit’s Peak/Calf Canyon fire and Californians in the wake of the Palisades fire, and Hawaii residents after the Maui wind-driven fires, FEMA’s protocols and funding mechanisms aren’t built to address the rapid domino effect that occurs after major wildfires. Events that are interconnected are treated as isolated occurrences, leaving affected communities without the timely, comprehensive support they deserve,” the lawmakers continued.

Senators Luján and Heinrich and the New Mexico Delegation have secured $5.45 billion for recovery efforts following the Hermit’s Peak/Calf Canyon Fire. The fire, which was started by the U.S. Forest Service, caused widespread damage and uprooted the lives of many New Mexicans.

The full text of the letter can be found HERE and below:

Dear Secretary Noem and Acting Administrator Richardson:

Thank you for the opportunity to provide public comments on FEMA’s disaster response and recovery operations. We are writing to ask you to consider practical reforms to improve the organization and administration of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). FEMA was originally structured to respond to large-scale hurricanes and disasters on the East Coast, and its current – and outdated – model reflects that legacy. Practical reforms are warranted to better serve communities in the Western United States.

We want to emphasize that serious, targeted reform is the answer to these pressing problems – not dismantling FEMA altogether. The federal government has an important role to play in assisting state and local governments in the wake of natural disasters. Weakening or eliminating federal disaster assistance when state and local resources across the West are overwhelmed and depleted would be a dangerous step backwards. FEMA’s mission is simply too important to abandon.

Western states face a distinct and growing threat: namely, catastrophic wildfires followed by cascading disasters such as landslides, flooding, and water system failures that compound damage and slow recovery. These cascading events – which can happen years after an initial fire – are devastating, and FEMA has repeatedly struggled to respond effectively. As New Mexicans learned in the wake of the Hermit’s Peak/Calf Canyon fire and Californians in the wake of the Palisades fire, and Hawaii residents after the Maui wind-driven fires, FEMA’s protocols and funding mechanisms aren’t built to address the rapid domino effect that occurs after major wildfires. Events that are interconnected are treated as isolated occurrences, leaving affected communities without the timely, comprehensive support they deserve.

FEMA’s reimbursement formulas and policies currently require that public infrastructure be rebuilt to its pre-disaster condition in order to qualify for full reimbursement. While we understand the intent behind these rules—to restore essential infrastructure equitably—they do not adequately address the unique and escalating risks associated with post-wildfire environments, especially with regard to flood-related infrastructure such as culverts, bridges, and drainage systems.

After a wildfire, watersheds are severely destabilized. Vegetation loss, soil degradation, and hydrophobic soils result in dramatically altered runoff patterns, increasing both the speed and volume of post-fire flooding. The City of Las Vegas, New Mexico lived this harsh reality during the Fiestas last year, when floods paralyzed the city over a year after the Hermit’s Peak/Calf Canyon fire. As a result of these floods, the business community lost out on their largest income-generating event of the year. These harsh post-fire flooding conditions mean that infrastructure like culverts, which may have been appropriately sized before a fire, are no longer adequate or safe in the changed landscape. Rebuilding these structures “as they were” effectively ensures that they will be overwhelmed during the next major rain event. FEMA’s reimbursement formula should be revised to allow and encourage local governments and agencies to rebuild smarter and stronger, particularly in high-risk post-wildfire areas. If infrastructure is likely to fail under new, foreseeable conditions like post-wildfire floods, federal policy should not prohibit communities from adapting their designs accordingly.

In addition, individual assistance offered by FEMA is insufficient to help families and small businesses get back on their feet. Many disaster survivors are shocked to learn that reimbursements for personal property loss, home repairs, or temporary housing fall far short of the actual costs. This disparity leaves middle- and low-income families and businesses facing a steep financial cliff, even after receiving federal aid. While Congress has stepped in to fully reimburse New Mexico families for losses from the Hermit’s Peak/Calf Canyon fire after the Federal government started the largest fire in the state’s history, comprehensive financial reimbursement is not the norm. In Maui, recovery is estimated to exceed $12 billion, a total of four times what the federal government is anticipated to contribute. The property and economic damage in California is as high as $275 billion. We need to revisit how individual assistance is calculated and ensure it reflects real-world rebuilding and living expenses.

Last but not least, a growing number of Western disaster survivors lack insurance altogether. In high-risk areas like wildfire zones, insurance has become prohibitively expensive—or unavailable entirely. This leaves many households completely dependent on FEMA for recovery support. Yet FEMA’s systems and standards often assume a baseline level of private insurance coverage that no longer exists for a significant portion of affected residents. FEMA must adapt its policies and funding levels and work with other Federal agencies to meet the needs of those who fall into this widening gap and ensure that recovery is possible for those who, through no fault of their own, can’t obtain insurance.

Thank you again for the opportunity to contribute to this critical dialogue. We hope FEMA will take this input seriously and act swiftly to adapt to the changing landscape of disaster response.

Sincerely,