On July 9, Texas Governor Greg Abbott called state legislators back to Austin for a special session to address a laundry list of priorities, from flood recovery to mid-decade redistricting. A special joint committee of the legislature on disaster preparedness and flooding was convened, and following an all-day hearing in Austin, members of the special committee “moved the capital” to Hill Country for a day. The hearing took place in Kerr County, where 107 people lost their lives last month in devastating floods. It was advertised as a forum for legislators to hear directly from survivors—although many elected officials and other witnesses gave invited testimony (and spoke before private citizens, myself included).
Having conducted people’s hearings after disasters in Houston, I have found that survivors both know best how our current approach to extreme weather is failing, and have the most ambitious ideas for recovery.
In a series of panels, residents recounted their experiences with the flood and its aftermath. One man spoke of his horror at hearing children scream as floodwaters that rose as high as 50 feet carried them away. Others described their shock at discovering body parts in the days and weeks after the storm. One woman testified that no timely government support came to her community, and that she doubted those living in homeless encampments along the river were counted among the missing.
The pain of residents and loss of life should be reason enough for swift action. At a time when disaster forecasting, response, and preparedness funding are under assault, it’s more important than ever to listen to survivors and try to understand their stated preferences.
1. Risk communication AND infrastructure development are needed
Descriptions of how and when alerts were delivered to residents along the riverbanks were a feature of both resident testimony and questions from legislators to local officials. Many reported being awoken by neighbors and receiving alerts only after they’d packed their things and headed out the door. One mother, whose daughter’s body was only identified by her charm bracelet, emphasized the importance of specifically worded, timely, and actionable alerts, noting that her daughter who was in a cabin on stilts probably thought she was on high ground.
Residents were also clear that stronger risk communication was not a replacement for public flood mitigation infrastructure. Many spoke of the need for dams and other flood control measures. The County Judge of Kendall County, where no lives were lost, emphasized wide-ranging action and investment from voter-approved conservation bonds to development regulations to keep communities safe.
2. Current financial supports for recovery leave big, dangerous gaps
One resident testified on behalf of his parents, who were close to retirement age, and whose small business took on several feet of water. Because of their age, he argued that taking on a loan from the Small Business Administration didn’t make sense for them. He also expressed dismay at the financial strain added by flood insurance. Accepting public funds to rebuild requires enrollment in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP): most of the homes in Kerr County did not have flood insurance. The cost of flood insurance has climbed after the adoption of a new risk rating standard called Risk Rating 2.0, which uses private sector data and tools to set rates that, according to FEMA, are “easier to understand and better reflect a property’s flood risk.”
Even though flooding is the most common and costly type of disaster in the United States, Congress continues to pass short-term reauthorization of NFIP without any affordability provisions for low- and fixed-income people. The lack of affordability provisions is a glaring policy failure that puts survivors in an impossible situation—discouraging them from purchasing costly flood insurance, or applying for federal assistance, and leaving households to self-finance recovery. Insurance products are not a silver bullet, but accessible and affordable insurance is a critical tool for recovery. Congress has a deadline to reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program by the end of September. That reauthorization should include passing affordability provisions.
3. Stabilizing post-disaster communities requires investment and political will
All of the witnesses who testified expressed a desire to remain in Hill Country and see their communities recover with greater resilience. Accomplishing that goal requires significant funding, for everything from debris removal to home repair and economic recovery. Local officials, who are in the process of finalizing municipal budgets and setting tax rates for the coming year, were loathe to raise taxes on flood survivors and asked members of the special committee to advocate for the use of state resources to help cover the cost of debris removal and early recovery (typically once the President approves a disaster declaration, FEMA covers 75% of these costs and local governments foot the rest of the bill).
Texas state law gives Governor Abbott, in coordination with the Legislative Budget Board, the authority to transfer state funds following declared emergencies without the need for a special legislative session or special committee. Despite a high and growing number of extreme weather events, Texas, which boasts a massive 23.8 billion dollar surplus and a 28-billion dollar Rainy Day Fund, has no dedicated disaster reserve fund. The Rainy Day Fund was not used to respond to Winter Storm Uri or Hurricane Harvey—and Governor Abbott has never used his authority to transfer agency funds to address an extreme weather event.
To be clear, Texas and every other state should legislate and fund more resilience efforts. Those decisions should be thoughtfully considered, and guided by scientists and survivors. In the meantime, state leaders can act quickly to keep local governments and residents financially afloat. The faster state and federal funds flow, the faster communities can get on the road to recovery.
4. A complex housing landscape, and fear of speculation
Hill Country is beloved by Texans for its natural beauty and recreation. In the testimony given, there was no infighting between permanent and seasonal residents. One witness noted that seasonal residents have in some cases owned land in the Hill Country for generations, and represent an important part of the tax base—but would not be eligible for most existing recovery programs. With part-time residents ineligible for expediting programs, and full-time residents wary of being saddled with loans or flood insurance they can’t afford, a perfect storm for post-disaster speculation may be brewing in Hill Country. One woman received nods and murmurs of support from the crowd when said she didn’t want to see properties scooped up by investors—a real concern, given the experiences of post-disaster communities from Louisiana and California.
As a rule, long-term recovery efforts must be scientifically sound and context-specific to have maximum impact. The fates of permanent and part-time residents, and the local economy as Hill Country residents knew it, are linked and programs must be developed to help those least likely to recover.
An uncertain path forward
While the residents I heard speak were clear in critiques and recommendations, a devastating amount of uncertainty looms over their recovery at the state and federal level.
This special session of the Texas legislature seeks to further restrict the ability of local governments to raise taxes, making it harder for cities and counties to provide basic services, to say nothing of pursuing resilience efforts. No one knows if the governor will use his authority to stabilize flooded communities without the need for fully-convened legislators (this past weekend, members of the Texas House left the state to break quorum in protest of the fact that unusual mid-decade redistricting efforts have moved at a faster pace than flooding legislation).
The possibility of a completely dismantled FEMA could push small towns closer to bankruptcy post-disaster. No one knows if Secretary Noem will walk back her dangerous red tape rule that any FEMA spending above $100,000 requires her personal sign-off, which slowed down formal search and rescue operations in Hill Country.
It’s unclear when Congress will allocate long-term recovery dollars through the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Because long-term disaster recovery dollars aren’t permanently authorized, usually a backlog of disasters piles up until the political will to fund recovery is gathered. For one example, communities that experienced disasters in 2023 had to wait until mid-January 2025 to learn how much money they would receive from the federal government.
What is clear is that the brave people of Texas Hill Country have joined the growing list of disaster survivors across the country who can’t afford inaction. After so much loss, the risks of Governor Abbott passing the buck on financial support, Congress kicking the can down the road on flood insurance affordability, and the Trump administration’s reckless approach to FEMA are simply too great a burden to bear.