These Alaska villages were swept away by a typhoon. They’re fighting with FEMA to not rebuild in the flood zone

An Unprecedented Disaster in the Arctic

When Tropical Storm Merbok swept across the western coast of Alaska in September 2022, many local residents believed they were witnessing a rare natural disaster. In reality, however, it was merely the beginning of a multi-year crisis involving climate change, coastal erosion, and contentious debates regarding the reconstruction of Indigenous communities in the American Arctic.

In coastal villages such as Golovin, Newtok, Shaktoolik, and many others, dozens of homes sustained severe damage and essential infrastructure was destroyed, while seawater surged deep inland. Many roads vanished overnight. Areas once considered safe now face a constant threat of flooding.

However, it is not merely the aftermath of the natural disaster that troubles the residents. They are also grappling with a complex bureaucratic battle against the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)—the federal agency responsible for disaster recovery assistance in the United States.

Residents argue that FEMA’s current regulations could force them to rebuild their homes and infrastructure in the very areas that have already proven to be extremely vulnerable to the risks of rising sea levels and future storm surges.

Typhoon Merbok and the Historic Devastation

Typhoon Merbok is considered one of the most powerful storms to ever impact Alaska.

Unlike the familiar imagery of tropical storms in the tropics, Merbok tracked northward and merged with unique meteorological conditions over the Bering Sea. The result was a relentless barrage of massive waves—towering several meters high—pounding the Alaskan coastline for hours on end.

Many areas recorded record-breaking water levels. Indigenous communities, whose livelihoods depend on fishing, hunting, and harvesting wild foods, were severely affected.

Thousands of residents lost power, and clean water supplies were disrupted. Fuel storage facilities, schools, airport runways, and public infrastructure sustained heavy damage.

For many residents, the storm was not merely an extreme natural event, but a stark warning that their traditional way of life is changing faster than ever before.

Climate change is making Alaska fragile.

Alaska has long been regarded as one of the regions most severely impacted by global climate change.

Average temperatures in the state are rising significantly faster than the global average. Melting permafrost is causing the ground to become unstable. Meanwhile, the winter sea ice—which historically served as a natural “shield” against ocean waves—is also shrinking rapidly.

In the past, sea ice formed during the winter helped absorb the majority of wave energy before it reached the shore. Today, the ice season arrives later and ends earlier, leaving coastal communities directly exposed to the full force of the ocean.

As a result, coastal erosion is occurring at an alarming rate.

In some areas, the coastline is retreating inland by several meters each year. Homes that once stood hundreds of meters from the water’s edge are now mere tens of meters away.

Many climate experts warn that storms similar to Merbok could occur more frequently in the future as ocean temperatures continue to rise.

Why do residents not want to rebuild in flood-prone areas?

Following natural disasters, FEMA often provides funding to restore damaged structures. However, federal assistance programs come with numerous strict regulations.

In many cases, funding is designed to restore infrastructure at its original location—or close to it. This approach facilitates a faster and less costly recovery process in the short term.

But for communities in Alaska, this presents a major problem.

Residents argue that rebuilding in areas already ravaged by rising seas is tantamount to setting themselves up for the next disaster.

“We don’t want to rebuild, only to watch everything get washed away once again a few years later,” a local community leader stated during meetings with federal agencies.

Many residents wish to relocate essential facilities—such as schools, health centers, utility systems, and housing—to higher ground, further inland from the coast.

However, relocating an entire community is an extremely costly and complex undertaking.

FEMA’s Difficult Problem

From FEMA’s perspective, relocating an entire village is no simple task.

The cost of constructing new infrastructure in Alaska is often many times higher than in other states due to harsh geographical conditions and remote locations.

Many villages lack road connections to the national transportation network; consequently, construction materials must be transported by aircraft or ship.

A comprehensive relocation project can cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

Furthermore, FEMA operates under regulations established by the U.S. Congress. The agency does not always have the discretionary authority to reallocate funds from recovery efforts to long-term resettlement.

For this reason, many projects are approved for repair or reconstruction rather than for the relocation of entire communities.

However, local leaders argue that this approach is no longer appropriate given the current realities of climate change.

Disappearing Communities

Some Alaskan villages have become symbols of the struggle for survival in the face of climate change.

For years, the indigenous community in Newtok has grappled with severe erosion. The Ninglick River has steadily encroached upon the land, threatening homes and public infrastructure.

After decades of advocacy, Newtok finally began the process of relocating to a new settlement named Mertarvik.

This is regarded as one of the first climate-change-driven relocations in the United States.

However, that journey spanned decades and consumed immense resources.

Other communities now fear they will have to undergo a similar process.

Alaska Natives and Their Connection to Their Homeland

For many Alaska Native communities, relocation is not merely a technical or financial matter.

It is also a story of cultural identity.

Coastal villages have endured for generations. Residents are deeply connected to their ancestral lands—to their hunting and fishing grounds, and to cultural traditions passed down over hundreds of years.

Leaving their homeland is not an easy decision.

Many elders express heartbreak as they witness the places tied to their community’s collective memory gradually vanish beneath the rising waters and erosion.

Meanwhile, the younger generation faces the reality that the future of their community may depend on moving to a new home.

The Battle for the Long-Term Future

Local leaders are urging the federal government to change its approach.

They argue that disaster recovery funds should be utilized more flexibly, allowing communities to invest in sustainable solutions rather than merely restoring the status quo.

From this perspective, rebuilding in safer areas may be costly initially but will save money in the long run by minimizing damage from future disasters.

Many scientists, urban planners, and environmental organizations also agree that U.S. disaster policies need to be adjusted to reflect the new reality of climate change.

Phenomena once considered “rare natural disasters” are becoming increasingly common.

Consequently, recovery strategies must prioritize long-term resilience rather than simply recreating what has been lost.

Alaska – The Microcosm of the Global Crisis

The story of Alaska’s villages is not merely a local issue.

From small island nations in the Pacific to coastal cities across Asia, Europe, and the Americas, millions of people are facing similar challenges.

Rising sea levels, stronger storms, more frequent flooding, and coastal erosion are forcing governments around the world to rethink their approaches to urban planning and disaster response.

What was once considered a distant prospect has now become a reality for many communities.

Alaska stands at the forefront of this crisis.

Nearly four years after Super Typhoon Merbok devastated the coast of western Alaska, many communities are still grappling with the recovery process. Yet their struggle is not merely about repairing the damage caused by a natural disaster, but also a fight to shape their future.

Local residents want to ensure that government investments help them live more safely for decades to come, rather than forcing them to continue subsisting in areas that are increasingly vulnerable to climate change.

While FEMA must balance regulations, budgets, and legal liabilities, Alaskan communities are sending a clear message: they do not want to simply rebuild what was lost. They want to build a future capable of withstanding the harsh climatic shifts of the 21st century.

This debate is likely to shape how the United States responds to natural disasters for years to come. And the small villages of Alaska may well become a model for a larger question facing the entire world: when nature changes so rapidly, should we restore the past or prepare for the future?