The Center for American Progress released this new report: Disastrous Spending: Federal Disaster-Relief Expenditures Rise Amid More Extreme Weather.
Here isanother take on this report: Disasters Caused by Climate Change Cost Every American Household $400 per Year.
Related articles
Based on the recent question I posed about what documents readers are/are not interested in, and fueled by several conversations with federal officials and contractors dealing with the aftermath of H. Sandy, I wonder whether the U.S. emergency management system at the federal level has become excessively demanding. And are the directives and requirements excessive with regard to current state and local capabilities and budgets?
My personal view is that President Policy Directive #8 (PPD8), issued in march 2011, and the various documents and requirement flowing from it, was the tipping point. It seems to me that the directives get more abstract, difficult, and lengthy, yet the the staff and budgets at various agencies, organizations –and particularly state and local government–are sloping downward. Added to those problems, federal grants are down significantly and many federally-supported educational efforts have been cut.
Even with all domains of society involved in disaster response and recovery, the likelihood of achieving the lofty goals and objectives of the above-mentioned directives and frameworks with current resources is not promising.
Now, what is your view about this topic? I am curious if I am alone in climbing out this branch of the tree!
NOTE: Be sure to read the comments. They make the point better than I did.
A few days ago, I posted news about two new resources: (1) NFPA 1600 and (2) National Mitigation Framework from FEMA. In reviewing the hit count for recent postings, I see that the first mentioned got 278 hits and the second one got 10. of 5/8.
That is quite a sizable difference and I would be interesting in knowing why (1) is of so much greater interest than (2). The Diva keeps trying to guess what readers will find interesting and useful, but it is not an easy task!
Update: As Bill Cumming notes in his comments below, “NFPA 1600 is probably the best known voluntary standard in the EM and public safety and Fire Service community. It has evolved over time and now is a mandatory standard in some States and local government circles. Thus the wide interest in its coverage and evolution.”
News article from HS Wire on May 6, 2013: Finding the Right Balance for Natural Hazard Mitigation.
Uncertainty issues are paramount in the assessment of risks posed by natural hazards and in developing strategies to alleviate their consequences.Researchers describe a model that estimates the balance between costs and benefits of mitigation — efforts to reduce losses by taking action now to reduce consequences later — following natural disasters, as well as rebuilding defenses in their aftermath.
The full journal article from the Society and Industrial Applied Mathematics is available for a fee.
FEMA just issues some new National Planning Frameworks. But I find the release rather confusing in that it is hard to tell what is new and what is reworked.
Update: It has taken me a while to figure it out, but now I know that the National Mitigation Framework and the National Preparedness Framework are new. The National Response Plan is revised and now showing as the second edition,; it is dated May 2013. I am not sure yet how much different it is from the first edition.
_________________________________________
National Planning Frameworks: How We Work Together to Build, Sustain, and Deliver Capabilities to Ensure a Secure and Resilient Nation
Today, the Federal Government and its partners released three of the five National Planning Frameworks directed in Presidential Policy Directive 8: National Preparedness. These National Planning Frameworks document the roles and responsibilities of the whole community in all facets of national preparedness and illustrate how we work together to support one another before, during, and after an emergency. The benefit of this unified effort is a more informed, shared understanding of risks, needs, and capabilities across the whole community; and, in the end, a more secure and resilient nation.
There is one Framework for each of the five mission areas: Prevention, Protection, Mitigation, Response and Recovery. The National Disaster Recovery Framework was the first to be released (September 2011), and the National Protection Framework is currently under development to ensure it aligns with emerging national protection policy. The National Response Framework is based on the familiar 2008 version.
You can download the National Planning Frameworks and view the tutorial at www.fema.gov/national-planning-frameworks.
While doing some housekeeping in my personal library ( also known as a storage locker), I turned up this great article. I think it is a terrific article and urge you to read it.
Although the date on this article – Public Leadership In Times of Crisis, by Arjen Boin and Paul ‘t Hart – — is 2003, I find it very pertinent to issues we are dealing with right now in the post-Sandy environment.
Note: A reader has pointed out a book by the two authors above, plus two more, published in 2005. See this Amazon link for details:
As always, your comments are invited.
Over the years, I sometimes have wondered what happens to disaster-impacted communities that are turned down for a declaration? That is an area that has received very little attention from researchers, as far as I know. Well, here is one account of how a community fared, and the results are surprisingly positive. See:
Region probably did OK without FEMA money
GLADE SPRING, Va. — Residents and community leaders were bitterly disappointed two years ago when Virginia was twice denied financial assistance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency after tornadoes ripped through the state, killing four people in this area.
But now, with the destruction in the rear-view mirror and recovery efforts forging ahead, local leaders say that perhaps not receiving FEMA assistance was a blessing in disguise.
“We pretty much agree within the group that it’s good we didn’t qualify for FEMA,” said Barbara Farmer, chairwoman of the Washington County Long Term Recovery Group, which was formed to help manage the crisis. “[We got to] see how the community came together and churches sent work groups in.”
About $653,000 came in from the state, through the governor’s disaster recovery fund, and the rest of the $1.5 million in recovery efforts spent locally was raised locally.
“We were able to be a little more flexible with the spending,” said Pokey Harris, Washington County’s emergency management coordinator. “We were able to meet more particular, individual needs of people. I wouldn’t say that federal funds would not have helped, but we do know there are a lot of stipends, hurdles and regulations.”
Note: thanks to a reader, here is a direct link to a FEMA-issued Non-Stafford Act Recovery Guide that I did not know about.
Two recent mentions of the role of EPA, no doubt in connection with the recent West Texas explosion.
(1) To Prevent Chemical Disasters, Empower the E.P.A.
The explosion this month at a fertilizer plant in West, Tex., should be another wake-up call to lawmakers. Rep. George Miller, the chairman of the House committee on the workforce, is calling for scrutiny of the 6,000 fertilizer plants similar to the one that exploded. The push for safer conditions should not end there.Disasters from chemical hazards can be avoided by reducing the volume of dangerous chemical used, switching to less dangerous chemicals and enforcing high-quality training. Congress should pass chemical safety legislation to make those steps happen.
Many agencies currently have some responsibility for hazardous chemical safety, but Congress should make clear that the Environmental Protection Agency is in charge. It is the nation’s leading environmental enforcer, with the most trained staff and expertise to address chemical safety.In fact, the E.P.A. already has some power to protect public health, under part of the Clean Air Act called the general duty clause.
The agency has successfully used it in enforcement cases, including against a fertilizer plant in Port Neal, Iowa, where a 1994 explosion of ammonium nitrate killed four workers and injured 18. The E.P.A. issued an enforcement alert in 1998 on the chemical safety hazards of ammonium nitrate, including six standards and practices intended to prevent accidental explosions. If Congress gave the agency more explicit powers, it could enforce these and other standards to prevent future disasters.
(2) New GAO report, titled: EPA Has Increased Efforts to Assess and Control Chemicals but Could Strengthen Its Approach
UPDATE: On May 1, this news clipping mentions a CRS memo on the topic of chemical plant safety, but no where does it mention how to obtain a copy.
Thanks to Bill Cumming for obtaining a copy of the memo, which is here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/557127-crs-rmp-update-11-16-12.html
See this article titled: Homeowners in Flood Zones Opt to Rebuild, Not Move
A proposal to buy the damaged homes of New Yorkers who want to relocate after Hurricane Sandy is finding few takers, as most residents opt to rebuild, state officials said on Friday.
“It’s up to the homeowner, and the vast bulk of homeowners are deciding to stay right where they are and rebuild,” Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo said at a news conference in Albany.
The state has allocated an initial sum of $171 million to buy homes in low-lying areas, part of an ambitious effort by Mr. Cuomo to reshape coastal land in the face of more frequent extreme weather. The governor has repeatedly warned about the threat of climate change.
“We can never make up for the hardship that people went through,” he said, “but we can use this as a learning and an improving opportunity.”
About 10,000 homes in the state were substantially damaged or destroyed by Hurricane Sandy, according to Cuomo administration officials. They estimate that the owners of perhaps 10 percent to 15 percent of them will pursue buyouts; that is the same share they projected when Mr. Cuomo was developing the plan in February.
“The only place where more than just a small handful want to relocate is a couple of communities on Staten Island,” Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, said at the same news conference. “Otherwise, just about everybody — you take Nassau, Suffolk, Queens — they all want to rebuild and come back, and I think that’s great. That shows the spirit of New York.”
NOTE: I asked Samantha Medlock of the Association of State Floodplain Managers what that organization thought about the buyout option and here is what she said ( April 29):
All mitigation options need to be available in the disaster recovery toolbox, from in situ elevation, floodproofing, and building codes, to buyouts, which are preferable wherever possible as the most permanent solution. Too often, structures are elevated or flood proofed only to face increasing risk as sea-levels rise or riverine flood heights increase. Buyout and relocation is the most effective long-term solution.
The American Planning Association (APA), in association with its two chapters most affected by Hurricane Sandy—the New York Metro and New Jersey chapters—hosted a series of workshops during the week of April 1-5, 2013. This endeavor was financially supported by APA and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Regional colleges and universities hosted the sessions by providing teaching facilities and logistics support. The workshops had these themes:
Four of the workshops were five hours in length and a one-day symposium for urban planners was eight hours. Sessions varied in size from 20 to 50 attendees. Professional planners and floodplain managers earned continuing education credit from their respective organizations—APA and the Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM). Other participants included architects, engineers, attorneys, developers and municipal officials from throughout the Hurricane Sandy-affected region, extending from New York City to Atlantic City.
The workshop presenter team are also members of the author team for the new version of the APA’s 1998 guidebook on post-disaster recovery and reconstruction. They are: James Schwab, AICP, American Planning Association; Barry Hokanson, Independent Consultant; Laurie Johnson, AICP, Laurie Johnson Consulting | Research; Ken Topping, FAICP, Topping Associates International and California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo; and Lincoln Walther, FAICP, CSA Ocean Sciences Inc. Both the original guidebook and the new research have been substantially supported by FEMA.
Recovery Diva 