Homeland Security Watch

News and analysis of critical issues in homeland security

March 3, 2009

Anticipating Disaster

Filed under: Budgets and Spending,Preparedness and Response — by Philip J. Palin on March 3, 2009

The President’s budget proposes $20 billion for federal disaster relief.  According to A New Era of Responsibilty,  “In the past, budgets assumed that there would not be any natural disaster in our Nation that would necessitate Federal help – no major earthquakes, hurricanes, floods or man-made disasters.  This omission is irresponsible…”

The omission also reflects how public expectations for a federal role in disaster response are evolving. The number of Presidential Disaster Declarations is increasing over time. (The total number of Disaster Declarations per year is available from FEMA.)

Between 2002 and 2007 the average number of Disaster Declarations per year was 57.4.  For the prior five-year period the average was 50.6. For the period 1993-1998 there was an average of 42 Disaster Declarations per year. It is difficult to track federal expenditures for disaster response, but a recent Congressional Research Service study found that emergency supplemental funding for disasters had increased from roughly $6 billion in 1998 to over $467 billion in 2008.

Several factors have influenced the increased federal role, including the escalating impact and cost of disasters, intensive national media coverage, and the political vulnerability of appearing to be less than fully responsive to local disasters. Some express concern that federal responsiveness is discouraging more aggressive local and state action that could reduce vulnerability to disasters. (See Feds and Fire from the Los Angeles Times)

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • Print
  • LinkedIn

1 Comment »

Comment by William R. Cumming

March 5, 2009 @ 7:58 pm

Presidential declarations for small disasters (the record ever was 26 houses in Santa Barbara, CA)are undermining mitigation, states ability to develop through EMAC and other systems stronger response and recovery capability, and even federally chartered NGO’s like the ARC. Several approaches to eliminating the problem could be a reinvigorated assessment system that does not have FEMA competing against itself because states that do less are more likely to have an event beyond their capability when they continue to do as little as possible for their citizens. This has become a major issue of federalism. My suggestion is that unless STATE and LOCAL governmental operations are disrupted until the 25 smallest states have actually spent $10M or the larger states $25M, and immediate lifesaving is not at question or mass care then the federal government should only declare events after receiving proof that the STATES have actually obligated at those levels. After all the Stafford Act is not really a crisis management or catastrophic even statute but is designed theoretically as only supplemental to STATE efforts.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>