Two new reports shed devastating light on the federal government’s response to Hurricane Katrina. If you imagine a novel co-authored by Stephen King and Franz Kafka you will begin to understand how bad it really was.

The reports, issued earlier this month by the White House and the House of Representatives, have more than 200 findings and recommendations on the role of the federal government.

Yet their combined bottom line is a simple if unspoken one: If disaster strikes, the only safe assumption for Americans is that they are on their own. Help might be there, but it might not.

Katrina was undoubtedly big. It was the most destructive natural disaster in our nation’s history, with property damage expected to approach $100 billion. The storm and resultant flooding killed about 1,330 people, making Katrina the deadliest natural event in the U.S. since Hurricane San Felipe in 1928.

The flooding of New Orleans was as challenging a natural disaster as has occurred on U.S. soil. Roughly 80 percent of the nation’s 35th-largest city was under six to 20 feet of water.

So even the most competent relief effort would have been unable to protect people in the stricken area from serious hardship. The problem was that the current relief structure actually made things worse.

The main problem appears to be that complacent local officials assumed the feds were up to the job. They weren’t, and nobody was ready to fill the gap.

One could spend a long time documenting the horror stories. The medical situation was so desperate for the 15,000 victims sheltered at the Convention Center that looting may have saved their lives. Dr. Gregory Henderson, a New Orleans pathologist, led a pharmacist and another doctor in a raid on a local Walgreen’s. As armed police held an angry mob at bay, they scooped up all the drugs and supplies they could carry.

While reports of violence in the wake of the storm were exaggerated, first-hand accounts reveal that not all such stories were wrong. At Charity Hospital, evacuation efforts were halted by gunfire, as snipers took aim at rescue workers.

“I was never afraid of wind, water, fire, hunger or disease,” wrote Dr. Ruth Berggren, recounting her experience at the hospital. “My moments of fear came when I was confronted by agitated, fearful human beings bearing firearms.”

While compelling in the details of what happened, the reports fail to lay out real solutions for keeping it from happening again. They are replete with bureaucratic double-speak and bromides, and offer little more than the false promise that a presentation with enough bullet points can repair a broken Federal Emergency Management Agency. They were written by the federal government, and are infused with the conceit that the federal government is the answer.

There is, of course, an appropriate role for the federal government in disaster relief. It provided invaluable assistance at times. The Coast Guard, for example, heroically evacuated more than 33,000 people from the Gulf area, 12,000 by air. Many government agencies contributed significantly to the relief effort, but as the reports sadly document, their efforts just weren’t good enough.

The recommendations aren’t likely to make much difference. For example, a key point made in the White House analysis is that the military should be given an expanded role in severe disasters. But this is the same recommendation that emerged after a review of the abysmal response to Hurricane Andrew in 1992. If it didn’t work last time, why will it work this time? On that, the reports are silent.

And it hardly fills one with confidence to discover that our own military was unable to effectively communicate with National Guard units operating in the same area. National Guard troops were commanded by their respective states, while the Pentagon controlled active-duty units.

The lack of a unified command meant that the two groups often didn’t know what the other was doing, or what resources each had. Why didn’t anyone conceive of an eventuality where communication with National Guard units might be valuable?

We might fix that problem, but you can bet another will emerge. The fact is that centralized governments have always been terrible at delivering services at the local level, which is one reason why our Founding Fathers divided powers among federal, state and local governments.

The knowledge, expertise and motivation required to deal effectively with local conditions is possessed by local officials. If the federal government shouldn’t run cities in normal circumstances, it shouldn’t do so in emergencies either.

More than finger-pointing, we need a rational and explicit discussion apportioning responsibility among the federal, state and local governments. In most cases, the federal government should be the last line of defense.

Imagine if FEMA didn’t exist, and everyone acted on the truth that the federal government is unable to function well in almost every sphere. Cities and states would have to provide for their own people and have plans to help them in an emergency. Citizens would recognize that they have personal responsibility to protect themselves and their property.

Nursing homes and hospitals would recognize that they need to have their own evacuation plans. Homeless shelters, local governments and other aid organizations would make it part of their mission to protect the most disadvantaged among us. We would all be safer.

Now act on that thought. The next time disaster strikes, you and your community should behave as if you are on your own, because you may well be, for quite some time. Start planning for that today.

Mr. Hassett is a columnist for Bloomberg News.