1. News & Issues

Katrina Incompetence Redux: FEMA Trailers

From Kathy Gill, About.com GuideAugust 13, 2007

Follow me on:

FEMA doesn't know how many people uprooted by Hurricane Katrina actually bought the travel trailers provided by the government as temporary housing. But FEMA is offering to buy them back because of concerns over formaldehyde.

Last month, at Congressional hearings, we learned that "top FEMA officials had brushed aside field workers' concerns about formaldehyde despite residents' complaints about possibly related illnesses." Internal memos and e-mails showed that Agency lawyers resisted testing because they didn't want to be accountable. One lawyer said: "Do not initiate any testing until we give the OK. ... Once you get results ... the clock is running on our duty to respond to them."

Want to lay odds that those lawyers were political appointees rather than civil service employees?

Earlier this month, FEMA committed to testing the trailers. Although FEMA says it doesn't know how many trailers it has sold to Katrina victims, it is now offering to buy-back trailers sold to inhabitants within the past 12 months. And there are another 56,000 FEMA-owned trailers, mostly in Louisiana and Mississippi, still being used by dislocated families.

The Sierra Club tested 44 FEMA trailers:

[They] found formaldehyde concentrations as high as 0.34 parts per million -– a level nearly equal to what a professional embalmer would be exposed to on the job, according to one study of the chemical’s workplace effects.

All but four of the trailers it tested registered higher than the 0.1 parts per million that the EPA considers to be an “elevated level” capable of causing watery eyes, burning in the eyes and throat, nausea, and respiratory distress in some people.

The General Services Administration has sold about 40,000 used trailers via its website; FEMA said these would not be part of the buy-back but did not explain the rationale for splitting this hair.

There is a class-action lawsuit against 14 manufacturers of about 120,000 FEMA trailers, alleging that they violated regulated formaldehyde levels. Formaldehyde is a human carcinogen.

This isn't the first problem with FEMA trailers. Last year we learned that the same key opened 1 in 50 trailers. FEMA provided about 150,000 travel trailers and mobile homes for victims of Hurricane Katrina; last August about 120,000 were still in service.

Comments

August 13, 2007 at 9:44 am
(1) Chuck Manson says:

What does this have to do with U.S. Politics?

BTW-Isn’t it your side that wants to create an entire new government agency to provide us with Health Care? I think FEMA, USPS, FAA, ICE and the IRS are shining examples of why the government is a lousy administrator of services.

C

August 13, 2007 at 9:52 am
(2) usgovinfo says:

Just one point that is often overlooked by the media: FEMA didn’t build these trailers, nor did they have them built for the Katrina emergency. FEMA bought them — 145,000 of the them — from various manufacturers who had been selling them to the public for years and are continuing to sell them to the public to this day. Also keep in mind that, at the time, the alternatives were tents and umbrellas.

Robert

August 13, 2007 at 9:21 pm
(3) John says:

I’ll buy one and air it out if anyone wants to sell one. Aint skered!!!!!!

August 15, 2007 at 2:38 am
(4) uspolitics says:

Chuck, it’s politics because the bureaucrats in DC told the field staff not to follow up on complaints about illness.

Robert, there are reportedly only 4 of the manufacturers who have trailers with problems — not all of them. FEMA ducked its responsiblity — and can you explain why owner-occupied trailers bought directly from FEMA are eligible for buy-back but trailers bought from FEMA via GSA aren’t?

These trailers were never intended for long-term occupancy. They are recreational, travel trailers!

The bigger story here is that it’s two years later and we still have thousands of families in “temporary” housing. Why?

August 15, 2007 at 3:31 pm
(5) alex says:

“The bigger story here is that it’s two years later and we still have thousands of families in “temporary” housing. Why?” Is it the government’s role to provide housing to those unable to secure it for themselves? Why? Pretty nice to be given temp housing, methinks. So much for your concern re:deficit….unless it’s the war I suppose.

August 15, 2007 at 4:58 pm
(6) uspolitics says:

Hi, Alex — my question is “why” are there so many people still in temporary housing. I know it was the largest dislocation in recent times, probably since Dust Bowl days. But it’s been two years.

I’ve been pretty straightforward that I believe if we’re going to bury ourselves in debt, we should be spending that $ on domestic infrastructure. And we wouldn’t be in debt if it had not been for Bush’s tax cuts — well, that plus his prescription drug bill (the most expensive social program since Medicare).

August 17, 2007 at 11:17 am
(7) alex says:

Kathy,
I think you missed my question. Is your ‘why?’ an implied assumption that the government owes these people permanent housing, or is it an observation that a sizeable group of people seems unable to provide for themselves within a 2 year span? If it is the former, how does this reconcile with your fiscal hawkishness? Your spending choices are good, but Bush’s aren’t? Why?

August 17, 2007 at 1:58 pm
(8) uspolitics says:

Hi, Alex … my “why” is a big one … why are these folks “stuck” in small RV trailers … where are they stuck … why are they unable to “go home” or move somewhere — like an apartment — that is designed for “permanent” living.

Maybe there are no jobs where FEMA relocated them? Maybe they used public transport (if they were from NO) and they don’t have a car but would need a car to get to a job?

LOL! It’s funny to be referenced as a fiscal hawk. :)

It just feels like “we” have abandoned the Gulf Coast — outa sight outa mind. Maybe there are some parallels to post-Camille — but probably not, because the Gulf just wasn’t as developed in the 60s.

September 27, 2007 at 10:24 pm
(9) Wayne says:

I bought my trailer because it was cheap and the only chance I thought I had for housing I could call “my own”. I own land and have re-located it untill my insurance company decides that wind blew my house away. We had no water 8 miles inland.

September 28, 2007 at 12:18 am
(10) uspolitics says:

Hi, Wayne:

Your house was 8 miles inland … and it’s been 2 years … and your insurance company still has not settled with you?!?

September 28, 2007 at 10:58 am
(11) Wayne says:

We would not accept 30 cents on the dollar. It is in what they call mediation. I have however started construction on my own on my property. It should not be long now. Thanks for asking. Many do ot realize the difficulty some are facing. It is not that we are free loaders. I paid my premiums on time. Some got shafted more than us.

December 10, 2008 at 6:18 pm
(12) Peter Griffith says:

The government is now selling the trailers again but labeling them as scrap. Check this story out http://www.governmentauctions.org/fematrailers.asp

Leave a Comment


Line and paragraph breaks are automatic. Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title="">, <b>, <i>, <strike>

©2012 About.com. All rights reserved.

A part of The New York Times Company.