Michigan shouldn't have to perform for federal disaster aid for floods, ice storms

My sister moved from Houston, Texas to Cheboygan two years ago. She’s no stranger to hurricanes and floods, but the “climate haven” that some boast about in the Midwest has not yet materialized for her.

Since she’s moved, northern Michigan has been engulfed in wildfire smoke, ravaged by a terrifying ice storm and now, hit with record-breaking flooding.

Call it bad luck or a coincidence, but the trends paint a different picture.

Extreme precipitation has increased by 45% since 1958-2021 in the Midwest, according to Climate Central. More frequent and intense wildfires in Canada are also attributed to climate change projections. And even ice storms could be linked to changing weather patterns, as some University of Michigan researchers suggest.

As these events increasingly become part of our new normal, we cannot afford to dismantle the systems that protect us, both federally and at the state level.

When FEMA originally declined the disaster aid request for northern Michigan’s ice storms, the agency said it was “not warranted,” with no further explanation. Last month, the Detroit News reported President Donald Trump is now reversing course, though only Michigan utilities will receive funding for ice storm recovery. 

This announcement followed a meeting between Trump and Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, where the rationale for the change of heart was just as murky as the original denial.

It remains to be seen whether Michigan will qualify for FEMA funding after recent flooding. The state is conducting a damage assessment to private and public property, and homeowners are now being encouraged to report flood damage.

As much as we disdain bureaucracy for being slow and rigid, we must have a transparent, consistent system for authorizing federal disaster assistance. 

The alternative, appears to depend on whether our governor is considered charming enough by the president and contingent on an administration that makes decisions based on party lines, with blue states three times less likely to receive federal disaster aid. Regardless of your political affiliation, this is not a method that actually serves impacted communities.

We should also not be divesting from FEMA and agencies involved in climate research.

Confirmed U.S. climate disasters exceeded $1 billion in damage in 2024, according to NOAA, but the current administration is no longer tracking billion-dollar weather disasters. 

Last summer, Trump said FEMA should be eliminated. And more recently, the administration has proposed to cut FEMA’s staff by half (after 2,000 employees have already left the agency within the past year), make it more difficult for states to qualify for federal dollars, lower the amount of funding granted and no longer consider damage costs when reviewing requests.

States, alone, can’t handle the full burden of these expensive disasters, and we witnessed how utilities shifted the recovery cost onto ratepayers after the ice storm.

As we undergo another disaster, I hope the path to recovery is clearer and prioritizes residents whose homes and businesses have been damaged by the floods first – and doesn’t leave communities hanging out to dry, literally, on their own. 

After living through the ice storm, I’ll never forget the sound of trees crashing and the uncertainty of when the power would be restored. Barely a year later, northern Michigan residents are once again being haunted by impending dam failures, encroaching floodwaters and anxiety about whether to evacuate and if so, where to go and for how long.

Ignoring reality is not a solution. Now more than ever, elected officials must fund disaster safety nets, invest in infrastructure upgrades and protect climate research that can support emergency preparedness. These measures can lower expenses in the long run but also save our most vulnerable communities from senseless distress.