GovernmentExecutive.com

The Federal Emergency Management Agency left modular homes intended for Hurricane Katrina evacuees exposed to the elements while being stored in Arkansas, rendering up to $4 million worth of units uninhabitable, according to a recent audit report.

The report by the Homeland Security Department's inspector general called on FEMA to create inventories of units and formally acknowledge how many are beyond repair. Inspectors also recommended that the agency develop cost-effective plans for storing and using remaining modular homes and provide better weather protection.

The report -- delivered to FEMA on Oct. 18 but not released publicly until Wednesday -- said the agency should establish policies that clarify what situations necessitate the purchase of modular home units and ensure they are properly packaged and stored.

The modular homes "weren't designed for long-term storage" in Texarkana, Ark., said Debbie Wing, a FEMA spokeswoman. "The elements are going to cause them to deteriorate."

Wing said that many of the units -- of which the department purchased nearly 1,800 -- were left outside unprotected, or covered only by a tarp. She emphasized the difference between the modular units and other forms of temporary housing, like travel trailers and mobile homes. Altogether, she said, the agency bought about 145,000 temporary homes to assist Katrina evacuees since the hurricane.

She said FEMA's "intentions were good" when officials purchased the units, but that the agency agrees with the inspector general's recommendations and is complying.

Former FEMA officials and lawmakers alike have criticized the agency's handling of temporary homes, from overpurchasing to poor storage.

"FEMA's disregard of the inspector general's earlier recommendations cost the American taxpayers millions," said Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., House Homeland Security Committee ranking member. "An atmosphere that permits this type of waste, fraud and abuse will not be tolerated in the new Congress."

Thompson, who is poised to take over as committee chairman, also criticized the possibility that FEMA will move its Mississippi Transitional Recovery Office away from Jackson, where many hurricane evacuees still reside. FEMA and the General Services Administration currently aren't planning to renew leases at multiple Jackson sites that serve hurricane evacuees, Thompson said. He urged the agency to reconsider.

"Relocating this office outside of the city of Jackson would significantly impede the ability of many evacuees to travel to the office and thereby complicate their ability to access services and information available through state and federal offices located in the downtown area," Thompson wrote in a Nov. 6 letter to FEMA Director R. David Paulison.

COMMENTS

• My friend, I hope that the incredibly safe location in which you apparently live never has any type of catastrophe which places you in the shoes of those who live on the Gulf Coast. If your area is disaster proof, I hope you do not complain of the population explosion if this country were to evacuate the "dangerous" areas of this country and all move to the "safe" areas. GovExec.com reader Posted November 29, 2006 6:05 PM
• Tangerines and avocados? Now you're talking about the oil industry. Fine, let the companies provide safe housing for their employees, not the federal government. Next, you're wrong again regarding the safety issue. Katrina proved conclusively that New Orleans is not a safe, viable city. Further strengthening of the levees will, of course mess up the environment, but that apparently isn't a negative in your opinion. Also, I never stated that I supported building anything in earthquake zones or other catastrophic areas around the country. If private investors and companies wish to take the chance, fine. But why should Big Daddy (aka the federal government) be forced to pay for greedy, stupid capitalistic expansion? Help the displaced Americans as per my previous comments, take FEMA to the trashcan, and let the states wake up to their responsibilities! GovExec.com reader Posted November 22, 2006 3:15 PM
• While I missed your point, I think you are missing my main point. 1. A very large infrastructure of the oil industry exists in the New Orleans and surrounding areas. Many of the oil refineries run along the Mississippi river. The wells in the Gulf require the infrastructure. Would you have these wells supported from hundreds of miles further north, where it is safe? 2. There is no reason why the New Orleans area cannot be safe. Proven technology exists that this country could easily afford to build strong levees, floodgates, etc. Had the Corps of Engineers done their job, we would not be having this conversation. 3. I just don't understand how you could on one hand advocate permanent evacuation of an area that has been inhabited for hundreds of years, while at the same time defending the building in major earthquake areas, and along all of the nation's coasts. What do you suppose will happen when the inevitable earthquake hits California? Will you advocate permanent evacuation as well? Do you suggest we move 300 miles from every coast line? You are right I missed your point. I will never get your point, because it is from such a narrow perspective. GovExec.com reader Posted November 21, 2006 5:24 PM