Hank, are you saying FEMA should be a pass-thru agency, just sending relief funds where they are needed, and let the states decide how to allocate the money?

I'm not sure how to avoid the conflict between agencies. FEMA and the Corps are notorious when it comes to bundling actions under the umbrella of "emergency response" and in the process of responding to a variety of response actions that are considerably less than life or death situation, they authorize and fund actions that destroy the holy livin' schit out of fish and wildlife habitat, for instance. So you can take efficiency on the one hand, and give one agency "authority in charge" status, and damage or destroy other public property and investments in the process of emergency response, both real and contrived. Then later, more public funds are needed to undo some of the damage caused by allowing one "super-agency" decide how to respond. Or you can let the bureaucracies sort out the mess, with less efficiency in the near term, and maybe address the crisis immediately and avoid incurring future costs due to ill-advised responses. Each agency's area of expertise tends to be very narrow.

I still think doing as you propose will result in goring one constituent's ox while you're protecting another's sacred cow. That is pluralism, and the only effective alternative I know of is single-purpose dictatorship.

Sg