These Alaska villages were swept away by a typhoon. They’re fighting with FEMA to not rebuild in the flood zone
Alaska Villages Battle to Avoid Rebuilding in Flood Zones After Typhoon Devastation
These Alaska villages were swept away – More than a year after the destructive remnants of Typhoon Halong ravaged western Alaska, the devastation of two remote Native villages has sparked a heated debate over the future of disaster recovery. Kipnuk and Kwigillingok, nestled along the Bering Sea coast, were transformed into eerie remnants of their former selves as floodwaters surged, uprooting homes and sweeping away entire communities. The event, which occurred in October 2023, left one life lost and two others missing, while the contaminated aftermath—a toxic blend of sewage and fuel oil—lingered in the air and on the clothing of survivors. For over a thousand residents displaced by the storm, the challenge now is not just to rebuild but to decide whether to return to the vulnerable flood zone or seek a safer future elsewhere.
Storms and Climate Change Intensify Coastal Threats
Alaska’s Western coast has become a hotspot for extreme weather events, with Typhoon Halong being just the latest in a series of disasters. In recent years, the region has faced three federally declared emergencies, each compounding the risks for communities like Kipnuk and Kwigillingok. These villages, built atop thawing permafrost, have long been susceptible to erosion and flooding. As global temperatures rise, the ground beneath them continues to weaken, making structures increasingly unstable during heavy rains and storm surges. The combination of climate-driven permafrost thaw and powerful typhoons has created a precarious situation for residents, who now face the question of whether to rebuild in the same location or invest in relocation.
A Fight Over Funding and Future Safety
Residents of Kipnuk and Kwigillingok are pushing back against FEMA’s plan to rebuild their villages in the flood-prone areas. Tribal leaders argue that the current site is no longer a safe option, citing the repeated destruction caused by storms and the lingering threats of toxic water and unstable ground. Despite their efforts, the federal agency has remained steadfast in its position, insisting that the legal framework prevents them from using public assistance funds for relocation. This has placed the villages in a difficult position, caught between the need to restore their communities and the desire to move to higher ground.
In internal discussions, some FEMA officials proposed a compromise: constructing elevated homes in the original locations and incorporating skis to enable mobility during winter. This idea, though practical, does not fully address the long-term risks posed by the melting permafrost and rising sea levels. The tribes, however, remain skeptical, emphasizing that relocating to a safer area is the only viable solution. Their decision to relocate was finalized in a recent vote, but the battle for approval continues, with the fate of their future hanging in the balance.
Disaster Resilience: A Cost-Saving Strategy
FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell once highlighted the financial benefits of investing in resilient infrastructure, stating that for every dollar spent on resilience, the federal government could save six dollars in future recovery costs. This principle aligns with the goals of two Biden-era laws aimed at shifting disaster recovery toward long-term preparedness. These measures included funding for elevated homes, property buyouts, and infrastructure upgrades designed to withstand stronger storms. Yet, under President Donald Trump’s administration, key programs were frozen, and two specific grants intended for Kipnuk and Kwigillingok were rescinded, leaving the communities with limited resources.
The Trump administration’s approach to disaster recovery prioritized state responsibility, arguing that local governments should bear the brunt of rebuilding efforts. This policy has created a backlog of funding for projects like the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, which is meant to support relocation and resilience initiatives. While the program has recently shown signs of recovery, its full potential remains constrained by the frozen budget allocations. For Kipnuk and Kwigillingok, the lack of support underscores a broader challenge: how to balance immediate needs with long-term survival in a rapidly changing climate.
Subsistence Needs and the Push for Relocation
Federal officials have cited the subsistence lifestyle of the villages as a reason to keep them in their current locations. Kipnuk and Kwigillingok rely heavily on hunting and fishing for food, which requires proximity to the ocean. This argument has been used to justify the continued use of flood zone land, even as the risk of future disasters looms. However, tribal leaders like Rayna Paul of Kipnuk assert that the current site is no longer safe, and that returning to it would force their people to endure the same fate again. “Our people know that’s no longer safe,” Paul said, highlighting the community’s determination to avoid repeating history.
“People don’t want to go back to the current village that the state and FEMA are pushing us to rebuild, rebuild, rebuild in place,” said Kipnuk tribal administrator Rayna Paul. “Our people know that’s no longer safe.”
Despite their resolve, the path to relocation is fraught with obstacles. In February, the state government of Alaska formally requested FEMA to provide permanent housing for the villages, but the approval process is still underway. Without this support, the tribes risk being forced to rebuild in the same vulnerable location, perpetuating a cycle of destruction. The situation reflects a larger issue in disaster management: the tension between immediate recovery and sustainable resilience.
Political Advocacy and the Search for Flexibility
Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski, who chairs the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, has called for the federal government to grant “flexibilities” to displaced Alaska Native tribes. In a statement, Murkowski’s communications director, Hannah Ray, noted the importance of allowing communities to rebuild in safer locations. This sentiment is echoed by advocates like Sheryl Musgrove, director of the Alaska Climate Justice Program, who criticized the practice of rebuilding in the same flood zone. “Spending federal dollars to rebuild a community in the same place they were wiped out sounds crazy,” Musgrove said, adding that the legal restrictions may limit the ability to invest in long-term solutions.
As the debate over funding and relocation continues, the fate of Kipnuk and Kwigillingok serves as a microcosm of the broader struggle facing disaster-prone regions in the United States. The villages’ fight highlights the need for updated policies that prioritize resilience over repeated reconstruction in high-risk areas. With climate change accelerating, the question is no longer whether to rebuild—but where, and how. For now, the answer remains uncertain, as the tribes await a decision that could determine their future for generations to come.