As New York City began addressing the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy almost ten years ago, the mayor’s office asked me and my colleagues at Columbia University to lead a study of the city’s food distribution networks. The storm had exposed vulnerabilities in the city’s food distribution chains and, by extension, numerous policy and regulatory limitations, including cumbersome business requirements and transportation restrictions.
For instance, we found that grocery stores lacked the flexibility to quickly source from alternative suppliers when their normal supply chains were disrupted. They also faced restrictions on moving goods across state lines. Critically, we observed that fragmented regulatory approaches created unnecessary hurdles for businesses trying to respond to the crisis.
Following disasters of this magnitude, policymakers frequently discover how regulations can obstruct recovery. Unfortunately, these insights often fade as headlines move on. The lessons from Sandy certainly did, leaving New York and other major cities vulnerable to future crises—as demonstrated by the COVID-19 pandemic.
When responding to natural disasters, government agencies need to move beyond the standard emergency management procedures like stockpiling essential goods or issuing evacuation orders. They must also examine how regulations and governance structures might hinder crisis response. Most importantly, they need to maintain these improvements after the immediate emergency passes.
The storm’s impact revealed how rigid distinctions between regulatory authorities can impede effective disaster response and recovery. Rebuilding efforts required coordination among multiple agencies with overlapping jurisdictions and sometimes conflicting priorities.
