<DOC>
[105 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:52633.wais]
S. Hrg. 105-915
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY REFORMS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
CLEAN AIR, WETLANDS, PRIVATE PROPERTY
AND NUCLEAR SAFETY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 23, 1998
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
<snowflake>
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
52-633 CC WASHINGTON : 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
JOHN H. CHAFEE, Rhode Island, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia MAX BAUCUS, Montana
ROBERT SMITH, New Hampshire DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York
DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Idaho FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma HARRY REID, Nevada
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming BOB GRAHAM, Florida
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas BARBARA BOXER, California
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado RON WYDEN, Oregon
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
Jimmie Powell, Staff Director
J. Thomas Sliter, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property, and Nuclear
Safety
JAMES M. INHOFE, North Carolina, Chairman
TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas BOB GRAHAM, Florida
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama BARBARA BOXER, California
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
JULY 23, 1998
OPENING STATEMENTS
Chafee, Hon. John H., U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island 9
Graham, Hon. Bob., U.S. Senator from the State of Florida........ 7, 15
Hutchinson, Hon. Tim., U.S. Senator from the State of Arkansas... 3
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 1
Sessions, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama...... 20
WITNESSES
Ashwood, Albert, Director, Oklahoma Department of Civil Emergency
Management, Oklahoma City, OK.................................. 17
Prepared statement........................................... 37
Daub, Hal, Mayor, Omaha, NE, on behalf of the National League of
Cities......................................................... 12
Prepared statement........................................... 31
Myers, Joseph, Director, Florida Division of Emergency
Management, Tallahassee, FL, on behalf of the National
Emergency Management Association............................... 15
Prepared statement........................................... 35
Summers, Dan, Director, Department of Emergency Management, New
Hanover County, Wilmington, North Carolina..................... 20
Checklist, Keys to Hurricane Survival........................ 54
Memorandum of understanding, North Carolina agencies and FEMA 40
Prepared statement........................................... 39
Resolutions.................................................. 48
Witt, James Lee, Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency... 4
List, Project Impact......................................... 31
Prepared statement........................................... 25
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Letters:
American Public Works Association............................ 57
National League of Cities.................................... 34
Statement, State Floodplain Managers............................. 58
(iii)
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY REFORMS
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 23, 1998
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property, and
Nuclear Safety,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9 a.m. in room
406, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. James M. Inhofe (chairman of
the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Inhofe, Hutchinson, Sessions, Graham, and
Chafee [ex officio].
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. The committee will come to order.
We'll call this meeting to order. Unfortunately, as I told
James Lee, we're going to have one vote at 9:15 and then we may
have another one at 9:40. If we do, we'll keep going through
9:30, go over to vote twice and come back. Unfortunately, I
also have a conflict with the Senate Armed Services Committee
and I will have to be going back and forth between the two.
Today's hearing is an oversight hearing on the Federal
Emergency Management Agency and, specifically, to draft FEMA
reform legislation. It is drafted by myself, Senator Bob
Graham, who is the ranking member of this subcommittee. I would
like to thank him for his work, and I know that down in Florida
they have lots of problems with extreme weather.
James Lee, you've had to go to Florida on numerous
occasions because of hurricanes and floods. In Oklahoma we have
tornadoes and floods, and then of course our disaster in
Oklahoma City. This would be a good time to say that James Lee
Witt has been one of my favorite people for a long time. When
we had our terrible disaster in Oklahoma City at the Murrah
Federal Office Building, he spent down a lot of time there,
which was so appreciated by all of us in Oklahoma.
Concerning this legislation we are considering today, we
are going to do a markup in another week or so. It has two main
titles: the first authorizes the Predisaster Hazard Mitigation
Program to help communities plan for disasters before they
happen as opposed to reacting to them afterwards. The second
title provides for a number of streamlining and cost reduction
measures, which will help bring in line the funds Congress ends
up appropriating.
Project Impact is an innovative program in which FEMA is
working with local communities to help them prepare for
disasters. It's interesting when you look and see that so many
of these things are predictable. I was surprised to find out
that a percentage of these disasters that can actually be
predicted. We can be much more effective in disaster aid if we
are able to prepare for them in advance.
Our draft legislation authorizes funding for the program
for 5 years with a sunset at the end of the period. We do have
our funding in this legislation on the basis of $50, $40, $30,
and $20 million over that 5-year period. There may be some
discussion on this and some differences of opinion, but I, as
chairman of this committee, feel very strongly that we're going
to be able to adhere to that.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe, U.S. Senator from the State of
Oklahoma
Today's hearing is an oversight hearing on the Federal Emergency
Management Agency and specifically on draft FEMA reform legislation
that has been circulated by myself and the subcommittee ranking member
Senator Graham.
I would like to thank Senator Graham for his work and effort on
this issue. I know with the floods and hurricanes in Florida that the
Federal Emergency Response Program is very important to him and the
State of Florida. It is also important to the State of Oklahoma with
our tornadoes and floods. In addition, FEMA was very responsive in the
aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing.
The draft legislation that we are considering today has two main
Titles. The first authorizes the Predisaster Hazard Mitigation Program.
This Program helps communities plan for disasters before they strike
which will reduce the post hazard costs associated with disasters. The
second Title provides a number of streamlining and cost reduction
measures which will help bring in' to line the funds Congress ends up
appropriating through Supplemental Budgets every time we have a major
disaster.
I would like to spend a few minutes discussing two key provisions
in the Predisaster Mitigation Program that I believe are very
important. They relate to the Project Impact Program which we will be
hearing more about from Director Witt and the other witnesses.
Project Impact is an innovative program where FEMA is working with
local communities to help them prepare for disasters. It began last
year with seven pilots and was expanded this year to include one
Project Impact community in every State.
Our draft legislation authorizes funding for the program for 5
years, with a sunset at the end of the 5-years. Based on the costs of
the first 50 pilots, the funds authorized will pay for an additional
300 communities. Although I do not expect FEMA to fund 300 new Project
Impact sites. Instead I expect FEMA to work on how best to devolve this
program to the local communities over the next 5 years. If this program
is going to be successful than it must evolve into a State and locally
run program.
Some may question why a sunset for a program like this is
necessary, so let me explain. In the legislation we require the GAO to
conduct a study of the program and report back to the Congress in 3
years. We also ask FEMA to report back on the success of the program.
It is my intent that these reports make specific recommendations for
the next phase of Project Impact. The House legislation only authorizes
Project Impact for 3 years, I felt it was necessary to authorize the
program for 5 years which will give Congress plenty of time to
authorize the next phase of Project Impact.
This program can not be another Federal bureaucratic program that
continues to mushroom without clear direction and with escalating
costs. At this point no one has enough experience to predict how this
program should look in 5 years. As FEMA says, this is not just another
big government program, and Congress should not treat it as one.
The funding levels in the draft bill are consistent with the plan
to have 50 sites selected this year and another 50 sites next year. The
current appropriated level for the 50 sites this year was $25 million.
Next year we authorize up to $50 million. We also include sufficient
funding over the remaining years to select additional sites if needed
to highlight specific geographic areas or specific mitigation plans,
along with the funding needed to begin the Revolution.
At today's hearing we have with us the Director of FEMA, James Lee
Witt and representatives of States and local governments who will
provide their views and perspectives on the draft Bill and FEMA in
general.
With that, I would recognize the Senator from Arkansas,
Senator Hutchinson.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIM HUTCHINSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS
Senator Hutchinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
your calling this hearing and your leadership on these issues.
I want to also take the opportunity to participate today. I
know it's a very busy, busy time with floor activity. I
appreciate the hard work that you've done and the hard work
that Senator Graham has done in producing legislation that
continues Project Impact which will continue to prepare
communities to mitigate damages from natural disasters.
I'll just also add that it's always good to see James Lee
Witt and, as a fellow Arkansan, be able to visit with him. Like
you, he's one of my favorite people. I think he's done an
outstanding job at FEMA and I want to applaud him. When he took
over FEMA 5 years ago it was less than a respected
organization. I think probably apart from the IRS it was one of
the least popular Federal agencies. I think James Lee Witt
deserves great credit in turning that around. I understand that
at the time he took that agency, if you wore a FEMA T-shirt or
jacket it was a dangerous thing to do. I know that's not the
case anymore.
Last year when tornadoes ripped through Arkansas, FEMA I
think gets an A-plus grade. Their reaction was outstanding.
People were receiving checks within days of the disaster. At
times, it is difficult to identify owners of property because
of handshake sales, yet to my knowledge, there was little or no
complaint in the filling out of requests. It's been an
outstanding turnaround for what is a very important agency to
our country. When we had the Fort Smith tornado, it was the
year prior to that, FEMA was right there and once again did an
outstanding job.
Today, we're considering the direction of Project Impact. I
think it is one of the most important missions today of FEMA.
In Eastern Arkansas, as Mr. Witt knows, we have one of the
largest earthquake faults in the country which has the
potential of destroying nearly everything in its path. Because
there has been such little activity along that fault for the
last 150 years, we're faced with a big problem. We have a huge
fault with a huge destructive potential but it has laid
virtually dormant for such a long period that when it finally
does break the destruction could be beyond imagination. And
unlike California which has been hit with earthquakes
continually for years, those along the fault have made little
preparation for seismic activities. So if an earthquake were to
hit right now, there would be no bridge across the Mississippi
from St. Louis all the way down to Southern Arkansas near
Louisiana. Memphis would virtually be destroyed as would much
of Eastern Arkansas.
So with these concerns as well as the yearly threat of
tornadoes, preparation for disaster mitigation is of paramount
importance. I want to express my concern for Project Impact. I
appreciate the work that has been done to reauthorize this
program for another 5 years. There is a sunset provision, I
think that's fine and I support the chairman in that. I think
there is no intent to end that program, though we need to
reevaluate, as with any program such as this, to ensure that
over the course of the next 5 years the direction of the
program continues to be what it should be. But I do think we
have to be careful with an inadvertent ending of what I think
is a very, very important programs.
I look forward to working with the chairman and the ranking
member in the reauthorization of Project Impact. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Hutchinson.
We have two panels. The first panel will be just one
individual but he is accompanied by two of his associates, the
Director of FEMA, James Lee Witt. In the second panel we will
have four individuals, one from Oklahoma, Albert Ashwood, a
very fine individual, and Hal Daub--is Hal here yet? There you
are. Hal used to have in the House of Representatives the
office next to me. Some of you people with Hal probably don't
even know that he was considered to be the Father of the Notch
Babies when he was here.
[Laughter.]
Senator Inhofe. So with that, we will introduce Mr. Witt
for any comments he would like to make. Your written statement
will be submitted for the record in its entirety.
We will have other Senators coming in. All of the members
are represented here by their staff who will report back. But I
think we're going to have other members coming in. I have to
say that this meeting is being held simultaneously with another
Environment and Public Works Committee meeting, so that's what
is making it difficult for our attendance.
Mr. Witt, we look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF JAMES LEE WITT, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY; ACCOMPANIED BY MICHAEL ARMSTRONG, ASSOCIATE
DIRECTOR FOR MITIGATION AND LACY SUITER, EXECUTIVE ASSOCIATE
DIRECTOR, RESPONSE AND RECOVERY
Mr. Witt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Hutchinson
thank you for being here. It's good to see a fellow Arkansan
and my Senator. Thank you for your support and thank the
members of this committee for their support. I just want to
thank you for the opportunity and express my appreciation for
the support Congress has continued to provide FEMA over these
last 5\1/2\ years.
I'll make my remarks brief so we'll have time for questions
and answers. I know how busy you are, and I would like to ask,
Mr. Chairman, my statement be placed in the record.
Senator Inhofe. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Witt. I'm very proud of our efforts at FEMA and the
assistance we have delivered and the message that we send to
the Nation that we really do care about what happens to the
people across the country and that help will be there if it's
needed. The future of emergency management and FEMA's role in
the future is what I want to talk about today.
I have been blessed to serve a President who cares deeply
about the affects of disasters on our people and our
communities, and a Congress that recognizes and supports our
efforts. And I'm equally pleased to serve an agency that really
does make a big difference in peoples lives.
Our staff has worked very hard. We've also been very
fortunate because we get to work with some of the very best
partners at State and local Governments across the country and
some of the best people at the local level in volunteer
organizations, public safety forces, emergency managers,
floodplain managers, fire services, and the private relief
organizations that help us so much during disasters, and the
local people in the communities that are forced to respond
under some of the very most pressing circumstances.
But, Mr. Chairman, during my time at FEMA I've had a really
wonderful opportunity to meet some outstanding people across
our country. I have met brave people after a disaster who have
determined to rebuild their homes and communities, and we
should really celebrate the spirit in which these people work
so hard to rebuild and their inspiration to us all to help them
more and to work harder for them.
Today, I hope you will join me in supporting these people
before a disaster occurs. Through Project Impact, our
predisaster mitigation program, we're working to make
meaningful changes in communities to reduce the impacts of
disasters. Hope doesn't have to follow tragedy. Hope can be
there before a disaster to make our schools, our businesses,
our homes, and our communities safer and stronger.
This is an historic hearing since your legislation provides
increased legislative authority for predisaster mitigation. We
appreciate the fact that the Senate draft bill is authorizing
this program. We would appreciate a 5-year authorization for
this program, with funding increasing rather than decreasing.
That would send a very important message to those partners out
there that we're working with to make a difference in those
communities and to strengthen them. This is a new approach and
this program needs to be funded at the level that allows FEMA
to leverage that public/private sector out there that's going
to be putting seed money into all these communities across the
country that we're working with.
Two other items. I strongly believe that this program
should not sunset. I believe we should report to you on the
program after the 5-year period and then have the committee
decide what course of action we should take in the future at
the end of that period.
Project Impact really needs to be its own separate account
in FEMA's budget, with administrative funds to support the
efforts at all levels. Project Impact is special. It is not
just another Federal grant program, it is a unique partnership
that brings communities together in a lot of different ways,
from spring break programs where students have gone out in the
communities to help their communities, like adopting storm
drains to keep them clean, minimize future floodings. Project
Impact is a catalyst for some of the best ideas around in these
communities. I would be pleased to give you a number of
examples of what we're doing in Project Impact as we continue
our discussions today.
As we move forward on Project Impact, we still need to
continue our post-disaster mitigation. In the aftermath of the
1993 floods, FEMA worked with the Administration and Congress
to initiate a property buy-out program that removed over 20,000
pieces of property from the floodplain and returned them to
open land-use management. In fact, Senator Chafee was one of
the leaders in this effort and was instrumental in helping to
achieve its passage.
Two years later, in 1995, these same areas that flooded
were flooded again, but no one lived there, we did not have to
spend a single dime on disaster costs, and those people did not
have to go through the frustration of losing everything that
they had worked all their life for. This meant that emergency
funds did not have to be spent protecting those same
structures. The disaster funds at the Federal, State, and local
level were not spent in repairing homes and rebuilding that
infrastructure in that area.
We appreciate the work that has been done in the Senate
subcommittee's draft bill. I want to thank your staff for all
the hard work that they put in on this which recognizes the
contribution mitigation makes to reducing future impacts. We
strongly endorse the increase in the 404 program. Under the
Senate draft bill, this amount is raised up to 20 percent from
15 percent. We believe this will have a significant and
immediate impact on reducing the disaster risk across the
Nation. This will provide greater resources to address the
repetitive flood losses that we have across our country and to
take other mitigation measures such as seismic retrofitting,
wind resistance, and preventive measures. I would be happy to
provide you with examples in how this works as well as we go
through today.
Let me close by saying we have streamlined our individual
assistance program, we have streamlined our entire process and
systems to make it more customer friendly and to serve our
customers better. But by doing this, just by doing the tele-
restoration centers where people call and apply by a 1-800
number saves us about $16 million a year by doing that. The
computer technology we're using with our inspectors now that
verifies application needs and the central processing that we
have put in place is saving $22.5 million a year.
Also, I think it's noteworthy to talk about the
improvements in how we have accelerated this. The housing
inspectors that go out and look at the damages after a person
calls and makes an application, puts it in the palm pad
computer, transmits it to central processing. It used to take
weeks and weeks to get that money out to help the individual.
Now we get it out to them in seven to 10 days. But the good
side of it is how well we can track it. We have a better
ability now to track this with a financial management system
and have a good financial management track record.
Public assistance, Lacy Suiter, the Association Director,
to my right, and his office is working with the States in
streamlining the public assistance program. This new public
assistance program and the reengineering of it puts the
decisionmaking down in the local Government's hands and the
State Government's. The pilot programs that we have put in
place in Kentucky and in Florida are working extremely well.
I'm sure you'll hear more about that. So we would ask you to
help and encourage you to get this in place in the legislation.
We can do better. But I believe we have got to change the
way we deal with the disasters or we're going to be continually
paying over and over and over again in the same areas that have
been hit by disasters time and time again. We have to put an
end to the damage-repair-damage-repair cycle. Predisaster
mitigation and mitigation is the way to do this.
I want to thank you for your time. I deeply appreciate the
support that you have given me and FEMA and the staff since I
came into this job, and the confidence that you have shown in
us and the job that we do. It does matter and it does make a
difference to people. We'll be happy to answer any of your
questions.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Witt.
For the benefit of our fellow Senators up here, I would
like to go right up to 9:30, and when we get over there I
understand there will be two votes. That way we can knock them
both out with one short recess. We've been joined by the
ranking member of this committee, Senator Graham from Florida,
and the chairman of the full committee, Senator Chafee. I would
like to ask if they have any opening statements or comments to
make?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB GRAHAM,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Senator Graham. Senator, I appreciate your holding this
hearing. The whole issue of the avoidance or mitigation of
disasters has been one that people have felt intuitively was
important but which we at a policy level have not given
adequate attention to. I have a statement which I would like to
file for the record.
Senator Inhofe. Without objection.
Senator Graham. Thank you and particularly James Lee Witt
for the testimony today. If I could, Mr. Chairman, I have in my
experience in Florida and now in the U.S. Senate had an
opportunity to work with a number of the leadership and
professionals in the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and I
will say that James Lee Witt has brought a new standard of
ability and dedication to that position and has had an enormous
impact both within the Federal agency and I see it at the State
level. State officials see James Lee Witt and say that's the
role model that I want leading my emergency operation in my
State or in my community.
And so I could not be more appreciative or complimentary of
James Lee Witt for what he has contributed to our Nation and,
particularly, our ability to respond in the times of ultimate
crisis.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Graham. That's exactly
what I said in a less eloquent way.
[Laughter.]
[The prepared statement of Senator Graham follows:]
Statement of Hon. Bob Graham, U.S. Senator from the State of Florida
Chairman Inhofe and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to
join with you today to hear testimony on a very important matter,
disaster mitigation and the Senate's role in encouraging mitigation.
Since the outset of this year, I have been working closely with Senator
Inhofe to develop bipartisan legislation to more comprehensively
address the threats we face from disasters of all types. The bill is
composed of two (2) titles: (1 ) Title I seeks to reduce the impact of
disasters by authorizing a ``predisaster mitigation'' program; (2)
Title II seeks to streamline the current disaster assistance programs
to save administrative costs and to simplify the program for grant
recipients. Our witnesses have reviewed the initial draft of this
legislation, and come before us today to offer their comments and
suggestions to improve upon our efforts to better control both the
impact and the costs of disasters.
We will also hear details about the strategies that are being
pursued at the Federal, state and local levels to protect our nation
against the effects of all types of disasters. Again, I believe this to
be a critically important issue, both to my constituents in Florida and
to high-risk areas throughout the nation, and I am looking forward to
the testimony of our witnesses.
Our first witness today will be the Director of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), James Lee Witt. I am particularly
familiar with the actions of Director Witt and FEMA this year, because
Florida has experienced an unprecedented number of natural disasters
throughout the State. In February of this year, 42 lives were lost in
Central Florida as a result of the widespread destruction caused by
severe storms and tornadoes. These tornadoes were followed by statewide
floods, when many rivers reached record flood levels, and remained at
flood level for several weeks. Over the past 2 months, Florida has been
ravaged by statewide forest fires that were only recently contained to
a manageable level.
In each of these situations, FEMA mobilized quickly, in cooperation
with the state and affected local governments, to provide residents and
governments with the assistance they need to respond to and recover
from the effects of these disasters. Today, when the President issues a
major disaster declaration, the people of Florida feel a sense of
relief and comfort, knowing that FEMA, and Director James Lee Witt,
will soon arrive to carry them through toward recovery.
Mr. Chairman, this feeling of relief represents a 180 degree
turnaround from the feelings that FEMA used to engender in the State of
Florida. As we all well remember, FEMA's actions following Hurricane
Andrew in 1992, were less than expected. However, following the Andrew
experience, and at the request of many Senators in this chamber, FEMA
developed more effective and efficient methods of both protecting the
population before disasters, and responding to disasters after they
occur.
Under the leadership of Director James Lee Witt--whom I believe was
one of President Clinton's best appointments--FEMA has changed their
way of doing business. In the past 5 years, FEMA has become more
responsive to disaster victims and state and local governments, and has
``reinvented'' itself by choosing to focus its energy on mitigating,
preparing for, responding to, and recovering from the effects of
natural hazards.
Today we will hear more about this reinvention--at all levels of
government--in terms of preventing the effects of disasters before they
occur. The draft bill that we will discuss today seeks to refocus the
energies of Federal, state and local governments on mitigation, and
will shift our efforts to preventative--rather than responsive--actions
in planning for disasters. Such a change in ideology is critical to
reducing the short- and long-term costs of natural disasters. We must
seek to encourage both the public and the private sector--as well as
individual citizens--to take responsibility for the threats they face
by adopting the concept of disaster mitigation into their everyday
lives. Just like energy conservation, recycling, and the widespread use
of seat belts, disaster mitigation should become a concept that all
citizens incorporate into their day-to-day lives.
FEMA has taken an important first step in this process by
establishing ``Project Impact,'' their new mitigation initiative, in
local communities throughout the nation. I am proud to say that
Deerfield Beach, Florida, was the first community to be chosen as a
participant in Project Impact. I am certain that the leadership of Joe
Myers, Director of the Florida Division of Emergency Management--who
will also be testifying today--was an important factor in FEMA's choice
of Deerfield Beach. As we conduct this hearing, I will be interested to
hear: (1 ) how this initiative has been implemented to date; (2) what
actions are being taken at the state and local levels to encourage
mitigation; (3) what partnership role is being taken by the private
sector; and finally, (4) what legislative initiatives the Senate should
pursue to ensure that Project Impact is fully successful.
Once again Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing, and I
look forward to the testimony of our witnesses, and working with you to
move this legislation forward.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Chafee?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN H. CHAFEE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Again, I
want to join in congratulating you for holding these hearings.
This is a very important area. I think Mr. Witt is right on
track when he talks about mitigation. It's a tough agency to
run. We've all had experience with seeing the problems that
they confront. No matter what they do, people criticize. It's a
tough job, and, Mr. Witt, I think you've done excellent work
and congratulate you, and I would urge you to pursue this
mitigation effort that you're involved with.
Mr. Witt. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Chafee.
Let me start off, Mr. Director, by reading something that
was in a magazine called ``Quality Engineering'' on this
Institute for Business and Home Safety. When you read the
description of this, which I'll read part of a paragraph, ``The
IBHS is an insurance industry initiative to reduce deaths,
injuries, property damage, economic loss, and human suffering
caused by wind storms,'' et cetera, ``in our showcase
communities,'' which I think are analogous to some of your
Impact communities, ``We will establish partnerships with
Government,'' and so forth, it sounds almost like the job
description that you describe in your opening remarks.
I look upon this as something that someday might be able to
take over a program like this, and perhaps this would be jump-
starting it. I would like to know what your perspective is in
terms of the relationship between the program that we're
embarking upon now and this program as portrayed in this
magazine?
Mr. Witt. Mr. Chairman, that program, Harvey Ryland is the
director of that Institute and that program, Harvey is working
very closely with us in some of the Project Impact communities
and designating them a showcase community. So we're working in
sync with that organization.
The problem with the organization is that they are very
limited in funding directly to a community because they are a
research organization that does research for the insurance
industry.
Senator Inhofe. How many communities do they have under
this, approximately, do you know?
Mr. Witt. I believe they are working in five communities at
the present time. Is that right, Mike?
Mr. Armstrong. Senator, Michael Armstrong, Associate
Director for Mitigation. IBHS is spotlighting roughly seven and
up to maybe a dozen showcase communities across the country.
They have stated that their goal is to have demonstration
projects in some of these communities. But they have confessed
publicly that they are limited, as the Director said,
financially. They are more there to demonstrate retrofit on one
particular structure, but they certainly don't have the
resources to give local communities.
Senator Inhofe. All right. Thank you.
We have 4 minutes remaining in this vote. We're going to go
vote on this and then vote one more time, there are two votes,
and then we'll come right back. So we'll take about a 10-minute
recess at this time. I hope that you folks can return.
[Recess.]
Senator Inhofe. We'll reconvene now.
We have others coming back. It took a little longer than I
thought, and I apologize for that.
Mr. Witt, for the seven pilot communities in Project
Impact, are you able this early to show any definitive results?
Give us a progress report on what you know now that you didn't
know when all of this started.
Mr. Witt. Mr. Chairman, it has gone extremely well. What
I'm so impressed about is the fact that the small amount of
money that we used in the pilot communities that started the
community on the road to do the prevention program, the money
from the business community and corporate leaders and the banks
has just been incredible. It's like $1 million of seed money
and the community themselves, with the business community and
the organizations, raised $6 million more to go with it to, for
example, in Seattle, Washington, retrofit for an earthquake.
The goal in the near term is to retrofit 2,000 homes of
moderate to low income and their schools against earthquake
risk.
What has been interesting as well is, for example,
Merchant's Marine Bank in Pascagoula, Mississippi, is now
actively advertising FHA title 1 loans to individuals and
businesses to do the prevention that they need to do against
hurricanes and floods. And other banks, such as Citizens
National Bank of West Virginia and Washington Mutual are
developing favorable loan packages for mitigation loan
customers. Pacific Bell has joined as a partner. So many other
corporations have joined. It's going extremely well.
Senator Inhofe. Good. Good. I know it is difficult to
answer a question like this because different States are
equipped differently, but looking down the road to devolving
some of this to the State and local level, how would you
analyze the States' ability now to absorb these
responsibilities?
Mr. Witt. I think some States, Mr. Chairman, have an
incredible ability to do a lot in their State because they have
the staff to do it and they have the State Governors and the
legislators supporting them.
Senator Inhofe. And, too, some States are already doing
this. They may be under a different----
Mr. Witt. Yes, sir. They are. Mike Armstrong in Mitigation
has been working diligently with the NEMA Subcommittee on
Mitigation and putting in place a State management program.
We're piloting that program in Florida and where else, Mike?
Mr. Armstrong. In Florida, North Dakota, and Iowa.
Mr. Witt. And Joe Myers is here today, and that's working
extremely well. They signed an MOU with FEMA that they want to
participate as a management program for mitigation, and we hope
that this program will be part of that management program or
that MOU after we get it in place.
Senator Inhofe. Mr. Witt, I talked to some of the other
members who are not going to be back for a little while. They,
and it's the custom of this committee to do this and other
committees, would like to submit some questions to you in
writing, and I'm sure you would be receptive to responding to
those questions to this committee. In doing so, I would like to
have it done fairly quickly because we're talking about maybe
doing a markup next week. They do have questions they would
like have answered, and if you could give that a priority when
those questions come in, we would appreciate it.
Mr. Witt. We will, sir.
Senator Inhofe. Let me again reemphasize the high regard I
personally have for you and what you have done for my State of
Oklahoma and the job that you're doing as Director. Thank you
very much for coming this morning.
Mr. Witt. Mr. Chairman, may I add one thing?
Senator Inhofe. Yes, of course.
Mr. Witt. My vision of this program is to bring in the
insurance companies, particularly in communities where people
are doing the prevention, and taking the necessary measures to
eliminate that risk in their home and their business and their
community. We would like to see the insurance industry give
them a lower premium and a lower deductible in support of that
effort.
Also, I met with the Wall Street contingency planners'
professional association, and we're working to give those
communities that participate and do the prevention, when they
needed a bond issue, a better bond rating. These are the types
of things that we're bringing in to try to help those
communities and strengthen them. I think it's going to work.
Senator Inhofe. I think it's a win-win situation. It
results in lower premiums for individuals, saving lives, of
course, that's what it is really all about, and the more you
can come up with what you mentioned in your opening remarks
about a second disaster and not one life was lost, those are
compelling arguments that make this a kind of program we can
all support on both sides of the aisle and both sides of the
Capitol. Thank you very much.
Mr. Witt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. I would ask our second panel to come to the
table. Our second panel consists of the Honorable Hal Daub,
Mayor of Omaha; Joe Myers, Director of Florida Division of
Emergency Management; Mr. Albert Ashwood, from my State of
Oklahoma; and Dan Summers, Director of the Department of
Emergency Management in Hanover County, North Carolina.
As I mentioned before, Hal Daub is an old friend of mine.
We quite often when I see my fellow senators and they complain
about the long hours they're working and the difficulty of
their job, I say you try being the mayor of a major city. I've
had a hard job as a three-term Mayor of Tulsa, Oklahoma, about
the same size as your city, Hal, and I know how difficult it
is. If they don't like the trash system, it ends up in your
front yard. There's no hiding place.
Mayor Daub. That's right, Mr. Chairman. They know where you
live.
Senator Inhofe. That's right.
I do appreciate all of you being here. We want to hear from
you from a State perspective. We will go ahead in the order of
the hearing notice, with Daub, Myers, Ashwood, and Summers.
Again, if you would try to keep your remarks close to 5
minutes, that would be fine. Your whole statement will be
entered as a part of the record.
We'll start with Mayor Daub.
STATEMENT OF HON. HAL DAUB, MAYOR OF OMAHA, NEBRASKA, ON BEHALF
OF THE NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES
Mayor Daub. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think I
can hit somewhere between five and seven, I'm not sure about
five. But I really do appreciate the chance to be here and to
let you know how much the National League of Cities appreciates
your leadership and that of your ranking member, Senator
Graham, and the members of this subcommittee.
I am in my second term, as you alluded, as Mayor of the
great city of Omaha, Nebraska. I was a Member of the U.S. House
of Representatives from 1981 to 1989 and had the privilege of
serving with you. So it's a double pleasure to be here today.
Currently I'm a member of the board of directors of the
National League of Cities, and last year I served as Chair of
our National League of Cities Public Safety and Crime
Prevention Steering Committee which is responsible for
developing NLC policy on all issues related to public safety.
This committee considers and recommends related policies,
particularly those that affect natural and manmade disasters. I
am testifying for the League today as a member of the
organization's board.
During my tenure on the Public Safety Committee, I was
privileged to serve as Chair of the Emergency Preparedness and
Disaster Relief Subcommittee. Through this service, as well as
my time in Congress, I've had the opportunity to study much
legislation dealing with Federal disaster relief for
municipalities. And now as Mayor of the Nation's 45th largest
city, I've had the opportunity to form a unique perspective
into the combining roles of our local and Federal Government
entities and what kind of a role they should play in planning
emergency response and in funding disaster relief.
In fact, just last October the city of Omaha experienced
its own devastating snowstorm in which an estimated $10.5
million of Federal aid will be given to our city to help repair
nearly $15 million of storm related damages, mostly to public
parks, streets, and infrastructure including right-of-ways. So
in the aftermath of that storm, the private sector volunteerism
and support which came forward became an even more invaluable
catalyst for recovery. Those public-private partnerships
between citizens, city government, and the Federal Emergency
Management Agency exemplified to me all that we're here today
to talk about.
The National League of Cities was founded in 1926 by State
municipal leagues, as you well remember, and has become the
established voice of our Nation's cities at the Federal level.
We represent 49 State Leagues, 135,000 local elected officials,
1,400 direct and 16,000 indirect member cities.
So, I want to say, first, thank you very much for your
leadership, and thank your staff for your outreach to cities
and other stakeholders with roles in disaster preparedness,
response, recovery, and mitigation.
My statement, Mr. Chairman, is submitted at this time to
you for the record, if you will accept it.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mayor Daub.
Mayor Daub. And I would like to go forward with just a
couple of other comments.
Senator Inhofe. Let me ask you a question. The only
question I was going to ask is you're here as the Mayor and
also speaking in behalf of the National League of Cities, I
want to make sure that is in the record.
Mayor Daub. Yes, that is correct.
I'm going to skip through my formal statement and just
highlight a couple of things that I think will be of interest
to the committee.
Almost two-thirds of Federal disaster costs are from damage
to public facilities and infrastructure. We know all disasters
are local. Thus, it is essential that responsible local
officials, both elected and professional emergency personnel,
are engaged on a permanent basis in activities to increase our
overall capability to identify and assess disaster risks and to
advance established mitigation strategies and priorities. This
legislation will greatly assist us, it will propel us on that
path.
It is not certain that mitigation is all of the answer,
but, as someone said, intuitively, one must think that it is a
very appropriate approach. And I am pleased that FEMA is now
very much on board in this arena and wants to see this occur. I
was very much encouraged by Director Witt's testimony and their
preparation for the potential of this legislation which has
been marked up in the House and now being marked up in the
Senate.
Throughout this act there is an emphasis placed on the
importance of Federal support to and engagement of State and
local Governments to accomplish implementation of effective
mitigation measures. We are pleased that States are called upon
to engage local governments in development of their
comprehensive mitigation plans and programs as well as in
setting statewide priorities. This involvement will help local
officials begin to recognize and analyze existing hazards and
to learn how they can be reduced or eliminated through already
proven mitigation approaches.
We also expect FEMA to provide States and localities in a
timely fashion information on the successes of Project Impact
as they develop. This should include examples of how cities
succeed in bringing the business and not-for-profit sectors in
as partners to create disaster resistant communities. Setting
criterion and recognizing meaningful and definable outcomes are
crucial if we are to determine what specific mitigation
activities work and how well they work in saving lives,
reducing recovery costs, and preventing major disruption in
local and regional economies. The criteria you set in this act
will also facilitate objective selection by States and
localities recommended to the President for predisaster
mitigation assistance.
We applaud in the proposal the creation of the Interagency
Task Force to coordinate all predisaster mitigation
administered by the Federal Government. In section 202, we want
to make a point about the Small Business Administration
language. The requirement would be that a not-for-profit must
apply to the SBA for a disaster loan and be rejected or receive
an insufficient amount to make repairs before it could receive
assistance under this act. That could be a serious problem. For
example, if the Red Cross was the primary service provider for
persons and families displaced by a disaster and Red Cross
shelters were damaged and therefore unsafe, wouldn't it be
important that needed repairs be funded immediately? Wouldn't
waiting for SBA approval and rejection of a loan request create
hardship after such a major disaster. We might want to take a
look at the language to accommodate that sort of thing.
We wold also like to encourage the subcommittee to include
in your report on this act language directing FEMA to provide
opportunities for public comment prior to the adoption of any
new or modified policies that would have potential funding
impacts on State and local Governments, and that the agency
does not apply such policies retroactively.
Last, just a quick highlighting, it will take me less than
a minute, to support the following:
We fully support the recommendations in the bill for the
evaluation after 18 months of the implementation of predisaster
mitigation. We support the establishment of cost estimation
procedures. We support having the OCC conduct studies to
examine the effectiveness of hazard mitigation programs. We
support estimates by them to reduce Federal disaster assistance
resulting from the implementation of the act. We appreciate
that you will be looking at determining the current and future
availability of disaster insurance for public infrastructure.
We support the examination analytically of major disasters
since 1974 so that we can look at more criterion in the future
as we look at reauthorization in the year 2002 or some
furtherance of the act.
In addition, and in conclusion, with regard to studies and
reports recommended by this legislation, the organization that
I'm testifying on behalf of would like to encourage the
subcommittee to commission a study to provide us all with the
best possible information on disaster costs incurred by local,
State, and Federal Governments. This information is essential
if we're to determine whether or not predisaster mitigation
really reduces disaster costs and is not taken out of the hide
of local governments by supplementals. Our goal is to see this
bill passed because we believe it will reduce the necessity for
supplemental appropriations in the years to come.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mayor.
I would like to recognize our ranking member, Senator
Graham, to introduce the next witness from Florida.
Senator Graham. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a
great pleasure to introduce a man with whom I've actually been
spending more time than I would care to in the last few weeks
as a result of the unprecedented series of wildfires that we
have experienced in Florida. But I want to say that typical of
his work in other crises in Florida, from floods, to tornadoes,
to hurricanes, that Joe Myers has again distinguished himself
by the manner in which he has led our State in a coordinated
effort to respond to this summer's crisis of fire.
Mr. Myers is one of the most respected State leaders of an
emergency management agency. He has managed the Florida
Division of Emergency Management since March 1993. He has spent
the past 22 years in various forms of emergency management. I
have a longer statement, Mr. Chairman, that I would like to
submit for the record. But for the purposes of this hearing, I
think it is particularly significant that he has been a major
proponent of disaster mitigation and has worked to implement
one of the Nation's first disaster resistant communities in
Deerfield Beach, Florida. He has been working to develop local
mitigation strategies throughout Florida, a grassroots approach
to disaster mitigation.
So I am pleased that Mr. Myers joins his colleagues who are
committed to this cause and I know will bring to us a valuable
set of personal experiences and observations. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Graham. We will put your
entire introduction into the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Graham follows:]
Statement of Senator Graham Introducing Mr. Joe Myers
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to introduce Mr. Joe Myers to the
subcommittee. Mr. Myers has managed Florida's Division of Emergency
Management since March 1993, and has worked in the field of emergency
management for the past 22 years. His philosophy of ``Coordination,
Cooperation, and Unity'' between local, State and Federal Governments
and the private sector has become his trademark for excellence.
Because of Florida's vulnerability to hurricanes, Mr. Myers has
developed a dynamic and proactive emergency management program. He has
enhanced Florida's State and local preparedness, response, and recovery
programs; and is continuing to develop a proactive mitigation
initiative at all levels of government.
Mr. Myers has actively worked with the Federal Emergency Management
Agency to develop, revise and implement various policy initiatives. He
continues to emphasize the critical importance of mitigation and has
worked to implement one of the nation's first ``disaster resistant
communities,'' in Deerfield Beach, Florida. This has been enhanced by
his work to develop ``Local Mitigation Strategies,'' a grounds-up
approach to local mitigation efforts.
In addition to being Director of the Florida Division of Emergency
Management, Mr. Myers serves as the Chairman of FEMA's National
Mitigation Committee, on the Board of Director's for the National
Multihazard Mitigation Council, and on the Advisory Panel for Risk &
Vulnerability Assessment at the Heinz Center. In summary, he is
uniquely qualified to discuss the application and implementation of
disaster mitigation, and I look forward to his testimony.
Senator Inhofe. Mr. Myers?
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH MYERS, DIRECTOR, FLORIDA DIVISION OF
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA, ON BEHALF OF THE
NATIONAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
Mr. Myers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning.
First, let me start by thanking you, Mr. Chairman, Senator
Graham, and other members of the committee for the opportunity
for NEMA to speak today on these important issues. NEMA
represents all the State and territory emergency management
directors within the Nation and work directly with our
Governors.
This bill and what we're going to be discussing today I
think will be one of what we call the defining moments in the
history of emergency management. I've been in the business for
over 20 years. I started in the 1970's and there's been about
three or four major moments I think where the State, the local
governments, the Federal Government, and the private sector
have had to come together and tackle problems that became
defining moments. Start back with the nuclear power problems of
Three Mile Island in the 1970's, where the industry and the
Government had to come together to resolve it, have better
preparedness and programs. We did the same thing in the 1980's
after the tragedy in Bhopal, India, where the chemical
companies had to come together with the Government and form a
better partnership to make things better. After Hurricane
Andrew, the private sector and the Government got together and
we have a better response program today.
I think we're going into one of those defining moments, and
that is the soaring cost of disasters and mitigation as we go
into this next century. So I think that will go down as our big
challenge in the 21st century.
This proposed bill, the Disaster Mitigation Act of 1998
hits at the heart of some of the most serious problems--cost
containment, sustainable predisaster mitigation, and process
streamlining. FEMA, through the great leadership of James Lee
Witt, has worked in tandem with NEMA, and he used to be a
member of NEMA, he was a State director, on these important
issues, many of which are reflected in this bill.
We believe and wholeheartedly support the notion that the
only way to effectively reduce the spiraling cost of disasters
is through preparedness and mitigation. We believe the
establishment of a continuing appropriation for a predisaster
mitigation program will have an immediate and long-term cost
reduction benefit to this Nation. We would encourage the
committee to consider keeping the level of funding at $50
million a year instead of decreasing it on a sliding scale to
where at the year 2002 it would be $20 million.
Equally important are the provisions in the bill to
streamline the hazard mitigation grant program and the public
and individual assistance program. This will have an immediate
benefit to both Federal and State recovery and mitigation
efforts. We want to applaud the committee for recommending the
increase of the hazard mitigation program from 15 to 20 percent
for all Federal assistance, deleting the old sliding scale for
associated costs with the idea of the management costs, using
estimates of cost in the public assistance program, and
revisions to the individual assistance program we think is
going to help the victim get aid there quicker. And last,
institutionalizing the concept of the hazard mitigation program
management State. Florida was the first State in the Nation to
sign an MOU with FEMA to become a management State. I am here
to report to you today that it works very well. It has
radically expedited the entire HMG process in our State. As a
matter of fact, our first grant we did through the process I
think we cleared it in about 4 hours.
We are especially happy to see section 206 added to the
bill streamlining the public assistance program. It's long
overdue. We look forward to implementing this new process
throughout the country. As a matter of fact, yesterday we got
the go ahead from FEMA to start on some of that process from
our most recent fires.
Last, I would like to encourage the committee to take a
look at the fire suppression grant process, having gone through
what U.S. Forestry Service is calling the most complex
firefighting event in the history of this Nation. We do see a
need to review this process.
We believe that FEMA should be in charge of all disasters
including fires. That would eliminate any type of confusion as
we look beyond the traditional wind and water issues in our
emergency preparedness and response activities. As more people
move into the urban-wildland interface, we will see more fires
encroaching upon more homes just as they did in Florida. So
really, it's getting beyond just fires, as they now get into
the urban interface, they are becoming more like the
traditional natural disasters. We see a stronger role by FEMA.
We need to study this in much more detail and recommend
appropriate fire prevention activities for our citizens.
Thank you for giving me the time today. It would be a
pleasure for us to discuss with you any of the issues and I'm
ready to answer any of your questions.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Myers.
Our next witness will be Mr. Ashwood. Albert Ashwood is
from Oklahoma and it happens that he is married to the daughter
of at least one of my three closest friends in Oklahoma, Don
Farrow. He and I were both in the State Senate, in fact were
both Minority Leaders, he followed me in that position. I don't
think there's anyone who understands the personal pain of
disaster more than Mr. Ashwood. His wife's sister was killed in
the blast of the Murrah Federal Office Building. She was an
attorney for HUD. So he has a very personal concern for this
program.
I recognize at this time Mr. Ashwood.
STATEMENT OF ALBERT ASHWOOD, DIRECTOR, OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF
CIVIL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA
Mr. Ashwood. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator
Graham. I would like to thank you for the opportunity for the
State of Oklahoma to present testimony before your
subcommittee.
We commend you for your ongoing efforts to strengthen and
enhance the Nation's emergency management system and we look
forward to providing any assistance to you for this endeavor.
From our position, your subcommittee recognizes that the only
way we will truly reduce disaster costs and the significant
impacts of disasters on our communities is through mitigation,
more specifically, predisaster mitigation.
The focus of today's hearing is predisaster mitigation and
the streamlining and cost reduction of the emergency management
process. Since 1990, Oklahoma has experienced 17 federally
declared disasters which include 7 fire suppression
declarations. Federal, State, and local dollars that were used
within the State for each of the three recovery programs--
individual assistance, infrastructure and mitigation--during
this period totals over $80 million.
However, an important point to consider here is that the
figure represents only the assistance identified as a result of
the requirements to track disaster expenditures. Insured
losses, uninsured losses or under insured losses, unreported
labor and construction costs, and other miscellaneous costs
would add even more dollars to that total. In addition, in
1994, the State of Oklahoma enacted the State Public Assistance
program. This legislation provides public assistance to
political subdivisions up to $100,000 per calendar year, per
jurisdiction, for nonfederally declared disasters that are
declared by the Governor. For the State program we've expended
nearly $3 million of State funds. Our program does not require
a local match for these funds; however, it should be noted that
in most of these disasters they cost well in excess of $100,000
that is allowed per community.
We strongly concur with the intent of the bill as written.
Each of us at the Federal, State, local, and private level
should do everything within our means to reduce the cost of
disasters before they occur. Title I, predisaster hazard
mitigation, will assist in this endeavor. We encourage all of
our communities to identify and assess their risks, implement
measures to reduce disaster losses, and ensure that critical
facilities, public infrastructure, and lifelines will continue
to function after a disaster. At the same time we are
encouraging communities to do this, we are also advocating that
the continuance of Federal assistance might be in jeopardy
unless respective communities start helping themselves first
before the disaster.
Please understand that we fully concur with the predisaster
hazard mitigation program. But we are trying to convince the
communities of their responsibilities relative to developing a
unified effort through local partnerships, identifying
nonFederal resources, and initiating a strong commitment to
long-term mitigation projects that can be funded locally. In
addition, these local initiatives should be identified in
detail in their all hazards mitigation plan.
A review of Title I discloses that may need clarification
on the following items:
First, the definition of small impoverished communities.
Coordination with our State Department of Commerce indicates
that this definition may relate somewhat to the Department of
Commerce's definition of a ``low to moderate income
community.'' However, the term ``impoverished'' may need to be
specifically defined so that it is consistent with the
definition used by HUD.
Second, a 90 percent share versus a 75 percent share of
Federal funds for impoverished communities. This might be a
national concern if approached from a strictly numbers
standpoint. In Oklahoma, we have approximately 600 cities and
towns but only about 145 have a population of over 2,000. Once
again, we may need a better definition of ``impoverished'' so
that we do not have situations of disproportionate distribution
of funds within the State.
There is a wealth of opportunities to use predisaster
hazard mitigation funds in Oklahoma. As just one example, we
have identified 85 structures that have repetitive losses from
flood damages and several hundred more with just one loss.
These structures need to be acquired and removed from the flood
plain as soon as possible. We could use funds now to accomplish
some of these acquisitions and many communities are able to
provide the necessary matching funds.
Regarding Title II, streamlining and cost reduction. We
concur with the provisions of the draft bill as relates to
management costs and assistance to repair, restore or
reconstruct, or replace damaged facilities. The latter is a
step forward to ensure that mitigation opportunities are
discussed at each step of the public assistance process, and it
provides the opportunity to fund hazard mitigation measures the
State or local Government determines to be necessary.
Proving care to individuals is a paramount concern in any
emergency situation. For example, we are currently experiencing
drought conditions in Oklahoma, as are other States a well. We
have convened the appropriate State agency directors, their
Federal counterparts, volunteer agencies, and private sector
businesses to activate the Oklahoma State Drought Management
Plan. This plan focuses on fire suppression, water shortages,
heat related problems, and agricultural losses. This is a
proactive step to protect our Oklahoma citizens. The emergency
management process as relates to individual assistance is a
crucial link in providing food, shelter, and life sustaining
services to each Oklahoman.
We in Oklahoma learned a very valuable lesson April 19,
1995, and the Oklahoma disaster service community continues to
provide essential services to many of those affected by the
Murrah Building bombing. From this lesson we know that early
coordination is the key to sustaining a reasonable quality of
life for those affected by disasters. We must remember that a
disaster does not end when the immediate response is completed.
For those affected families the disaster has only begun.
We concur with the State administration of the hazard
mitigation assistance program. The wording of the draft bill
enables each State to conduct an assessment of its abilities
and capabilities to participate as a managing State along with
the flexibility to participate in the program when the time is
right. As defined, long-term, each State should strive to
become a managing State. However, local capabilities impact on
the final decision. We have already participated in some of
this coordination. It would appear to be a seamless process to
become a management State.
We concur in concept with the streamlining of damaged
facilities program. Since the program is still under
development, we hesitate to concur fully until we have had a
chance to review the new program in its entirety. We have been
asked from the start of this initiative to review and provide
comments relative to the development of the program.
It appears that the PA program concurrently under
development by FEMA will reduce the administration requirements
of the current program as well as be more responsive to all
eligible applicants. Further, as a member of NEMA, we are also
looking at this program and evaluating it at that level.
Streamlining the process is long overdue, and we look forward
to the new program.
In summary, we in Oklahoma share your concern about the
rising costs of disasters. We encourage you to explore all
opportunities to initiate cost-reducing measures such as
predisaster hazard mitigation. Devolving more authority for the
hazard mitigation grant program and the public assistance
program will definitely reduce administrative costs, eliminate
duplication, and streamline the entire process. The ultimate
benefactors will be disaster victims themselves. Initiatives
that you have identified already about a study regarding cost
reduction, a study regarding disaster insurance for public
infrastructure, and a study regarding declarations will no
doubt identify additional areas for consideration.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I look
forward to working with you in the future.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Ashwood. We're very proud in
Oklahoma of the work that you're doing.
We've been joined by Senator Sessions from Alabama. I would
ask Senator Sessions if he has any comment he'd like to make at
this time.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA
Mr. Sessions. Just briefly, Mr. Chairman. I have had
occasion in my short tenure in this office to travel twice to
Alabama unfortunately on disaster situations and travelled with
Mr. James Lee Witt, the Director of FEMA. I'm sorry I missed
his testimony. But I was very impressed with him, his
responsiveness, his understanding of the problems, and his
commitment to deal with this question of mitigation. He
believes in it strongly. I think we need to work at it. We,
like Senator Graham from Florida, have every so often, too
often it seems, disaster situations that we want to be sure
we're dealing with it the right way. But I think we can make
great progress with disaster mitigation. I think we need to
listen to the States and the people who are carrying it out on
a daily basis. If we do that, we can make some good
improvements. I think it is a good and important hearing, and
thank you for calling it.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Sessions.
Mr. Summers?
STATEMENT OF DAN SUMMERS, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT, NEW HANOVER COUNTY, WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
Mr. Summers. Good morning. Before I begin, I would like to
mention to Senator Graham that I had the opportunity to lead 37
North Carolina firefighters to Florida as part of that
activity. We were happy to serve in that capacity and hope we
in some way returned the favor that we received from the State
of Florida during Hurricanes Bertha and Fran. I have to tell
you, the hospitality was real good, too.
Senator Graham. If I could, Mr. Chairman, I would like to
thank Mr. Summers, and through him, those who came from North
Carolina and the 40 other States who assisted in these fires.
Without their assistance, I think Mr. Myers would verify, we
would not have been able to have contained this terrible
situation without much higher loss of life and property. So
thank you very much.
Mr. Summers. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee, it is indeed an honor to be with you today. I
compliment you on your desire to learn more from the local
Government perspective regarding possible amendments to the
Stafford Act.
I bring to this discussion 15 years service as one
community's Emergency Manager having participated in four
Presidential Disaster Declarations. In North Carolina, nearly
all one hundred counties have experienced disasters in the past
decade. The issue of disaster response is no longer the other
community's problem. I can attest that most all local
Governments now have a greater appreciation for a sound
emergency management response program. However, it is my belief
that while disaster response plans are improving, only a small
number of communities are sensitive to the rising disaster cost
and the potential for cost reduction under the concept of
mitigation.
This committee, along with local Governments, and Federal
agencies are equally concerned about the cost of disaster
recovery. However, before you hasten to suggest restrictions,
understand that every disaster response is indeed community
specific. Needs vary, and individual pain and suffering is far
greater than the typical 15 second sound bite seen on the
evening news.
I have witnessed Federal participation in disasters in the
1980's and I have been a part of the Federal response effort
during events of the 1990's. Allow me to compliment FEMA and
many of its Federal partners on dramatic improvements in
customer service. While dramatic improvements have occurred and
communities are better served, there still exists opportunities
to reach new levels in disaster response and mitigation. The
efforts of FEMA's Project Impact is the new cornerstone of
local recovery in mitigation initiatives.
My community, New Hanover County, North Carolina, is one of
seven pilot communities involved in this worthwhile program.
With FEMA's program support, we have a local community-driven
task force. Our task force, titled the Partnership for Disaster
Mitigation and Recovery, has generated strong community
interest. Let me illustrate some of these successes.
In our partnership with Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse,
we've conducted hurricane preparedness expos. These events have
literally allowed thousands of visitors and customers to learn
more on topics ranging from simple preparedness reminders to
the latest techniques in strengthening residential homes and
roof systems.
Barnes and Noble Booksellers have contributed a full month
of community service programming to hurricane awareness and
single family home mitigation techniques. Most notably has been
the highly acclaimed sessions for children who have learned
preparedness and drawn pictures of elevating their homes,
illustrating their understanding of disaster mitigation
techniques.
Just one of our planned construction projects is a combined
FEMA and local effort. Combining post-disaster funding sources,
we are designing new school roof systems to not only reduce the
cost of damages during the next hurricane, but improving the
building safety as an evacuation shelter as well. A key part of
this activity will include training local engineers, building
code officials, and architects on the latest wind resistant
techniques for incorporation into future school construction
projects.
For the record, a summary of our community activity and
work projects has been submitted.
The Partnership is continuing to work on dozens of ways to
minimize financial impacts of our next hurricane event. Project
Impact has allowed local communities to best define their needs
as opposed to following a manual generalized for the entire
country.
If you analyze the disaster recovery process, the majority
of the response activity is a local level. Assistance typically
is needed during recovery and restoration. Restoration and
recovery efforts especially for infrastructure items such as
public buildings, schools, roads, and basic housing are
extremely difficult to manage following any disaster for any
local Government. If a community takes steps to reduce the
effects of a future disaster, especially areas experiencing
repetitive events, it is simple to understand that the
pressures of local Government can be reduced. Surprisingly,
most of our disaster outcomes are no longer unknowns.
Mitigation dollars spent now in partnership with local
communities will be our road map to reduction in future losses.
Recently one of our local elected officials put Project
Impact in this perspective: ``Look at what our Nation has
accomplished supporting the concepts of recycling and
seatbelts. In these programs, we have invested in public
education, research, and demonstration grant funding. By
supporting predisaster mitigation funding opportunities, a
national disaster mitigation ethic will begin to emerge.'' This
ethic or change in the way we handle disasters is the best way
we know to begin the process of reducing disaster losses.
In closing, I cannot begin to tell you the excitement and
dedication my community has developed regarding Project Impact
and the common sense approach to predisaster mitigation. My
communities, especially large and small businesses, feels that
it's Government at its best because the activities and the
programs are flexible and community based. I ask you to be
patient and give this some time. We all know that new
predisaster mitigation strategies will take time to conceive,
develop, and implement on a State and local level. Your pre-
and post-disaster mitigation funding will in time begin to show
some very tangible results.
I thank you for this opportunity. I hope you'll give strong
consideration to opening long-term regulatory doors for FEMA
and allow a community-based disaster mitigation funding and
mitigation ethic to be borne. Thank you, and may I answer any
questions that you might have.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Summers. We appreciate all
of you being here today.
Mayor Daub, you said something about some language that you
would recommend as it relates to SBA. So I would ask you, and
maybe even while you're still here, and this would be for the
rest of you too, as I asked Director Witt to do, any
suggestions you have, now is the time to share them. If not at
the table orally, if you would try to get your suggestions in
because, as I said earlier, we may be going into a markup and
the whole purpose of this is to get your input on that. So I
would ask you to do that.
Mayor Daub, not in your relationship and representing the
National League of Cities, but as Mayor of Omaha, you mentioned
reauthorization perhaps in the year 2002 or devolving. Looking
at it right now from your city's perspective, which would be
your choice at that time?
Mayor Daub. We have had several very serious experiences.
One I alluded to in my opening remarks, which was 12 inches of
wet snow before the leaves fell in our very treed city that
created a huge disaster environment and was declared and a
substantial amount of FEMA effort and Federal taxpayers' money
is going to go into the cleanup, if you will, and the
restoration improvement of a large amount of public property.
We're now looking at the flooding potential along our Missouri
River and what kind of predisaster mitigation effort in the
floodway and the flood plain we can engage in.
So the function of this set of criterion being put into the
Stafford Act gives me hope that with the studies that are also
required we'll know enough by the year 2002 to say that the
effort we're making is working or isn't working. If we can
develop best practices and really involve local municipalities
in these efforts, I think that we'll be in a position to create
a reauthorization. But I support the sunsetting requirement
because it gives us a chance to evaluate.
Senator Inhofe. Mayor Daub, having been a mayor myself,
maybe I'm the only one who picked up on this from your
testimony, the very last sentence, I heard something that
sounded an awful lot like a concern or fear of a future
unfunded mandate. Did I?
Mayor Daub. Yes. And I would urge you to be very clear
about one of the reasons that I'm here as a mayor and one of
the reasons I'm here on behalf of the League, we want you to
continue to avoid the unfunded mandate but recognize that the
Federal dollar appropriately invested in predisaster mitigation
work should help us to avoid the other wrenching experiences of
seeing municipal funding levels, at the Federal Government
perhaps cut back and/or the need for supplementals because of
these unexpected disasters. So it is a function of us trying to
maintain our commitment to you to support balanced budget
activity but at the same time doing those smart things that
intervene and are preventive that will save money and lives in
the long run.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you.
Mr. Myers, you mentioned in your testimony the level at $50
million. I anticipate when we come into markup that there are
going to be some amendments that are going to address the
funding levels over the next 5 years. I've already expressed
myself earlier in my opening remarks as to where I'm coming
from on this. But how did you happen to use those figures in
your opening statement? What did you base that on?
Mr. Myers. The $50 million is something that we within our
organization have looked at as a consistent across the board.
What we have seen is it's been a sliding scale. We think if we
continue showing the commitment, it is going to give us the
opportunity to leverage more private dollars by showing that
commitment to that private sector, which is critical I think to
the entire success of this whole initiative. So that's where we
are on that.
Senator Inhofe. All right. Thank you, Mr. Myers.
Mr. Ashwood, as you know, Tulsa has been selected as a
community to participate in Project Impact. I think one reason
is not just because I Chair this committee, that probably had
something to do with it, but it's that we have historically
done some things where we've provided a leadership role. When I
was mayor of Tulsa, for example, in our flood program, we had
the same problems for over 20 years and it got to the point
where it was almost predictable what was going to happen. So we
took the initiative and established a program in Tulsa that has
ever since then met that disaster. So I think we're kind of a
poster child for that success story.
I would ask you if you have any comments about what you
anticipate will happen in the city of Tulsa, and then how that
might relate to other communities in Oklahoma.
Mr. Ashwood. I think it is important to point out that
Tulsa was selected in Oklahoma because they are a model
community. They are a community that has already taken the
steps, following the Memorial Day flood of 1984, to take care
of themselves.
Senator Inhofe. Yes, I remember it well.
Mr. Ashwood. That's what we're trying to do with Project
Impact. What we're trying to do is we're trying to set up a
model community in Oklahoma by which other communities within
the State can look at and say we can do that at our local
level. I think it's very important to realize that if a
community started today as a Project Impact community with a
little seed money and in 5 years they were at the level that
Tulsa is right now, we would probably all be saying that is a
success story.
What we're doing with Tulsa is trying to take it that step
further and to have them recognize that there are more hazards
that they have in Tulsa, Oklahoma besides just the flooding
impact, with all the refineries and the hazardous materials
that are along the Arkansas River as well as the tornado hazard
that they experience every spring in Oklahoma.
Senator Inhofe. You can almost set your watch, can't you?
Mr. Ashwood. You bet.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you very much, Mr. Ashwood.
Senator Graham?
Senator Graham. Mr. Chairman, I believe the full committee
is going to start meeting at 10:45, is that right?
Senator Inhofe. That's correct.
Senator Graham. So given the fact of our time limitations--
--
Senator Inhofe. What I would suggest doing is just doing
this round of questioning, and then I've already prepared them
for written questions they can respond to as quickly as
possible.
Senator Graham. That's exactly what I was going to do, Mr.
Chairman, is sort of lay out what are some questions that I
would be interested in that you might respond to in writing. I
would like to underscore what the Chairman said about the
timeliness of this because I know it is his hope to move this
as quickly as possible so that we have the best chance of
actually accomplishing our legislative objective this year.
The way I approach policy issues is what I call the medical
model; which is, first you ask the diagnostic questions--what's
wrong with the patient. In this case, what's wrong with our
current approach to mitigation, something that sounds so common
sense as taking steps to avoid unnecessarily adding to the pain
of a crisis? What are the current inhibitions to doing that, or
what are some of the absent incentives in order to be able to
effectively implement a mitigation strategy? Then you turn
after diagnosis to prescription. What do you do about the
problems that you've identified? And I would break those into
two categories; one, those in which we think we know enough
about to provide a prescription, and second, those that we
don't enough about that we need to send to a specialist to get
further consultation.
And staying within that construct, what are the areas of
disaster mitigation do you believe that we know enough about in
order to make a decision today as to what to do; and second,
which of those that we need to send to the specialist by, for
instance, and I believe, Mayor, you commented, the number of
studies that were called for in this bill where we need to ask
somebody else give us the benefit of your further thought
before we solidify on what our solution would be? All of those
questions are in the context of this legislation. To what
degree does this legislation capture what you think is the
proper diagnosis of the problem, prescription, and then
submission for further consultation, and where you recommend
that it be modified in order to comport with your assessment of
the situation?
Someone mentioned the issue of shelters in their remarks,
and I would use that as one specific example. I know in our
State I think a diagnosis of where are you going to put all
these folks in the time of crisis would indicate that while we
showed a very good ability, and I commend Mr. Myers
specifically for that, to ramp up shelters in the face of the
fire crisis and several thousands of people were housed on
almost an hour-by-hour basis as a result of that, we still have
a deficiency in structurally acceptable shelters for
hurricanes, floods, and other potential large-scale
disruptions. Do we know enough about that issue of deficiency
to say now that here's what the Federal Government's role
should be in assisting local communities in providing that
capacity, or do we need to learn more about this before we
determine what our prescription should be, and what are the
questions that we ought to be asking of the specialist in that
specific area so that we'll make more informed judgments in the
future?
So, I would appreciate if you could approach this issue
from that medical model and give us the benefit of your
suggestions so that we could incorporate them as we start the
markup process.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Sessions?
Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman, I also would submit some
written questions. But I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding
this hearing.
I want to thank you for your participation. I look forward
to studying your written remarks. I believe we're on to a
project that could help our disaster areas and save the
taxpayers some money at the same time. Thank you very much.
Senator Inhofe. I thank you. And also with the presence of
our committee chairman, a reminder that not only do we have our
full committee meeting, but it's going to be in this room. So I
think we had better prepare to call this to a halt.
I would remind you again that we do have questions that
you'll be receiving and we would like to get an early response
because we're going to move this along pretty fast.
I appreciate very much all of you coming and appreciate
your testifying today. Thank you.
The subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:45 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned,
to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Testimony of JamesL. Witt, Director, Federal Emergency Management
Agency
Good morning Mr. Chairman, Senator Graham and members of the
Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to be here before you today,
and for the chance to express my appreciation for the support Congress
has continued to provide FEMA.
As we meet here today, FEMA staff, both full-time and reservists,
are spread out across the country working with communities to help them
respond to the losses and the misery that natural disasters leave in
their wake. Whether it is the fires in Florida and Texas, the tornadoes
that spun across the south and Midwest last spring, or the recent
flooding in New England, all of these events have a tragic common
denominator; a loss not only of lives and property, but hope as well.
What makes me proud of our efforts at FEMA is that the assistance
we deliver is a message to all of these different areas that the Nation
cares about what has happened to them and wants to help. It is very
important to remember that when we declare a disaster it is based on a
stipulation from the State that the situation is beyond their capacity
to respond. At that point, the help we deliver is making a difference
in removing not just wreckage and debris, but removing doubts about a
community's ability to recovery and prosper in the future.
The future of emergency management, and FEMA's role in that future
is a great part of what I want to talk about today. I have been blessed
to serve a President who cares deeply about the affect disasters have
on our people and their communities, as well as a Congress that has
recognized and supported our efforts. And I am equally pleased to serve
at an Agency that makes a big difference in peoples lives.
Our staff works very hard. But we are also fortunate because we get
to work as partners with some of the best people in the country; the
public safety forces, the emergency managers, the floodplain managers,
the private relief organizations that help out during disasters, and
the local people in communities that are forced to respond under the
most pressing circumstances.
During my time at FEMA I have had the good fortune to meet many of
these outstanding people across the country. I have met brave people
determined to rebuild their homes and their communities and really
giving people that always think of others first--whether its school
children or the elderly--and how they can be helped after a disaster.
We should celebrate the spirit of these people--they are an inspiration
to all of us.
But, starting today, I hope you'll join me in meeting these people
before disasters occur. Through Project Impact, our predisaster
mitigation program, we have begun to harness these energies and make
meaningful changes in communities to lessen the effects of disaster.
Hope doesn't have to follow a tragedy--hope can be there in the
early steps we take to make our schools and businesses and homes safer
and stronger.
In that light, this is an historic hearing since your legislation
provides increased legislative authority for predisaster mitigation.
And that fact marks an important new phase in the evolution of
emergency management. We appreciate the fact that the Senate's Draft
Bill is authorizing this program and hope that the funding levels can
match the real threats we face. The Administration has proposed an
open-ended authorization, and the President's fiscal year 1999 Budget
included a request of $50 million for this program. We believe that
these levels will increase the actual awareness and implementation of
mitigation measures.
This needs to be a program that is flexible enough to fit the
varying needs of a lot of different communities facing different
threats. However, to be successful, this program needs to inspire
confidence in FEMA's ability to be a steady and dependable partner with
the business community. An authorization that decreases over time puts
our commitment into question and decreases our capacity to reach out to
many more communities across the country that face real risks of
disaster damage and want to be a part of this new partnership.
Over the last 5 years we have instituted a lot of changes at FEMA.
Not change just for the sake of change, but changes that have both
reduced the risk of future disasters and improved the delivery of
assistance to disaster victims while cutting down on our administrative
costs to provide that help. At every step of that process we have
worked closely with our State emergency management partners, as well as
the involved Committees of Congress, to improve both our disaster
response and recovery programs and the efforts we are making to
mitigate against the need for those programs.
I would now like to review some of the changes we've made in our
mitigation and disaster response and recovery programs and the
difference those changes have made. In that discussion we will also
comment on the provisions in the Senate's Draft Bill that affect these
programs and provide our comments on those suggested changes.
Mitigation
While I am proud of the way we have improved our programs, in both
speed and quality of service, it is also very important to remember
that we have also greatly improved our accountability for the funds
that are spent for disaster relief. But we have to do more.
We've got to change the way we deal with disasters or we are doomed
to pay for poor planning in lost lives and lost property, over and over
and over again. We must put an end to the damage, repair, damage and
repair cycle. The most effective way to break this cycle and reduce the
cost of disasters is by preventing them through mitigation. Money spent
now on mitigation--either pre- or post-disaster--will be reflected in
future budget requests and appropriations actions.
Mitigation is the cornerstone of emergency management. It involves
keeping homes away from floodplains, engineering bridges to withstand
earthquakes, and promoting adoption and enforcement of effective
building codes to protect property and people from natural hazards.
Mitigation describes the ongoing effort at the Federal, State, local,
and individual levels to lessen the impact of disasters upon our
families, homes, communities and economy. Mitigation should be viewed
as the fundamental means to decrease demands for disaster response
resources.
FEMA started emphasizing mitigation in 1993 with the creation of
the Agency's Mitigation Directorate. In the aftermath of the 1993
Midwest Floods, we worked with the Administration and the Congress to
initiate a property buyout program that removed over 20,000 properties
from the floodplain and returned them to open space land use. In fact,
Senator Chafee was one of the leaders in this effort and was
instrumental in achieving its passage.
We have placed greater emphasis on rebuilding communities safer and
stronger after disaster strikes and on preparing for risk before
disaster strikes. We appreciate the work that has been done in the
Senate Subcommittee's Draft Bill, which recognizes the contribution
mitigation makes to reducing future impacts.
Project Impact Our predisaster mitigation initiative, Project
Impact, joins the public and private sectors in cities and towns across
the Nation to build disaster-resistant communities. Project Impact's
goal is to change the way America prevents and prepares for disasters.
The initiative helps communities protect themselves from the
devastating effects of natural disasters by taking actions that
dramatically reduce disruption and loss. Project Impact operates on a
common-sense damage-reduction approach, basing its work and planning on
three simple principles: preventive actions must be decided at the
local level; private sector participation is vital; and long-term
efforts and investments in prevention measures are essential.
This is government at its best, serving as a catalyst so that
people have the resources and know-how to make a difference in their
lives and their communities. The private sector is the key in the new
way we are looking at this. When we meet with private sector
representatives we ask them for three commitments: one, do something to
protect your company; two, do something to protect your employees; and
three, do something for your community. The response has been
wonderfully rewarding.
Building on the pilot program, 6 weeks ago we launched the
initiative nationally by inviting 50 additional localities to become
Project Impact communities. There is no doubt that this is a common
sense approach for the way America deals with disasters. The incentive
is clear: a disaster resistant community is able to bounce back from a
natural disaster with far less loss of property and consequently much
less cost for repairs. Moreover, the time lost from productive activity
is minimized for both businesses and their employees.
As I noted earlier, we would appreciate an authorization for the
program similar to the Administration's proposal, which was open-ended.
That would send a strong and positive message to the many communities
across this country that are anxious to be a part of this new approach.
Also, rather than indicating an intent to sunset a program of such
promise, I believe we should agree to report to you on the program
after the 5-year period and then have the committee decide what course
to take. I believe strongly that the signal we need to send is that we
are making a difference with hazard reduction through programs like the
buyouts and Project Impact.
We also believe it is important that Pre-Disaster Mitigation be a
separate fund within the FEMA budget. A separate fund would allow us to
better manage and support the program and the special administrative
support it requires, such as travel to disaster-resistant communities
to provide technical assistance and support.
Given the level of interest and the number of communities in every
State that would like to participate, we think the authorized levels of
funding in the Subcommittee's Draft Bill are inadequate to do the
necessary work at the local level. By reducing the level of funding
each year we send a contradictory message, pointing to a lack of
commitment from Federal partners. We would strongly encourage increased
funding levels that would reflect a program with increasing
participation by the business sector in communities of all sizes in all
regions of the country facing many differing hazards.
We also believe that there must be an emphasis on the protection of
community infrastructure, which is a strong component of the current
program. The more a community does to protect, for example, its water
treatment facilities, the sooner that community can bounce back from a
disaster event. FEMA enters this program as a partner, and a partner
does not dictate choices. But we also want this to be a program
dedicated specifically to mitigating against disaster threats, not a
block grant for any community project. Also, we believe that the public
education activities in the communities need to be a part of the
program. Public education is key to informed support and involvement at
the local level and we believe the legislation should encourage that
work.
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) Section 404 of the Stafford
Act authorizes our Howard Mitigation Grant Program. HMGP enables
mitigation measures to be implemented during immediate recovery from a
disaster. The program's intent is to reduce the risk of future damage,
hardship, loss, and suffering in an area affected by a major disaster,
and to ultimately reduce the future needs for Federal disaster
assistance by encouraging the building of an environment increasingly
resistant to the effects of natural hazards.
Under the HMGP, an amount equal to 15 percent of our total funds
spent on a disaster may be spent specifically on hazard mitigation
measures. Under the Senate Draft Bill this amount is raised up to 20
percent. We believe this will have a significant and immediate impact
in reducing disaster risks across the nation. This will provide greater
resources to FEMA and the States to address repetitive flood loss and
to take other mitigation measures such as seismic retrofitting and
wind-resistance preventive measures.
In addition to property buyouts, I have some examples of other
types of things we've accomplished through this program. We've assisted
towns in installing river icejam control structures to reduce
downstream flooding. We've elevated buildings to protect them from
flooding. We've strengthened structures to withstand seismic activity.
We've helped State and local government develop mitigation plans.
The types of activities permitted under the Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program have made a great impact in areas affected by disasters. Let me
give you an example. After the devastating Midwest floods of 1993, we
were able to acquire thousands of flood-prone properties and move them
out of the floodplain. The land was left in open space use for
recreational or wetlands use. Two years later in 1995, when many of the
same areas flooded again, the structures did not flood because they
were out of harm's way. And emergency funds did not have to be spent
protecting those same structures. And disaster funds were not spent
repairing homes or rebuilding the infrastructure in this area. These
formulations contribute to the great savings that come from mitigation.
Given the demonstrated effectiveness of such mitigation actions, we
believe that the President's proposal for Pre-Disaster Mitigation
strongly supports our concentration on these efforts. The
Subcommittee's Draft marks a departure from old approaches and offers
the promise of real reductions, not only in disaster costs but also in
the threats to our families and our communities.
However, the provision that totally transfers Section 404 to the
States is unnecessary in that many of these changes have already been
accomplished and the statutory change may dissolve a needed and logical
partnership rather than devolve responsibility.
With mitigation programs maturing and real results based on
repetitive disasters coming to light, it is apparent that this is the
area in which we need to continue to move forward. This Committee is to
be congratulated for recognizing the worth of mitigation in the bill.
However, we strongly believe that the Pre-Disaster Mitigation section
needs authorized levels which that will send a clear message that we
are going to work with many communities to reduce the disaster risks
they face.
I would now like to address my comments to our disaster response
and recovery programs; the changes we have made and the changes that
are proposed in the legislation.
Individual Assistance
The emphasis we have placed on making help to families and
individuals more accessible and delivering that help faster has been a
great benefit for the people affected and has also had rewarding
results for the Federal Government. To speed up service and reduce the
administrative costs of registering disaster assistance applicants and
processing applications, FEMA consolidated multiple functions
previously performed at individual disaster sites or regional of rices.
In concert with that activity, FEMA has instituted an automated
registration system for disaster victims at the National
Teleregistration Centers.
The Teleregistration Centers have resulted in not only making the
application process easier for those affected by disasters but have
also had a positive impact on customer service. People applying for
assistance are helped promptly, get consistent answers, and are treated
with respect. Also, the cost savings of on-line processing at a
teleregistration center versus processing a paper application at a
Disaster Application Center are approximately $46 per application. At
an average of 350,000 registrations per year, the annual savings are
approximately $16 million.
After registrations are received, processing begins. This used to
be a cumbersome process, done on an ad hoc basis and spread out among
many field offices and regional offices. FEMA has now established three
National Processing Service Centers. The consolidation of services
permits FEMA to avoid the time delay and cost of establishing the
necessary computer networks in disaster field locations each time there
is a disaster.
In addition, we now apply pen-based computer technology to help
verify applicants' needs, which allows inspectors to record more
rapidly and accurately the damage to homes and personal property. Use
of this technology also saves the expense of manual data entry.
Centralized processing saves approximately $75 per case over our former
field processing. With an average of 300,000 cases processed annually,
the savings are about $22.5 million per year.
What is also noteworthy about these improvements is how they have
accelerated the provision of aid. The 1-800 number we now employ,
coupled with the other changes I have described, has shortened the time
needed to deliver financial assistance for FEMA's Temporary Housing
program from several weeks to several days.
In fact, the average time it takes from the time a disaster victim
calls in to the time that a housing inspector visits and their first
temporary housing check is delivered, used to be measured in weeks. It
is now about 7 to 10 days. In the near future we will be implementing
Electronic Fund Transfer, making it possible for many victims to
receive temporary housing funds even quicker.
We have also combined logistical functions into three Territorial
Logistics Centers. This means that instead of renting hundreds of
warehouses across the country we have three focal points that can
support our field activities at a moment's notice. Additionally, we do
not re-invent the wheel--or pay for a new wheel--with each disaster
declaration. Instead we retain our equipment, such as computers and fax
machines, refurbish and upgrade the equipment, and send it back out for
use in the next disaster.
These changes we have described are relatively new, but they are
positive improvements in the way we deliver supplemental disaster
assistance. I will now address certain changes to Individual Assistance
programs that are contemplated in the Senate's Draft Bill, which we are
considering today.
The bill provides for combining the temporary housing and
Individual and Family Grants program, now administered separately, into
a single program which can address the real and personal property needs
of disaster victims, funded at 100 percent Federal share and
administered by FEMA. At present the temporary housing program is 100
percent federally funded and administered by FEMA, but the Individual
and Family Grant Program (IFG) is funded 75 percent by FEMA, 25 percent
by states, and administered by states. We do not object to this
provision.
Our specific hope is that we can have a consistent program.
Currently several States are able to administer the IFG program
effectively while others have a need for more staff and support to
handle this occasional function. The proposal would be of great benefit
to that second group. From FEMA's standpoint, any change that makes our
role more consistent in each disaster would be a help to our staff in
delivering good customer service in a cost-effective manner.
Other provisions of the bill addressing the sale of manufactured
homes after disasters and the ability to provide more extensive housing
programs in remote island locations will help to reduce costs and
improve services in those parts of FEMA's jurisdiction in which the
standard financial assistance programs are not appropriate.
Public Assistance
Public Assistance is our term for Infrastructure repair. FEMA's
program to fund the repair or restoration of damaged infrastructure
after a disaster is being refined and improved. This improvement will
both reduce administrative costs and, more importantly, streamline our
processes for our State and local partners.
We've redesigned our Public Assistance program to improve customer
service to applicants and increase satisfaction among state and local
participants, to expedite the obligation of Federal grant money, and to
reduce the administrative costs of disaster management. The New Public
Assistance program goals are achieved by organizing recovery around the
needs of the applicant. The New PA program consists of four principal
components:
Process.--The process was redesigned from preliminary damage
assessment to closeout, resulting in the creation of a partnership
among FEMA, State and local participants utilizing the strengths of
each.
Policy.--Our policy goals are to simplify and clarify policy, make
policy information openly available to our customers, and utilize the
Internet for policy information distribution
People.--New roles and responsibilities were created within the PA
work force, as well as a redefinition of existing ones, and training
and credentialing will be required.
Performance.--Performance measures have been developed to assure
compliance with GPRA, and ensure continual program improvement and
customer satisfaction.
A pilot test was conducted jointly with the Commonwealth of
Kentucky on a Presidentially declared disaster from May to July 1998.
The pilot provided an opportunity to simulate a full-scale operation of
the New PA program in a controlled real-time environment, allowing for
the validation and refinement of the new process prior to organization-
wide implementation. The pilot confirmed the feasibility of the New PA
program, identified key aspects of the redesign that may require change
and gauged the organizational inclination to change its culture in
support of the new process. The pilot successfully demonstrated the
following:
<bullet> The ability of applicants to formulate eligible scopes of
work and cost estimates The value of a single point of coordination to
assist applicants The ability to expediently obligate funds to the
state and effectively manage quicker grant close-outs The ability to
identify and address Hazard Mitigation grant opportunities and other
Special Considerations issues early in the process
<bullet> The ability to establish an environment of mutual trust
and respect with the Commonwealth and local applicants
Two key observations of the pilot process were----
<bullet> 95 percent of all projects (403 out of 422 total) were
under the $47,100 small project threshold resulting in significant
administrative savings by having the applicant, rather than FEMA and
State staff, write Damage Survey Reports.
<bullet> 80 percent of projects were obligated within 60 days,
greatly contributing to increased customer satisfaction.
Our Public Assistance Grant Acceleration Program is currently being
implemented in the Northridge Long-term Recovery Area Of lice. Under
this program, a fixed level of funding is provided to cover the
estimated total cost of eligible repair to damaged facilities. Rather
than wait until final actual repair costs are determined, settlement
offers are made based upon industry standard estimates, bringing
administrative closure to long-term projects. This Grant Acceleration
Program is the model for the cost-estimating procedure that the
Senate's Draft Bill will help us to implement. Thus far, 99 projects
have been accepted for a total of $163 million.
We've also redesigned our Public Assistance Program as a whole. The
program now focuses on customer service by emphasizing effective
partnering among FEMA, State, and local governments. We have worked
closely with representatives from State emergency management offices
and local officials to ensure that the redesigned program reflects
their concerns and needs. The result is a program that focuses on
streamlining operations, clarifies program eligibility and policies,
simplifies the process, and forges stronger alliances with State and
local governments. This helps communities recover from disasters
through more efficient and consistent program delivery.
We appreciate some of the provisions in the Draft Bill, such as the
cost-estimates provision I noted earlier, that will help us to carry
out our new vision for the Public Assistance program. also would
support pilot projects that would contribute to further responsible
streamlining of Section 406 under which the Public Assistance program
operates.
I hope I have been able to give you a better understanding of not
only how FEMA regards certain provisions in the Senate Subcommittee's
Draft Bill but also, generally, how FEMA has been operating over the
last 5 years. I have highlighted some of the steps we have taken to cut
some of those costs, particularly in mitigating against future
disasters and their associated costs. These steps are significant and I
am especially proud that they have resulted in not just cost
reductions, but better service for the people most in need--the
disaster victims and communities who have been devastated by disaster
events.
Just as with predisaster mitigation, this hearing is a good example
of how we are able to discuss our emergency management policies outside
of the context of an actual disaster event and consider what we can do
to reduce the pain and suffering caused by disasters through sound
public policy. While we respectfully object to some provisions of the
bill you are considering, we also appreciate the careful attention you
are giving to the work we do. It matters to millions of Americans and
getting it right is important. Any changes we make will be reflected in
the depth and quality of not only our response to disasters in the
future, but also our ability to reduce their impact on our communities.
I thank you for your time and attention. I deeply appreciate the
support you have given me and all of the great FEMA staff since I came
into this job. The confidence you have shown in us has helped us do a
job that matters to people in great distress. I am happy to answer any
questions you might have.
______
Federal Emergency Management Agency
project impact
Community Service
<bullet> College student installing non-structural earthquake
mitigation measure for low-income housing resident (Oakland, CA);
<bullet> High school student clearing yard debris that would pose
a hazard in the event of a hurricane (Wilmington, NC);
<bullet> Volunteers installing donated hurricane shutters in low-
income senior citizen neighborhood (Deerfield Beach, FL);
<bullet> Newspaper article on college students participating in
flood damage reduction activities in Randolph/Tucker Counties, West
Virginia.
Individual Empowerment
<bullet> Home workshops on hurricane damage prevention measures
available from local retailers;
<bullet> Hazard Mitigation Fact Sheets--mitigation measures to
protect homes and businesses;
<bullet> Newspaper article on Seattle, Washington's Self-help Home
Earthquake Retrofit Course available through neighborhood community
centers.
Financial Incentives
<bullet> Citizens National Bank of Elkins, WV, display to promote
the availability of flood mitigation loans (Bank President and FEMA
Director James L. Witt in forefront);
<bullet> Financial institutions developing mitigation loan
packages in Project Impact communities;
<bullet> Merchant & Marine Bank of Pascagoula, MS, hurricane
season flyer to announce the availability of reduced rate mitigation
loans.
__________
Testimony of the Honorable Hal Daub, Mayor, Omaha, NE, Member of the
Board of Directors of the National League of Cities, and Immediate Past
Chairman of Public Safety and Crime Prevention Steering Committee
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Graham and members of the
subcommittee. I want to thank you for inviting me to testify this
morning on behalf of the National League of Cities (NLC). I am pleased
to represent NLC, the largest and oldest organization representing some
140,000 municipal elected leaders from nearly 17,000 cities and towns.
I am in my second term as mayor of Omaha, Nebraska, moving up after
service in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1981-1989. Currently
I am a member of the Board of Directors of the National League of
Cities, and last year I served as the Chairman of NLC's Public Safety
and Crime Prevention Steering Committee which is responsible for
developing NLC policy on all issues related to public safety. This
committee considers and recommends policy related to all aspects of
natural and manmade disasters. I am testifying for NLC today as a
member of the organization's board.
Before I present NLC's comments on the ``Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act,'' I would like to take
this opportunity to thank you and your staff for your outreach to
cities and other stakeholders with roles in disaster preparedness,
response, recovery and mitigation.
When a community is overwhelmed by a major disaster, the local
government must look to the State and federal government for assistance
and to coordinate response and recovery activities. So, it is important
that we take the same approach as we work with your subcommittee, FEMA
and other stakeholders to develop authorizing language for Project
Impact.
NLC is committed to a balanced federal budget and deficit reduction
which requires us to work with all levels of government to actually
reduce costs. We believe this must and can be done without simply
shifting federal responsibilities and costs to state and local
governments. And we believe an increasing number of severe disasters,
as well as increased urbanization and other factors, are largely
responsible for escalating federal, state, and local disaster-related
costs.
The offsets needed in recent years for federal supplemental
appropriations to pay for disasters have largely come out of programs
of great importance to cities. So it is no surprise that NLC members
support reducing the need for supplementals through cost effective
activities to substantially reduce the risk of future damage, hardship,
and suffering from major disasters.
Almost two-thirds of federal disaster costs are from damage to
public facilities and infrastructure. And we know all disasters are
local. Thus it is essential that responsible local officials, both
elected and professional emergency personnel, are engaged on a
permanent basis in activities to increase our overall capacity to
identify and assess disaster risks and to advance established
mitigation strategies and priorities.
Title I--Predisaster Hazard Mitigation
NLC is very pleased that FEMA has agreed to work with you on this
legislation to establish State and local predisaster mitigation
partnerships which will actively engage the private sector and
nonprofit organizations in creating disaster resistant communities. We
believe this will help improve and expand the capacity for effective
mitigation activities in communities across the country.
I want to reiterate here NLC's commitment and offers to work with
FEMA to help increase the awareness of local officials, the business
community, and the general public of natural hazards and what they have
cost or could cost if we fail to reduce them through hazard risk
mitigation. (See attached letters.)
We fully support engaging the private sector in mitigation
activities to reduce damage to business and private property and to get
their support for developing disaster resistant public facilities and
infrastructure. Also, it is essential that we encourage the private
sector to limit, and where possible prevent, significant economic
disruption following disasters. The health of our communities and our
tax base depend on this.
Throughout this Act there is emphasis placed on the importance of
federal support to and engagement of State and local governments to
accomplish implementation of effective mitigation measures. We are
pleased that States are called on to engage local governments in
development of our comprehensive mitigation plans and programs, as well
as in setting statewide priorities. This involvement will help local
officials begin to recognize and analyze existing hazards and to learn
how they can be reduced or eliminated through already proven mitigation
approaches. We also expect FEMA to provide states and localities, in a
timely fashion, information on the successes of Project Impact as they
develop. This should include examples of how cities succeed in bringing
the business and nonprofit sectors in as partners to create disaster
resistant communities.
This involvement of cities will build on the important working
relationships most cities already have with their state emergency
management offices. Seed money from FEMA will help us initiate
community-based mitigation activities and help cities leverage
investment from other federal agencies, our state governments, and the
private sector.
Setting criteria and recognizing meaningful and definable outcomes
are critical if we are to determine what specific mitigation activities
work and how well they work in saving lives, reducing recovery costs,
and preventing major disruption in local and regional economies. The
criteria you set in this Act will also facilitate objective selection
by states of the localities recommended to the President for
predisaster mitigation assistance.
I would like to comment on the Federal Share for mitigation which
this Act would establish. A federal contribution of ``up to 75
percent'' leaves FEMA with authority to cover far less than 75 percent
and could complicate a city's ability to develop a realistic mitigation
proposal which could compete for federal funding. In many cases we are
talking about rebuilding infrastructureprojects which can often require
capital debts.
The issuance of municipal debt requires a long-term sure source of
revenue to ensure full and timely payment to our bondholders.
Consequently, the flexibility to FEMA to change its share can wreak
havoc in our ability to make our own capital improvements and
commitments.
NLC applauds the proposal in the Act to create an interagency task
force to coordinate all predisaster mitigation administered by the
federal government. If the task force functions as it should, it could
reduce duplication and result in efficient use of federal funds. It
would also be helpful if the task force could serve as the place where
records of overall federal predisaster mitigation assistance are kept.
A comparative review of this assistance and its effectiveness could be
most helpful for guidance in the future.
On the Act's sunset in 2003, we are hopeful that reauthorization of
Project Impact, or an improved approach to predisaster mitigation,
would be considered if Project Impact proves to result in significant
local, state and federal savings. If we are successful, more and more
communities will initiate mitigation activities and may need some seed
money to help them move toward becoming truly disaster resistant
communities.
Section 202. Assistance to Repair, Restore, Reconstruct, or Replace
Damaged Facilities
Under this section of the Act, I would like to comment briefly on
several issues of concern for cities:
The requirement that a nonprofit must apply to the SEA for a
disaster loan and be rejected or receive an insufficient amount to make
repairs before it could receive assistance could create a serious
problem. For example, if the Red Cross were the primary service
provider for persons and families displaced by a disaster and Red Cross
shelters were damaged and unsafe, wouldn't it be important that needed
repairs be funded immediately? Wouldn't waiting for SBA approval or
rejection of a loan request create a hardship after a major disaster?
I would like to encourage the subcommittee to include in your
Report on this Act language directing FEMA to provide opportunities for
public comment prior to the adoption of any new or modified policies
that would have potential funding impacts on state and local
governments, and that the Agency does not apply such policies
retroactively. It is essential that FEMA adhere to ``due process'' in
developing guidance and regulations for this Act, particularly if FEMA
chooses to clarify what public facilities are determined necessary to
meet a need for governmental services and functions after a disaster.
NLC is pleased that the Act includes under ``Other Eligible
Activities'' the costs of the National Guard and Prison Labor as well
as base and overtime wages for city employees and extra hires who
perform eligible work plus their fringe benefits as appropriate.
Recommendations
NLC fully supports the recommendations in the bill to:
<bullet> evaluate after 18 months the implementation of
predisaster mitigation and make recommendations for a process to
transfer more authority to states and localities for administering the
program and a process for considering private sector predisaster
mitigation initiatives;
<bullet> establish a cost estimation procedure;
<bullet> have the OCC conduct a study to examine the effectiveness
of this hazard mitigation program, including a review of its goals and
objectives, the cost benefit in terms of mitigation, disaster
avoidance, and dollars saved and report this to Congress within 3
years;
<bullet> have the OCC estimate the reduction in Federal disaster
assistance resulting from implementation of the Act;
<bullet> determine the current and future availability of disaster
insurance for public infrastructure; and
<bullet> examine analytically the major disasters and emergencies
which have been declared since 1974, describing the implied criteria
for these declarations and how they have changed over time, and make
recommendations for appropriate future criteria that should be
considered when making disaster and emergency declarations under the
Stafford Act.
In addition to these studies and reports recommended in this
legislation, NLC would like to encourage the subcommittee to commission
a study to provide us all with the best possible information on actual
disaster costs incurred by local, state and federal levels of
government. This information is essential if we are to determine if
predisaster mitigation really reduces disaster costs. NLC would be
pleased to help with collection of this data.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again for inviting me to testify
on behalf of the National League of Cities and I urge you to look to
the League for continued cooperation as we work together to launch a
national mitigation program and partnerships to reduce disaster costs
at all levels of government.
National League of Cities,
February 9, 1998.
The Honorable James Lee Witt, Director,
Federal Emergency Management Agency,
500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472
Dear Director Witt: As President of the National League of Cities
(NLC), I want to congratulate you on the excellent job you are doing as
Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. I also
wholeheartedly agree with your long-term policy focus on preventing
disaster losses through mitigation and disaster preparedness. This
could benefit all Americans, particularly taxpayers, and could prevent
catastrophic damage to private and public property. This focus will be
central to protecting vital public infrastructure.
NLC is a national organization representing the interests of 49
state municipal leagues, more than 135,000 locally elected officials,
and 1,400 direct member cities. Through the state leagues, we work with
17,000 municipalities.
Over the years, cities have worked closely with FEMA when
overwhelmed by both natural disasters and terrorists incidents.
Recovery in these instances would not have been possible without help
from the federal government, principally FEMA. NLC's staff has worked
productively with your staff to encourage cities to improve disaster
preparedness and to reduce, through mitigation and enlightened zoning
and land use planning, loss of life and damage to both public and
private property. We would like to see even greater collaboration
between FEMA and NLC. I believe NLC could come to the table with a
variety of ideas and suggestions for cost reductions. Currently, we are
working with a coalition to develop proactive approaches to disaster
cost reduction.
Last fall, NLC in cooperation with a broad coalition of national,
state and local groups opposed many of the Stafford Act amendments FEMA
recommended to Congress and the Senate appropriators attached to
S.1034. While we supported many of the provisions in the bill designed
to reduce costs at all levels of government, we opposed the proposals
which would have simply shifted federal costs to state and local
governments. NLC's key priorities are federal deficit reduction and a
balanced budget. We believe this should be accomplished through
equitable cuts across the federal budget, not through shifts of
responsibilities and costs to local government. Also, appropriators
regularly dip into programs important to cities to offset disaster
supplementals. For these reasons, NLC would like to work more actively
with FEMA and Congress to find ways to reduce natural disaster costs.
With this in mind, NLC would like to augment FEMA's efforts to
educate local elected officials about the importance of disaster
preparedness and mitigation. Damage to and loss of public property from
natural disasters represents, by far, the bulk of the costs stemming
from these events. Disaster costs will never diminish significantly
without reducing the vulnerability of public property.
In light of this, we would like to help in any way we can with your
Project Impact Initiative. We would be pleased to work with FEMA to
develop criteria for Project Impact and to contribute ideas toward an
equitable selection process. The criteria could include performance
measures to evaluate progress and report successes A state-by-state
competition might be the best way to encourage communities to learn
about the project and to communicate with their state emergency
managers. Although Project Impact may only be able to reward a grant to
one community in each state, increased understanding of the importance
of mitigation and mitigation activities would occur in many localities.
Please consider these offers and suggestions and let me know what
you think. Have your staff contact Frank Shafroth, NLC's Director of
Policy and Federal Relations, to discuss how we can increase our
cooperation. Mr. Shafroth can be reached at (202) 626-3023.
Sincerely,
Brian J. O'Neill, President,
Councilman, Philadelphia, PA.
______
National League of Cities,
August 8, 1997.
Mr. Brian Cowan, Program Assistant,
Office of Policy and Regional Operations
FEMA
500 C Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20472.
Dear Brian: Thanks so much for meeting with us this morning. I know
you have plenty of responsibilities without having to take lots of time
with the concerns of NACo and NLC. However, I am optimistic we may be
able to make your job easier and ultimately contribute to the short and
long-term success of FEMA's Disaster Resistant Communities Initiative.
As I said this morning, I believe NLC must find effective ways to grab
the attention of elected officials and get them seriously committed to
natural disaster mitigation in their communities.
On my return to the office, I checked our direct member list and
our committee membership rosters. Deerfield Beach is an active direct
member of NLC and they have one of the city's commissioners on our
Public Safety and Crime Prevention Committee (PSCP). Commissioner
Gwendolen Clarke-Reed of Deerfield Beach is committed to improving how
her city deals with natural disasters before, during and after they
occur. I am sure she is enthusiastic about FEMA's Disaster Resistant
Communities Initiative. I am also confident that she will report to the
PSCP Committee on the progress of the initiative and we could encourage
her to write an article for the paper when things have progressed to a
stage that there is something positive to report. We could also
encourage the mayor and/or the commissioner to participate in workshops
at our semiannual meetings. In addition, the Mayor and Gwen will
probably share the results of the initiative with all Florida cities
through the Florida League of Cities. These are suggestions on what we
can do in the context of Deerfield Beach to build, within our
membership better understanding of the importance of mitigation, as
well as more interest and enthusiasm at the local level for moving
forward with appropriate mitigation plans and activities.
Other direct members of NLC which have been selected to participate
in this initiative are: Oakland, CA, Pascagoula, MI, Seattle, WA, and
Wilmington, NC. We can report their progress occasionally if this is
appropriate or do something that might include all of them at some type
of event or in a special publication possibly.
Attached are several articles from ``Quality Cities, April, 1996''
published by the Florida League of Cities. I get the impression that
counties are indeed responsible for emergency management in Florida.
However, as I read between the lines, whatever the counties have done
may not seem sufficient in the eyes of some local governments. As the
articles indicate, many cities have hired or designated an employee to
be the local emergency manager. None-the-less, even with a local
manager I am certain there is still considerable local dependence on
the counties to take the lead.
Again, many thanks for meeting with Don Murray and me this morning.
Do let me know where and when we can help generate interest among local
governments in the mitigation initiatives FEMA will undertake with
seven localities and the progress we expect they will demonstrate.
Sincerely,
Cameron D. Whitman
Senior Legislative Counsel
__________
Statement of Joseph F. Myers, Director, Florida Division of Emergency
Management
Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for
allowing the National Emergency Management Association (NEMA) the
opportunity to provide comments on the proposed ``Disaster Mitigation
Act of 1998.'' NEMA represents state and territorial emergency
management directors who are responsible to their governors for
developing and maintaining an integrated and responsive emergency
management system.
My name is Joseph F. Myers. I am the director of Florida's Division
of Emergency Management. For the past 2 years, I have had the pleasure
to serve as Chairman of NEMA's Mitigation Committee. It has been NEMA's
contention that the most effective way to reduce our nation's
vulnerability to the impacts of disasters is through the application of
mitigation programs while maintaining an effective preparedness
capability. We believe the proposed legislation supports this shared
goal of reducing our nations vulnerability to disasters and the costs
in lost lives and property.
First, let me commend this committee for taking the time to hold
hearings on this very important topic. Revising the Stafford Act to
address predisaster mitigation, streamline assistance and reduce costs
is very important to every state in this nation. It is particularly
appropriate to consider such changes in the authorizing committee,
where those who have the ability to consider issues of this magnitude
can reflect upon the far reaching impacts these changes will have on
the entire emergency management community, with its many varied but
related Federal and state programs and stakeholders.
This bill properly focuses our collective efforts toward a
sustainable system of managing disasters and their consequences. This
bill prioritizes the use of our resources and recognizes the critical
importance of breaking an ever more expensive cycle of destruction and
rebuilding. We should become focused on creating sustainable
communities, able to reduce the impacts of disasters, thereby reducing
our dependence on federal, state, and local recovery dollars. This
legislation is an important milestone in the effort to modify the built
environment and ensure both pro- and post disaster construction and
development practices that will survive disasters. This legislation
dovetails with our emphasis on streamlining current assistance
programs, expediting the recovery of those who need it most, the
victims.
NEMA applauds the Federal Emergency Management Agency for their
aggressive efforts to improve our nations' emergency management system.
Under the leadership of Director James Lee Witt, FEMA has worked hard
in partnership with NEMA on several new initiatives that, given time,
will radically improve our emergency management system. Focused efforts
to close out old disasters; implementing the Public Assistance
streamlining initiative; and, designating capable states to become
``Mitigation Management States,'' to reduce costs and streamline the
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, are just some of Director Witt's
innovations. Each of these initiatives have already had dramatic, and
positive impacts on state and local emergency management agencies.
NEMA and FEMA have worked in tandem on initiatives to cut disaster
related costs. NEMA and FEMA have addressed many proposals and working
together, we believe that mutually agreeable solutions can be found. At
a recent meeting with Director Witt, the NEMA leadership committed to
work in partnership with FEMA to develop fair and objective disaster
declaration criteria, a Congressional concern for many years.
Declaration criteria will help state emergency management agencies
know, before a disaster strikes, the necessary thresholds that trigger
a major disaster declaration. This knowledge will save time, minimize
false expectations, and ensure equity in declaration decisions.
Overall, our impression of the proposed ``Disaster Mitigation Act
of 1998'' is very favorable. We believe, if passed, it will have a
beneficial impact on reducing the spiraling costs of disasters. Both
NEMA and FEMA have emphasized the importance of initiating predisaster
mitigation efforts as a powerful way to reduce our increasing
vulnerability to natural and non natural disasters. The bill will also
streamline components of the Public and Individual Assistance Programs
and reduce the costs of these programs.
More specifically, we agree with the concept underlying Section
101. The emergency management community must institutionalize the focus
on mitigation if we are to reverse the escalating costs of disasters.
Without effective mitigation at both the federal, state and local level
we will be kept in a cycle of repetitive losses, which disrupt lives
and destroys property. At the same time we must be consolidate and
continue to improve on our preparedness and response initiatives.
While we applaud the efforts to engage the states in the selection
of those communities who will benefit from the predisaster mitigation
funding, we realize the President will ultimately determine which of
these communities will be selected. We encourage the Committee to
revise the selection process to be a shared responsibility of the
President and the Governors of each state. This will ensure that the
selection process will benefit from the unique insights of the
Governors, and enhance the ``partnership'' concept between the Federal
Government, each state, and each eligible community.
A five-year commitment of significant funding to this mitigation
effort is equally appreciated. If mitigation is going to have a real
impact on cost reduction, we must take the initiative to fund it at
levels that will ensure success. Therefore, we recommend that the level
of funding remain, at a minimum, consistent with the first year's
allocation of $50 million, and not decrease each succeeding year. This
will ensure a sustained and strategic effort into the new millennium.
In Section 107, we applaud increasing the contribution for the
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program from the current 15 percent, to the
proposed 20 percent. This will provide more funds to local and state
applicants for mitigation projects, and reduce disaster costs by
reducing the risk of loss of lives and property.
Replacement of the sliding scale for ``associated costs'' in the
public assistance program, with the more equitable ``management
costs,'' as defined in Section 201 will reduce the burden of
determining these costs, and expedite the overall public assistance
program at the state level. This will result in a more reasonable and
understandable process for all parties and creates an incentive for
progress to closure of disasters.
In Section 202, we appreciate the added incentive found in
Subsection (3) which will encourage eligible applicants who want to
undertake an alternate project that will mitigate future disaster
damages. Allowing for ninety percent Federal contribution toward
alternate infrastructure projects is an incentive for good decisions,
and at the same time, reduces future costs by encouraging facility
owners to move away from high risk areas.
Using the ``estimate of eligible costs'' will dramatically expedite
the public assistance process and implement the concepts found in
FEMA's Public Assistance streamlining initiative. However, we recommend
that the spread between under/over estimating be tightened from the
proposed 80 percent-120 percent, to one that is more equitable, i.e.,
90 percent-110 percent. Knowing there will be multi-million dollar
public assistance projects, underestimating the cost by 20 percent
could be devastating to the applicant.
New Section 203 amends the Federal Assistance Programs available to
individuals and households to create an expedited delivery system for
human service needs of disaster victims. Although some current State
responsibilities are shifted from the Governor to the President the
process is ``in consultation and coordination with the Governor'' and
should result in a more cost effective program overall. Existing
flexibility in the emergency housing repair program should be
maintained to give FEMA every tool needed to match family assistance
with the needs resulting from a disaster.
We recommend consideration of additional flexibility in Individual
Assistance Declarations. When a local jurisdiction is declared for
Individual Assistance we would propose that the contiguous
jurisdictions be included as eligible for disaster assistance. This
would comport with the current regulations of the Small Business
Administration and the United States Department of Agriculture in their
agency declaration process. Such a measure would eliminate
discrimination against those who happen to live on the other side of
the river.
We applaud the provision found at Section 205 which formally
recognizes the benefits of creating ``management states'' who have
accepted more responsibility in managing the Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program. Florida was the first state in the nation to be designated a
Management State, and it has had a very positive impact, expediting the
entire HMGP process and reducing associated costs. We would encourage
those states with the capability and desire to take this role to do so.
Recognizing Congress' desire and need to streamline the public
assistance program we appreciate the Committee's willingness to let
FEMA's Public Assistance (PA) streamlining initiative have time to
mature. NEMA believes the PA streamlining will prove itself with time,
and should be given the chance to experience success. Already, in those
states that have used this new system on a pilot basis (i.e.,
Kentucky), they report it works well and has great potential.
Lastly, I would like to recommend the Committee consider a review
of Section 420 (fire suppression) of the current Stafford Act. Having
gone through what the U.S. Forest Service is calling the most complex
fire event in the history of the nation, I wholeheartedly recommend the
Fire Suppression Grant process be reviewed. The current process of
securing a fire suppression grant is stressful and the fiscal
management is very difficult. The process of obtaining Federal
assistance needs to be clarified. Further, FEMA should assume the
leadership role in all disasters, including major fires. There needs to
be one agency in charge in order to mitigate any confusion. We believe
as more and more of our nations' population enter into the urban/
wildland interface, we will see increasingly devastating forest fires
directly impacting communities. As a nation, we must look beyond the
traditional wind and water issues in preparing for disasters. We find
the need to place more emphasis upon studying the overall issue of the
urban/wildland interface, and the disastrous consequences of wild fire
on these interfaces. We believe the consequences of urban interface
fires can be mitigated. We also believe a fire suppression grant should
generate funding for the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, something it
currently does not do.
In summary, NEMA and FEMA have labored very hard to encourage the
creation of predisaster hazard mitigation programs and appropriate
funding levels, as well as streamlining the public assistance process.
This bill puts us on the right track, though we should constantly
strive to refine the process. NEMA fully endorses the concept of
reduction of future disaster costs through predisaster hazard
mitigation programs. It is the only solution that will have meaningful
impact on future disaster cost reductions. We support your efforts to
institutionalize this concept.
NEMA and each of its member State Directors thanks you for this
opportunity to speak to you today. We look forward to your continued
efforts in this endeavor.
__________
Statement of Albert Ashwood, Director, Oklahoma Department of Emergency
Management
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for
inviting the State of Oklahoma to present testimony before your
subcommittee today. We commend you for your ongoing efforts to
strengthen and enhance the nation's emergency management system and we
look forward to providing any assistance to you for this endeavor. From
our position, you subcommittee recognizes that the only way we will
truly reduce disaster costs and the significant impacts of disasters on
our communities is through mitigation, more specifically, predisaster
mitigation.
Background
The focus of today's hearing is predisaster mitigation and the
streamlining and cost reduction of the emergency management process.
Since 1900, Oklahoma has experienced 17 federally declared disasters,
which include 7 fire suppression declarations. Federal, State and local
dollars that were used within the State for each of the three recovery
programs--Individual Assistance, Infrastructure and Mitigation--during
this period totals over $80 million. However, an important point to
consider here is that this figure represents only the assistance
identified as a result of the requirements to track disaster
expenditures. Insured losses; uninsured or under-insured losses;
unreported labor and construction costs; and other miscellaneous costs
would add even more dollars to that total. In addition , in 1994,
Oklahoma enacted State Public Assistance (infrastructure) disaster
declaration procedures. This legislation provides for public assistance
to political subdivisions up to $100,000 per calendar year, per
jurisdiction, for nonfederally declared disasters that are declared by
the Governor. For this State program, we have expended nearly $3
million of State funds. Our program does not require a local match for
these funds. However, in each instance the local damages far exceeded
the amount that could be repaired or replaced with funds provided by
the State. As you can see, disaster costs, and methods that can be
implemented to reduce those costs are very important issues.
The Disaster Mitigation Act of 1998
We strongly concur with the intent of the bill as written. Each of
us at the Federal, state, local and private level should do everything
within our means to reduce the costs of disasters before they occur.
Title I--Predisaster Hazard Mitigation--will assist in the endeavor. We
encourage all of our communities to identify and assess their risks;
implement measures to reduce disaster losses; and ensure that critical
facilities, public infrastructure, and lifelines will continue to
function after a disaster. At the same time we are encouraging
communities to do this, we are also advocating that the continuance of
Federal assistance might be in jeopardy unless respective communities
start helping themselves first, before a disaster occurs. Please
understand that we fully concur with a predisaster hazard mitigation
program, but we are trying to convince the communities of their
responsibilities relative to developing a unified effort through local
partnerships, identifying nonFederal resources, and initiating a strong
commitment to long-term mitigation projects that can be funded locally.
In addition, these local initiatives should be identified in detail in
the local all-hazards mitigation plan.
A review of Title I discloses that we may need clarification of the
following items:
<bullet> Provides the opportunity to fund hazard mitigation
measures that the State or local government determines to be necessary.
<bullet> Providing care to individuals is a paramount concern in
any emergency situation. For example, we are currently experiencing
drought conditions in Oklahoma, as are other states as well. We have
convened the appropriate State Agency Directors, their Federal
counterparts, volunteer agencies, and private sector businesses, to
activate the Oklahoma State Drought Management Plan. This plan focuses
on fire suppression, water shortages, heat related problems and
agricultural losses. This is a proactive step to protect our Oklahoma
citizens. The emergency management process as relates to Individual
Assistance is a crucial link in providing food, shelter and life-
sustaining services to each Oklahoman. We in Oklahoma learned a very
valuable lesson April 19, 1995, and the Oklahoma disaster service
community continues to provide essential services to many of those
affected by the Murrah Building bombing. From this lesson, we know that
early coordination is the key to sustaining a reasonable quality of
life for those affected by disasters. We must remember that a disaster
does not end when the immediate response is completed. For those
affected families, the disaster has only begun.
We concur with state administration of the hazard mitigation
assistance program. The wording of the draft bill enables each state to
conduct an assessment of its abilities and capabilities to participate
as a ``managing state'', along with the flexibility to participate in
the program when the time is right. As defined long-term, each state
should strive to become a managing state; however, local capabilities
impact on the final decision. We have already participated in some of
this coordination, and it would appear to be a seamless process to
become a ``management state.''
We concur in concept with the streamlining of damaged facilities
program. Since the program is still under development, we hesitate to
concur fully until we have had a chance to review the new program in
its entirety. We have been asked from the start of this initiative to
review and provide comments relative to development of the program, and
it appears that the ``new PA Program,'' currently under development by
FEMA will reduce the administrative requirements of the current
program, as well as be more responsive to all eligible applicants.
Further, I am a member of the National Emergency Management Association
Response and Recovery Committee. Be assured that this program is being
evaluated thoroughly at that level also. Streamlining the process is
long overdue, and we look forward to the new program.
Summary
We in Oklahoma share your concern about the rising costs of
disasters. We encourage you to explore all opportunities to initiate
cost-reducing measures such as predisaster hazard mitigation. Devolving
more authority for the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and the Public
Assistance Program will definitely reduce administrative costs,
eliminate duplication and streamline the entire process. The ultimate
benefactors will be disaster victims who will receive improved
services. Initiatives that you have identified already about a study
regarding cost reduction, a study regarding disaster insurance for
public infrastructure, and a study regarding declarations will no doubt
identify additional areas for consideration.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today, and we look
forward to continuing to work with you in the future.
__________
Statement of Dan Summers, Director, Department of Emergency Management,
New Hanover County, NC
Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. It is indeed
an honor to be with you today. I compliment you on the desire to learn
more from local government regarding possible amendments to the
Stafford Act.
I bring to this discussion 15 years service as one community's
Emergency Manager having participated in four Presidential Disaster
Declarations.
In North Carolina nearly all one hundred counties have experienced
disasters in the past decade. The issue of disaster response is no
longer the other communities problem. I can attest that most all local
governments now have a greater appreciation for a sound emergency
management response program. However it is my belief that while
disaster response plans are improving, only a small number of
communities are sensitive to the rising disaster cost and the potential
for cost reduction under the concept of mitigation.
This Committee, along with some local governments and Federal
agencies are equally concerned about the cost of disaster recovery.
However, before you hasten to suggest budget cuts or tighter
restrictions, understand that every disaster response is community
specific. Needs vary, and individual pain and suffering is far greater
than the typical 15 second sound bite seen on the evening news.
I have witnessed Federal participation in disasters in the 1980's
and I have been a part of the Federal response effort during events of
the 90's. Allow me to compliment FEMA and many of its Federal partners
on dramatic improvements in customer service. While dramatic
improvements have occurred and communities are better served, there
still exists opportunities to reach new levels in disaster response and
mitigation.
The efforts of FEMA's Project Impact is the new cornerstone of
local recovery and mitigation initiatives. My community--New Hanover
County North Carolina is one of the seven pilot communities involved in
this worthwhile program. With FEMA's program support, we have a local
community-driven task force. Our task force, titled the Partnership for
Disaster Mitigation and Recovery has generated strong community
interest. Let me illustrate some of our successes. In partnership with
Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse, we have conducted Hurricane
Preparedness Expos. This event allows hundreds of visitors and
customers to learn more on topics ranging from simple preparedness
reminders to the latest techniques in strengthening roof and wall
systems.
Barnes and Nobles Bookseller contributed a full month of community
service programming to hurricane awareness and single family home
mitigation techniques. Most notably has been the highly acclaimed
sessions for children who have learned preparedness and drawn pictures
of elevating their homes illustrating their understanding of disaster
mitigation techniques.
Just one of our planned construction projects is a combined FEMA
and local effort. Combining funding sources we are designing new school
roof systems to not only reduce the cost of damages during the next
hurricane, but improving the building's safety as an evacuation
shelter. A key part of this activity will include training local
engineers, building code officials and architects on the latest wind
resistant techniques for incorporation into future school construction
projects.
For the record, a summary of our community activity and work
projects has been submitted.
The Partnership is continuing to work on dozens of ways to minimize
the financial impact of our next hurricane event. Project Impact has
allowed local communities to best define their needs as opposed to
following a manual generalized for the entire country.
If you analyze the disaster recovery process, the majority of the
response activity is a local effort. Assistance typically is needed
during recovery and restoration. Restoration and recovery efforts,
especially for infrastructure items such as public buildings, schools,
roads, and basic housing, are extremely difficult to manage following
any disaster for any level of government.
If a community takes steps to reduce the effects of future
disasters especially areas experiencing repetitive events--it is simple
to understand that the pressures for local government will be reduced.
Surprisingly, most of our disaster outcomes are no longer unknowns.
Mitigation dollars in partnership with local communities will be our
roadmap to reduction in Federal disaster dollars.
One analogy of supporting funding for predisaster mitigation might
correlate with the concept of a vaccine. If the government supports the
cost of vaccinations' the cost to the community is reduced by not
having to combat that particular disease. Furthermore, the education
and awareness efforts associated with vaccination programs contributes
to our overall community wellness and improved standard of living.
Project Impact and predisaster mitigation funding opportunities for
communities can work much like a vaccine. If FEMA helps the community
develop a team approach to building disaster resistant communities and
injects funds for local demonstration mitigation projects, the
community then has the opportunity to map its own mitigation successes.
Recently, one of our local elected officials put Project Impact in
this perspective. Look at what our nation has accomplished supporting
concepts of recycling and the use of seatbelts. In these programs we
have invested in public education, research and demonstration grant
funding. By supporting predisaster mitigation funding opportunities
with closely aligned Federal and community partnerships, a national
disaster mitigation ethic will begin to emerge. This ethic or change in
the way we handle disasters is the best way we know to begin the
process of reducing disaster cost.
In closing, I cannot begin to tell you the excitement and
dedication my community has developed regarding Project Impact and the
common sense approach to predisaster mitigation. My community,
especially large and small businesses, feels that this is ``government
at its best'' because the activities and programs are flexible and
community-based. Be patient, we all know that new predisaster
mitigation strategies will take time to conceive, develop and implement
on a state and local level. Your pre-and post-disaster mitigation
funding support will in-time begin to show some very tangible results.
I thank you for this opportunity, I hope that you will give strong
consideration to opening the regulatory doors for FEMA, and allow a
community-based disaster mitigation ethic to be born.
Thank you, and may I answer any questions you may have?
______
Memorandum of Understanding
Agreement is made this ninth day of December 1997, by these
parties: the County of New Hanover, City of Wilmington, participating
municipalities, the private sector, the State of North Carolina and its
partners (referred to collectively as the ``State''), and the Federal
Emergency Management Agency and its national-level partners (referred
to collectively as ``FEMA'').
Recitals
WHEREAS, the parties
Will strive to create a sustainable community that is resistant to
the human and economic costs of disasters; and
Recognize increasing population growth and diversity, escalating
disaster costs, increasing vulnerability, and increasing threats to
voluntary insurance markets; and
Recognize that vulnerable conditions exist among State, County,
City, and participating municipalities' public and private buildings
and facilities and the utility and transportation systems that serve
them; and
Recognize the need to improve communications among industry;
government; and the community; and
Understand that the consequences of natural and man-made hazard
events--losses of lives and property--are unacceptable; and
Understand the critical relationships among governments, nonprofit
institutions, and the private sector; and
Believe that measures can be taken to reduce future losses; that
enacting these measures can be done best in partnerships among
government agencies, private companies, voluntary and professional
associations, colleges and universities, and community organizations;
and
Promote personal responsibility for disaster preparedness;
Recognize the respective commitment of the parties to mitigation
activities; and
Agree that incentives, such as financial, are necessary; and
Agree to continue to receive and encourage the input of other
appropriate partners; and
Understand that the State, County, City, and municipalities agree
to participate in FEMA's ``Project Impact'' initiative and National
Mitigation Strategy; and
Understand that the State, County, City, and municipalities agree
to participate in North Carolina's Mitigation Planning Initiative; and
Understand that the State, County, City, and participating
municipalities agree to participate in the Federal Governments National
Mitigation Strategy; and
Believe that loss-reduction efforts undertaken before the onset of
natural or man-made hazards events are the foundation of emergency
management and are in the interest of public safety and economic
security; and
Desire to reduce losses because of their effect on the citizens of
the United States and their cost to Federal, State, and local
governments; and
Wish to engender a new attitude among communities that embraces
policies and projects that avoid, to the extent possible, creating new
risks due to natural or man-made hazards, and to lessen the risk
associated with existing buildings, facilities, utilities, and
transportation systems; and
WHEREAS, the parties believe they have a strong and abiding mutual
interest to reduce losses from future disasters;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed that the parties voluntarily
enter into this non-binding Agreement to establish the New Hanover
County Partnership for Disaster Mitigation and Recovery (the
Partnership). Membership in the partnership is open and can be expanded
to include new (additional) partners in the future. The partnership
will work together, and with other interested entities to further
mutual loss-reduction goals subject to the terms and conditions recited
below.
1. Term
The respective duties, responsibilities and commitments of the
parties hereto Shall commence on the date this Agreement is signed by
the parties and may be periodically renewed or revised at the option of
the parties.
2. Consultations
The Partners, in coordination with other public-sector entities and
related community-wide initiatives, shall consult with each other on:
<bullet> identification and delineation of natural or man-made
hazards within the County, City, and participating municipalities;
<bullet> assessment of risk and vulnerability of buildings,
facilities, utilities, communications and transportation systems in the
public and private sectors;
<bullet> techniques to plan for, reduce, and manage expected
losses; and
<bullet> technical and financial assistance and incentives to
facilitate loss-reduction projects.
3. Annual Evaluation
The parties shall annually review the partnership created by this
Agreement to determine and document the improvements accomplished. The
Partnership will prepare an annual report describing accomplishments
and making recommendations for improving this Agreement, FEMA's Project
Impact, and other disaster mitigation/recovery strategies.
4. Resource Commitment
The patties will consider committing human, technical, and
financial resources, coordinate with current and future partners, and
carry out the fundamental actions of this voluntary, non-binding
Agreement.
5. The Disaster-Resistant Communities (Project Impact) Action Plan
This Project Impact Agreement lists commitments made by the parties
to be included as part of the Project Impact Action Plan. Appendix A
reports these commitments, which will be acted upon after execution of
this agreement. These actions will constitute steps toward
accomplishing the loss-reduction goal. The period of time for
completing defined actions will be set and reported by the partnership.
The principal objective of this initiative is to further develop
private, volunteer, and public-sector capabilities people, policies,
resources, long-term plans, schedule for accomplishments, and
establishment of working relationships--needed to carry out projects to
reduce vulnerability to risk and minimize losses.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each party has caused this Agreement to be
executed by its duly authorized representatives on the date first
mentioned above.
______
appendix a: proposed actions
Initial actions the partnership agreed to take include the
formation of a local government-sanctioned, broadly representative
Steering Committee to coordinate partnership activities and perform
other functions.
Additional actions to be discussed are listed below by functional
elements of the agreed-upon partnership organization. The partnership
will refine this list and add timeframes for completion.
Steering Committee
<bullet> Develop standard operating procedures, in which protocols
are established for mitigation and recovery efforts (what can be done,
when).
<bullet> Ensure consistency among other community plans that
facilitate efficient recovery and promote predisaster mitigation.
<bullet> Adapt the Emergency Operations Center to enable its use
for private-sector and mitigation planning, and private-/public-sector
involvement and coordination.
<bullet> Develop and implement a comprehensive mitigation plan
and/or a business recovery/mitigation plan.
<bullet> Encourage the State to conduct a capabilities assessment.
<bullet> Establish a speakers' bureau that promotes mitigation,
mitigation education, and the development of mitigation-related
alliances among business, industry, the community, and the public
sector.
<bullet> Develop a community-wide plan for obtaining and managing
pre-designated emergency resources.
<bullet> Identify community-wide initiatives that are similar/
relevant to Project Impact; seek to coordinate and facilitate
activities that relate to Project Impact and the overall disaster-
resistant community concept.
<bullet> Seek ways to incorporate the goals and objectives of
Project Impact and the overall disaster-resistant community concept
into the public-sector decisionmaking process.
<bullet> Develop a Project Impact marketing plan.
<bullet> Seek confirmation of commitment for a mentoring program.
Project Staff
(An HMGP grant is being sought to enable hiring a project staff).
<bullet> Conduct a comprehensive capability assessment in New
Hanover County (also see bullet 5 under ``Steering Committee'').
<bullet> Identify and solicit participation in the Project Impact
Partnership from entities that could benefit from participation or
whose partnership is desirable for any other reason.
<bullet> Survey key players to identify mitigation activities
planned, underway, or to which the institution will commit.
<bullet> Coordinate (with FEMA) a mitigation and recovery exercise
for the community
Risk Assessment
<bullet> Conduct a residential/business risk/vulnerability
assessment.
<bullet> Conduct an infrastructure risk/vulnerability assessment,
e.g., water, sewer, power, infrastructure).
<bullet> Inventory the tools and resources available (e.g.,
engineering, architectural groups).
<bullet> Identify critical facilities and assess their
vulnerability to disasters.
<bullet> Evaluate/assess storm water facilities.
<bullet> Conduct architectural evaluations for resistance to wind
and water damage.
<bullet> Assess the vulnerability of a critical facility in the
community (committed by FEMA).
<bullet> Assess vulnerabilities to environmentally sensitive
areas/recovery efforts.
<bullet> Participate in Department of Transportation vulnerability
assessment.
<bullet> Assess the Community Rating System's present and future
impact on the subject area.
> Implement FEMA's agreement to provide training for community
teachers.
> Disseminate information about the characteristics of disasters
and warnings.
> Increase general knowledge of recovery activities.
> Educate the public about protective actions (e.g., beach
closings).
> Educate the public about evacuation decisionmaking.
Public Information
<bullet> Develop a long-term, ongoing, public education program in
mitigation.
> Define ``mitigation'' and ensure understanding.
> Compile mitigation case studies, disseminate.
> Include a component to educate school students.
<bullet> Develop and implement mitigation demonstration projects,
mitigation marketing plan.
<bullet> Disseminate the emergency management plan more widely to
users.
<bullet> Conduct a cooperative education program for business/
government (in particular, to transmit information about governmental
recovery actions).
<bullet> Pre-plan for local permitting
Mitigation Planning
<bullet> Develop an emergency workers support plan (for lodging,
feeding, and providing other support services).
<bullet> Continue incorporating mitigation concepts and strategies
into the partnership area's overall land-use planning and development
strategies, policies and regulations (including, but not limited to,
comprehensive plans, floodplain and environmental management efforts,
zoning ordinances, economic development plans, public facilities/
capital improvement plans, subdivision plans).
<bullet> Develop and implement a comprehensive mitigation plan.
<bullet> Develop and implement a comprehensive mitigation/
awareness education program.
<bullet> Develop and implement a community-wide hazard risk/
vulnerability assessment program.
<bullet> Coordinate the partnership's effort with related
initiatives to develop an effective and efficient plan for linking
organizations involved in mitigation and recovery.
<bullet> Implement (private-sector) plan to pre-designate staging
areas and responsibility for essential goods.
<bullet> Develop and implement a mentoring program that would help
businesses and industries create hazard mitigation and preparedness
plans.
<bullet> Identify and pre-plan to ensure quick availability of
local resources, emergency access, other response services after a
disaster.
<bullet> Pre-arranged agreements with other jurisdictions.
<bullet> Add mitigation elements to land-use plans Relocate
vulnerable public facilities.
<bullet> Pre-plan for delivery of health services.
Financial Management
<bullet> Identify incentives and support their use to expand
mitigation efforts.
<bullet> Articulate the economic value of mitigating resources.
______
appendix b
financial and technical resource commitments
u.s. department of transportation
Analyze vulnerability to the project area's transportation
infrastructure.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
FEMA is committed to provide the following direct assistance to
support implementation of the Memorandum of Agreement:
1. A grant of no less than $400,000 to retrofit a critical
community facility;
2. Field deployment of FEMA's mitigation recovery exercise workshop
to New Hanover County;
3. Support, through training and technical assistance, the
Partnership's mitigation education effort;
4. Funding to conduct an engineering evaluation and feasibility
study for the retrofit of a community critical facility; and
5. Technical assistance on the HAZUS loss-estimation model to
develop a baseline for the hazard identification and risk-assessment
portion of the New Hanover County local mitigation strategy.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOAA's Coastal Services Center will commit planning, technical,
and/or training resources associated with conducting a hazard risk and
vulnerability assessment in Project Impact. The New Hanover County/
Wilmington Project Impact area will be one of NOAA's national pilot
projects using the latest technologies to develop relevant hazards-
related, local planning and mitigation decision-support tools.
State of North Carolina
<bullet> Provide funding of the County's $200,000 Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) DRC planning proposal.
<bullet> Provide teacher-training workshops on natural hazards--
identification and mitigation--based on the grades K-6 & 7-12
Earthquake Curriculum.
<bullet> Present educational lectures to school children on
natural hazards and the mitigation of those hazards (earthquake,
hurricane, and flooding).
<bullet> Provide training to local building officials and
inspectors on the seismic, wind and flooding provisions of the North
Carolina State Building Code.
<bullet> Use NHC/W as a model community/county in the statewide
mitigation planning initiative to demonstrate private/public
partnerships.
<bullet> Provide $25,000 funding match to money from the private
sector for the establishment of a mitigation/recovery and policy/
planning organization in the business community based on the Disaster
Recovery Business AllianceSM (DRBA) concept.
<bullet> Provide technical assistance and expertise in the form of
State EM personnel to support the DRBA initiative.
<bullet> Provide training on disaster recovery coordination
through exercises of the Recovery Function on a community-wide basis.
<bullet> Provide training at the local level on HAZUS, the
geographic information system (GIS) loss estimation software-planning
tool.
<bullet> Provide technical assistance in the form of State EM
personnel in training and conducting a building inventory update and
mitigation analysis for HAZUS.
<bullet> Provide training to local building officials, inspectors,
and firefighters on the procedures to conduct post-disaster safety
evaluation of buildings for structural hazards.
<bullet> Provide technical expertise in the form of State EM
personnel on the evaluation of public critical facilities for
structural and non-structural seismic vulnerabilities.
<bullet> Provide technical expertise in the form of State EM
personnel for conducting as well as training on the techniques used to
evaluate schools and day care centers on nonstructural earthquake
hazard identification and mitigation.
new hanover county/city of wilmington
New Hanover County
<bullet> The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners'
established a resolution agreeing to complete and fulfill all the
obligations necessary to fully develop and implement a disaster-
resistant community concept and Project Impact (see Appendix C for
resolution).
<bullet> New Hanover County will provide $162,400 of in-kind
services to support a community-wide hazard mitigation planning
initiative. This effort will include the development of public-private
partnerships that wit seek to implement hazard mitigation and post-
disaster redevelopment planning.
<bullet> New Hanover County will explore the potential of formally
incorporating an overall hazard mitigation focus, as well as hazard
mitigation elements, into their planning, development, and land-use
policies, regulations, and strategies.
<bullet> New Hanover County will evaluate its current floodplain
management programs and regulations with the objective of improving the
county's standing in the National Flood Insurance Program's Community
Rating System (CRS).
<bullet> The New Hanover County Departments of Engineering and
Building Inspections will continue to emphasize the hazard mitigation
elements of its policies and regulations. Additionally, these
departments will seek ways in which to incorporate additional
mitigation elements into their engineering and inspection activities.
These departments also will explore the idea of developing a summary of
their present and future mitigation activities as they relate to
building and development regulations, policies, and strategies.
<bullet> New Hanover County Department of Building Inspections
will formally establish and develop its existing ``Program for Kids''
initiative, which emphasizes hazard mitigation and hazard preparedness
to schoolchildren. This department also will assist the partnership
with the development and implementation of a community-wide mitigation
education program. Finally, the Department will assist the partnership
with a community-wide hazard risk/vulnerability assessment.
<bullet> New Hanover County Department of Emergency Management:
> installed at its own expense an 800 MHz bunked two-way radio
communications network to mitigate against the breakdown of
communications that frequently occurs when disaster strikes. Studies
indicate that the inability to effectively communicate, especially
between agencies, often compounds the disaster. The New Hanover 800 MHz
network allows for better command and control and enables responders to
communicate across jurisdictional and agency boundaries. This network
capability was self-initiated and is managed by the county director of
emergency management. This system, able to handle up to 200 different
talk groups, provides an increased range of communication as well as
allowing cross talk between various agencies.
> instituted community outreach program of hazard awareness and
information. This program involves manning information booths at public
events, appearing at community industries and schools, and
participating in local parades. New Hanover County was recognized for
its efforts in this regard with the 1997 Lowes Public Education Award
from the National Coordinating Council of Emergency Management (NCCEM).
> conducts and supports local industry and public-sector disaster
mitigation exercises and drills. Specifically, the county regularly
participates in the training mandated by the Nuclear Regulatory Agency
for power plants in the area, as well as in mass casualty drills
required by the Federal Aviation Agency for the local airport
authority. Studies show that such training is critical to the
prevention of loss of life and property when disasters occur.
> recruited, trained, and manages a cadre of some 15-20 emergency
management volunteers under the auspices of the Director, Emergency
Management, New Hanover County. The Response Emergency Management
Organization (REMO) volunteers help support training exercises and
drills, participate in county disaster awareness and information
programs, staff the Emergency Operations Center when called upon, and
generally support emergency management efforts in the county. REMO
contributed in excess of 2,000 man-hours annually, saving the county
some $40,000 per year in salary and personnel overhead for a full-time
employee.
City of Wilmington
<bullet> Wilmington's City Council developed a resolution agreeing
to complete and fulfill all the obligations necessary to fully develop
and implement a disaster-resistant community concept and Project Impact
(see Appendix C for resolution).
<bullet> The City of Wilmington will evaluate current floodplain
management programs with the objective of qualifying the City for the
National Flood Insurance Program's Community Rating System.
<bullet> The City of Wilmington will continue to evaluate
stormwater management strategies that focus on controlling stormwater
runoff, sediment control, and water quality, as well as overall flood/
hazard mitigation.
<bullet> The City of Wilmington will continue promoting the hazard
mitigation focus that exists throughout the City's planning and land-
use regulations, policies, and strategies. The City also will consider
hazard mitigation during any evaluation, amendment, and updating phases
of these programs. Additionally, the City's comprehensive planning
update exercises will consider hazard mitigation ideals, concepts, and
strategies.
<bullet> The City of Wilmington will continue to evaluate hazard
mitigation concepts when constructing/upgrading public facilities
(public buildings, water treatment plants, sewage treatment plants,
etc).
<bullet> The Greater Wilmington Chamber of Commerce will support
the elected officials and professional staffs of the County and the
City as they complete and fulfill all of the obligations necessary to
develop and implement the disaster-resistant community concept and
Project Impact (see Appendix C).
Business & Industry--New Hanover County/City of Wilmington
<bullet> General Electric (GE). During the emergencies created by
hurricanes Bertha and Fran, GE provided its employees and their
families with various programs to help them cope with these disasters,
including mitigation training, emergency grants for losses not covered
by insurance, and the Employee Assistance Program. In addition, GE
supported a volunteer employee program that assisted members of the
community in making repairs after the hurricanes. GE presently
participates in several community and local business/industry programs
in support of local emergency planning initiatives. GE is committed to
participate in the Project Impact Partnership, and will work with the
partnership in the development of its community programs.
<bullet> WGNI Radio plays an instrumental role as a communications
clearinghouse for the New Hanover County/Wilmington area before,
during, and after a disaster. The station has displayed its continued
commitment to this public service by purchasing a generator that will
allow the station to operate at full capacity under extreme conditions.
In addition to continuing to provide communications, the station will
help the Partnership develop a hazard mitigation/awareness education
program.
<bullet> After Hurricane Fran, Motorola and Coastal Electronics
provided the New Hanover Division of Emergency Management with
personnel and over $500,000 in communication equipment and electronics,
allowing the Division to efficiently operate after the storm.
Motorola's Installation Audit Standards (R56) considers mitigation and
hazard vulnerability factors during a system's installation.
Additionally, Motorola's customer capability assessment keeps an
inventory of each customer's equipment and needs. Both Motorola and
Coastal Electronics will explore the possibility of sharing their
``Installation'' and ``Capability Assessment (R56)'' programs with the
partnership. Additionally, both companies will consider becoming
involved in the Partnership's effort to develop a community-wide hazard
risk/vulnerability assessment.
<bullet> Carolina Power and Light's (CP&L) employee assistance
program helps employees and their families so the employees can get
back to their jobs faster. This program provides a benefit to the
company, its employees, CP&L customers, and the community. CP&L also
developed a Regional Storm Plan, which is reviewed during annual
training sessions. Additionally, CP&L performs regular and ongoing
surveys of its region to identify and mitigate potential problems (weak
trees, trees and limbs too close to lines, etc). Also, CP&L's ``New
Roots'' program helps the community replace fallen trees with low
growing varieties that will not fall on power lines, causing outages
and other dangerous conditions. In addition to these initiatives, CP&L
inserts damage prevention and hazard preparedness materials in their
billing statements. With its strong focus on hurricane preparedness,
preparation, and mitigation, CP&L likely will assist the partnership in
its efforts to develop a hazard awareness/mitigation education program.
Additionally, CP&L will explore the idea of helping the partnership
perform a community-wide hazard vulnerability/risk assessment.
<bullet> The North Carolina State Ports Authority has developed
and effective Hurricane Preparedness Plan which is reviewed and updated
regularly. This plan is implemented prior to a disaster so that the
facility is completely shut down and hurricane resistant 48 hours prior
to a storm's landfall. This plan also includes community assistance
components that help the, surrounding area with recovery efforts. The
Ports Authority will consider sharing their plan with the community and
will explore the possibility of becoming involved with the
Partnership's development and implementation of a hazard mitigation/
awareness education program. Additionally, the Authority likely will
share their community assistance experience with the partnership and
advise the partnership during the development of a comprehensive
community assistance program.
<bullet> Occidental Chemical Corporation has an employee
assistance program in place that allows employees stay home to assist
their families and others without impacting pay. Additionally,
Occidental's severe weather shut down procedures provides for the
safety and comfort of employees who volunteer to stay at the facility
during a hurricane. Occidental also has established a ``Safety
Saturday'' for employees, which, in addition to focusing on safety
issues, covers hurricane preparation and mitigation topics. The company
will consider participating in the development and implementation of a
community-wide disaster/hurricane awareness week. Also, the company
will consider assisting the partnership during the development and
implementation of a community-wide mitigation awareness/education
program.
<bullet> Hoechst Celanese has developed and implemented a
hurricane preparedness plan that is regularly reviewed and updated as
necessary. Hoechst Celanese has tentatively agreed to assist the
partnership with the development an implementation of a hazard
mitigation/awareness education program. The company also has agreed to
consider assisting the partnership with their efforts to develop and
implement a hazard risk/vulnerability assessment program. Finally, the
company likely will help other area businesses and industries develop
hurricane preparedness and mitigation plans.
<bullet> Lowes Stores has developed and instituted a Hurricane
Prepardness/Awareness Exposition, an annual event that is held prior to
hurricane season. This exposition (partially funded by the Lowes Home
safety council) features displays and information that focus on hazard
preparedness and mitigation issues. In addition to agreeing to continue
hosting this annual event, Lowes will likely help the Partnership
develop and implement a hazard mitigation/awareness education program.
Additionally, Lowes will consider assisting helping the partnership
during the development and implementation of a community hazard risk/
vulnerability assessment.
______
appendix c
partnership initiatives
commitments to future partnership initiatives
Mitigation, Land Use Planning, and Development
The following local government entities will strive to continue
incorporating mitigation concepts and strategies into their overall
land-use planning and development strategies, policies and regulations
(including, but not limited to, comprehensive plans, floodplain and
environmental management efforts, zoning ordinances, economic
development plans, public facilities/capital improvement plans,
subdivision plans):
new hanover county
city of wilmington
Hazard Mitigation and Awareness Education
The following entities will seek to develop and implement a
comprehensive hazard mitigation/awareness education program for the New
Hanover/Wilmington area:
Barnes and Noble
Bell-South
Carolina Power and Light
City of Wilmington
Coastal Electronics
General Electric
The Greater Wilmington Chamber of Commerce
Hoechst Celanese
Lowes Stores
Motorola
National Coordinating Council of Emergency Management
New Hanover County Division of Emergency Management
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Occidental Chemical Corporation
WGNI Radio
Wilmington Industrial Development, Inc.
Hazard Risk/Vulnerability Assessment
The following entities will consider assisting the Partnership with
the development and implementation of a comprehensive hazard risk/
vulnerability assessment for the New Hanover/Wilmington Area:
Barnes and Noble
Bell-South
Carolina Power and Light
City of Wilmington
Coastal Electronics
General Electric
The Greater Wilmington Chamber of Commerce
Hoechst Celanese
Lowes Stores
Motorola
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Occidental Chemical Corporation
WGNI Radio
Wilmington Industrial Development, Inc.
Mentoring Program
The following entities will seek to help the partnership develop
and implement a ``mentoring'' program that will be designed to help
area businesses and industries create their own hazard mitigation and
preparedness plans:
Bell-South
Carolina Power and Light
Coastal Electronics
General Electric
The Greater Wilmington Chamber of Commerce
Hoechst Celanese
Motorola
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Occidental Chemical Corporation
Wilmington Industrial Development, Inc.
______
appendix d
supporting resolutions
1. Resolution of the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners,
adopted September 2, 1997
2. Resolution of the City Council of Wilmington, North Carolina,
adopted September 2, 1997
3. Resolution of the Greater Wilmington Chamber of Commerce,
adopted September 2, 1997
______
resolution
requesting fema designate
new hanover county and the city of wilmington as a disaster-resistant
community
WHEREAS, New Hanover County, the City of Wilmington and the other
municipalities of New Hanover County are prone to Atlantic Coast
Hurricanes, and
WHEREAS, New Hanover County and the municipalities therein received
substantial damage form the Hurricanes named Bertha and Fran in the
summer of 1996, and
WHEREAS, our communities, have recovered from the storms and were
successful examples of teamwork and preparation, and
WHEREAS, New Hanover County and the City of Wilmington are under
consideration for receipt of resources, grant funding and support from
the Federal Emergency Management Agency for designation as a Disaster-
Resistant Community.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the New Hanover County Board of
Commissioners respectfully requests FEMA Director James Lee Witt to
declare New Hanover County and the City of Wilmington as a Disaster-
Resistant Community and that associated resources, support, and funding
be forthcoming from the research, development, and education of the
community to fully warrant the declaration and title of Disaster-
Resistant Community.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the elected officials and professional
staffs of the County of New Hanover and the City of Wilmington be
dedicated to completing and fulfilling all of the obligations necessary
to fully develop and implement the Disaster-resistant community
concept. On behalf of the citizens of New Hanover County and the New
Hanover County Board of Commissioners, I, Robert G. Greer, am hereby
authorized by the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to submit
this resolution to James Lee Witt, Director, Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
Adopted this second day of September 1997.
Robert G. Greer, Chairman,
Board of Commissioners, New Hanover County.
______
resolution of support for fema designation of the city of wilmington
and new hanover county as a disaster-resistant commit
Legislative Intent
Wilmington and New Hanover County, located on the coast of the
Atlantic Ocean, have experienced in the past and are susceptible in the
future to hurricanes and other natural disasters. Various public and
private efforts have been considered and, to some extent, implemented
to better prepare for the hazards of hurricanes.
Currently, the City and County are being considered by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for designation and receipt of grant
funding and support to become a pilot disaster-resistant community.
This initiative is an opportunity to improve and expand the existing
public/private partnerships, to develop predisaster mitigation
strategies, and to educate our community on pre-hazard preparation.
The State's Division of Emergency Management is in full support of
this effort and its officials have participated in recent conference
calls and meetings with FEMA, City, County and private sector
representatives.
Resolved
That the Wilmington City Council does hereby endorse and request
the designation by FEMA Director James Lee Witt of the City of
Wilmington and New Hanover County as a disaster-resistant community,
with the associated resources, funding and support to be provided for
the research, development, and implementation of strategies to mitigate
the hazards of hurricanes and other natural disasters.
Adopted at a regular meeting on September 2, 1997
Don Betz, Mayor.
______
greater wilmington chamber of commerce
resolution
requesting fema designate new hanover county and the city of wilmington
as a disaster-resistant community
WHEREAS, New Hanover County, The City of Wilmington and the other
municipalities of New Hanover County are prone to Atlantic Coast
Hurricanes, and
WHEREAS, New Hanover County and the municipalities therein received
substantial damage form the Hurricanes named Bertha and Fran in the
summer of 1996, and
WHEREAS, our communities, have recovered from the storms and were
successful examples of teamwork and preparation, and
WHEREAS, New Hanover County and the City of Wilmington are under
consideration for receipt of resources, grant funding and support from
the Federal Emergency Management Agency for designation as a disaster-
resistant community.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Greater Wilmington Chamber
of Commerce respectfully requests FEMA Director James Lee Witt declare
New Hanover County and the City of Wilmington as a disaster-resistant
community and that associated resources, support and funding be
forthcoming from the research, development and education of the
community to Filly warrant the declaration and title of disaster-
resistant community.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chamber will support the elected
officials and professional staffs of the County of New Hanover and the
City of Wilmington as they complete and fulfill all of the obligations
necessary to fully develop and implement the disaster-resistant
community concept. On behalf of the members of the Greater Wilmington
Chamber of Commerce, I, Thomas L. Dodson, am hereby authorized by the
Board of Directors of the Greater Wilmington Chamber of Commerce to
submit this resolution to James Lee Witt, Director, Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
Adopted this second day of September 1997.
Thomas L. Dodson, Chairman,
Connie Majure, President.
__________
new hanover county
partnership for disaster mitigation & recovery (project impact)
activity report
Projects/Events Underway
New Hanover County/Wilmington Project Impact ``Public Attitudes &
Preparedness Study'': This is a comprehensive effort to inventory local
residents' hurricane related perceptions and predisaster mitigation
behavior. A random sample of community residents will be interviewed
over the telephone about their experience with past hurricanes, their
preparations for future hurricanes and a wide variety of other
hurricane related perceptions. The Study objectives are to: (1) assess
local residents' level of experience with past hurricanes; (2) measure
perceptions toward the threat of possible hurricanes; (3) identify
predisaster mitigation strategies being used by local residents; (4)
establish knowledge of Project Impact activities; and (5) examine the
links between the threat of hurricanes, preparation and mitigation
behavior. The study will be conducted by the Survey Research Laboratory
at the University of North Carolina-Wilmington. The project results
will be made available to the public in the forte of an Executive
Summary presented to the New Hanover County Department of Emergency
Management on October 15, 1998.
School Retrofit Project: School representatives and Emergency
Management officials interviewed several engineering consulting firms
for technical services in evaluating New Hanover County Schools and
additional shelters. They are in the process of reviewing proposal, and
anticipate that an engineering consultant will be contracted in August.
The project will be looking at designing new school roof systems to not
only reduce the cost of damages during the next hurricane, but improve
building safety as an evacuation shelter. Two key parts of this
activity will include school building evaluations, and training local
engineers, building code officials and architects on the latest wind
resistant techniques for incorporation into future school construction
projects.
New Hanover County ``Storm Surge Inundation Map'': A map is under
construction with public/private partner contributors. Estimated
completion date is September 1998. This map will be distributed free to
the public. The theme is ``Know Your Risk''.
Risk & Vulnerability Assessment: The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Coastal Services Center (CSC) is
partnering with FEMA in Wilmington/New Hanover County as a Project
Impact initiative. CSC is working closely with New Hanover County and
State agency staffs in the development of a risk and vulnerability
assessment for the county to support the Project Impact initiative. The
project team is utilizing geographic information system (GIS) and other
spatial data technologies to conduct a thorough analysis of natural
hazard risk and vulnerability in the county, focusing on the barrier
islands and near shore areas. In collaboration with New Hanover County
Emergency Management, GIS, and Planning staffs, CSC is developing a GIS
application based on data maintained within the county's mapping system
for use in planning prior to coastal hazard events or to assist in
post-storm damage assessment. CSC is also supporting the Project Impact
initiative through a cooperative agreement grant to the North Carolina
Division of Coastal Management (NC DCM).
Sewer Manhole Inflow Guard Project: The County has approximately
5,000 manholes in it's sewer system. Some of these manholes
(approximately 1,000) are located in the roads, while most
(approximately 4,000) are along road shoulders or other low lying areas
of the County. This project is installing stainless steel sewer guards
(these would hold up under traffic vibrations better than plastic) in
the manholes located in the roads and plastic sewer guards in all other
manholes to prevent flood waters and stormwater runoff from entering
the manholes around the covers, thus preventing sewer spills caused by
excessive inflow.
Raising Elevation of Electrical Pump Equipment: In order to prevent
environmental and equipment damage from occurring in future flood
events, the county is raising the elevation of electrical equipment at
three sewer pump stations. These three pump stations suffered from
sewer damage from flooding problems during recent storms.
New Hanover County will be sending 12 representatives to the
Emergency Management Institute in Emmitsburg, Maryland for the IEMC:
Hurricane Recovery & Mitigation Course in August 1998.
County Plans: New Hanover County Emergency Operations Plan is in
the process of being updated, and the County ``Hazard Mitigation and
Recovery Plan'' is under construction.
New Hanover County Emergency Management Web Page under
construction.
The Senior Center is in the process of developing an Aging Data
base for the purpose of seniors checking on and assisting other seniors
when an emergency event notification is made.
City of Wilmington is in the process of constructing a ``new''
disaster resistant building for the City Fire Headquarters and the City
Emergency Operations Center.
City of Wilmington is in the process of upgrading City sewer
service for low income areas.
City of Wilmington to implement 800 mhz radio communications system
(Fire in May 1998, and Police in August 1998.)
July 1998 Activities
New Hanover County developed a Emergency Checklist ``Mini Plan''.
This checklist mini-plan is designed to be a supplement to the
Emergency Operations Plan for easy access and reference information.
Steering Committees are scheduled to begin meeting this month to
establish mitigation strategies and goals:
July 14-- First meeting of the Mitigation Planning Steering
Committee
July 15--First meeting of the Risk Assessment/Hazard Identification
Steering Committee
July 21--First meeting of the Public Information/Human Services
Steering Committee
July 30--First meeting of the Financial & Economic Issues Steering
Committee
Disaster preparedness and hurricane awareness and education
programs continue throughout the county.
June 1998 Activities
Partnership Committee for Disaster Mitigation and Recovery: At the
June 18 meeting, the Partnership Committee introduced an organizational
structure with four Steering Committees. The Steering Committees will
begin meeting on a monthly basis in July to establish mitigation
strategies, planning process and goals. The Four Steering Committees
are:
Mitigation Planning Steering Committee
Risk Assessment/Hazard Identification Steering Committee
Public Information/Human Services Steering Committee
Financial & Economic Issues Steering Committee
(These ``working groups'' will report to the Partnership Committee
at each quarterly meeting. They will report on all their activities,
progress and projects.)
Enhanced Community Hurricane Preparedness & Education utilizing
large and small business/industry, and the media. Supplied many
employers with material for distribution to their employees on disaster
preparedness.
Mark Sudduth, Hurricane Maps Enterprises, has produced a new 1998
full-color Hurricane Awareness Tracking Map. As a result of the Project
Impact initiative, the map has been expanded this year to include
additional information and mitigation topics such as: hurricane basics/
preparedness, tools of trade, tides/moon phases, evacuation, food &
water, mitigation (Project Impact), sand dunes, NFIP, elevating/moving
home, hurricane shutters, tree damage, etc. The maps were available in
the beginning of June at various locations including: Harris Teeter,
Lowe's and S&E Food Marts. The maps were also distributed at various
hurricane awareness events, to all employees of sponsors and by the
local Emergency Management Department. Media promotion of these maps
were provided by the following radio stations: WAAV, Star 105.5, Q92,
Kiss 94.1 and WWQQ 101.3. Map sponsors are the following: Hale
Construction, M&N Equipment Rental, New Hanover Regional Medical
Center, CP&L, BellSouth, Springer Eubank Oil Company, Harris Teeter,
Gregory Poole, Lowe's of Wilmington, Edwards Crane Company, Home Base
Rollaway, State Ports of Wilmington, NC Bar Association, Coastal
Electronics, James Moore Insurance Agency and Corps of Engineers.
Lowe's Hurricane Preparedness Expo, Saturday, June 6. There were
static displays as well as hands-on demonstrations and displays. WECT,
Channel 6, was the media sponsor for this event. Participants included
local Emergency Management, FEMA, NOAA, American Red Cross and about 40
other vendors. Seminars and displays included the following: how to
build and install hurricane shutters; generator operation and safety;
emergency food preparation and safety; survival kit preparation;
preparing a family disaster plan; post-storm accident prevention;
county disaster assistance vehicles & equipment; county storm surge
probability maps; evacuation route & hurricane shelter information;
survival kit supplies; generators; hurricane strutters; home safety
products;and hurricane forecasting & tracking. Services that were
provided are: plywood for hurricane shutters cut to order free, and
free chain saw blade sharpening. Lowe's of Wilmington has an on-going
disaster preparedness display in the front of their store.
Barnes & Noble--''Hurricane Preparedness'' month at the store. The
following events were held:
June 4--from 7 am to 9 pm.--Weather--Be Prepared on Land & Sea.
Guests: David Thomas, FEMA--Region IV; Lt. Tony Varamo, USCG; Thomas
Shaw, USCG; Tom Matheson, NWS; Mark Sudduth, Hurricane Map Designer;
and weather personalities from WECT & WWAY. New hurricane tracking maps
will be available. Learn from the experts--how to be safe on land &
sea.
June 11--from 7 am to 9 pm.--Protect Your Home & Garden. The guests
included: Captain Charles Calhoun: The Hurricanes Are Coming--how to
retro fit your home; Mark Markley, Construction Consultant & Radio Home
Improvement Talk-Show Host; Jane Hardwick, Owner of Wilmington Awning--
hurricane shutters; Brian Edgar, Store Manager of Home Depot--chainsaw
and generator safety; Mary Anne Medcalf, Urban Forrester from the New
Hanover County Arboretum; and Durant Vick, President of Crisis
Management Worldwide--insurance.
June 18--from 7 am to 9 pm.--Staying Healthy. Experts discussed
things to be done to protect your family's health and your pet's safety
before and after a hurricane. Guest speakers include: Ida Burgin, New
Hanover Home Extension--food & safety preparation; Annie Pixley, Cape
Fear Chapter American Red Cross--training courses in disaster
preparedness; Ben Brow, Special Needs; Donna Booth-Neal, Animal
Advisory Control Board--pet safety & preparedness; and Dan Summers, New
Hanover County Emergency Management Director--hurricane preparedness
and recovery.
June 25--from 7 am to 9 pm.--NC Hurricane History. NC Hurricane
History has been revised to include Hurricane Bertha and Hurricane
Fran. Jay Barnes, the Author, was present to discuss our past hurricane
history and give some insights into the future.
Saturday Storytimes (at 11 a.m.)
June 6--David Wiesner read hurricane related stories to children at
Lowe's Day.
June 13--Special storytime--Hurricane City (Project Impact and why
it is important.)
June 20--Stormy Weather by Molly Wigand.
June 27--Twisters by Lucille Penner.
The first New Hanover County Joint Information Media Center
Exercise was held on June 16. This was an actual hurricane drill using
participants to call in as citizens with support and information needs.
There were eighty six (86) participants, and in 6 hours the Media
Center put out sixty three (63) press releases to correct
misinformation and rumor control, to be given to the public has been
computerized by the County's Information Technology Department for
quick and accurate information dissemination. The exercise critique
showed positive overall support for the project and system, with only
minor adjustments and system corrections to be made.
Media Presentations on hurricane awareness and safety tips. A week-
long series was prepared and aired by Channel 3 TV. This series
included hurricane preparedness, retrofitting your home, generator
safety, family disaster preparedness planning and Project Impact.
Channel 6 has also aired several hurricane awareness segments relating
to family disaster preparedness planning and Project Impact. Several
local radio stations have been regularly airing hurricane preparedness
tips. Channel 6 is the media sponsor for the Lowe's Hurricane Expo on
June 6.
The Town of Carolina Beach has completed a final draft of their
``Hazard Mitigation Plan''.
New Hanover County Emergency Management Director Dan Summers
addressed Congressional Staff on Capitol Hill on June 3 regarding New
Hanover County's experiences as a Project Impact community, and future
expectations as the County moves forward with becoming more disaster
resistant.
A State Hurricane/Informational Exercise was held on June 2. The
first part describe how the state Logistical Operation Support Areas
(LOSA) will be set-up and the process before, during & after an event.
The second part consisted of a tabletop exercise focusing on pre-
landfall activities as they relate to dissemination of information,
protective action decisionmaking, and LOSA's.
May 1998 Activities
Occidental Chemical Corporation held ``Safety Saturday'' on
Saturday, May 30 at the plant site off Holly Shelter Road in Castle
Hayne. Participants included: Lowe's, Honest Injun, Castle Hayne Fire
Department, New Hanover County Emergency Management, U.S. Coast Guard
Auxiliary, New Hanover County Sheriffs Department, Cape Fear River
Watch, FEMA, Carolina Power & Light, American Red Cross, and NC
Forestry Service. There were hands-on displays, safety presentations
and the Fire Department's ``Smokehouse'' was on display for children's
fire safety tours.
New Hanover County Emergency Management held a Hurricane Table Top
Exercise for the Town of Carolina Beach, in the Emergency Operations
Center on May 19 from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m.
The MACC--''Multi-Agency Communications Coordination'' Vehicle has
been established to enhance communications in the County. This vehicle
is assigned to the Department of Emergency Management.
Wilmington Regional Association of Realtors, Inc.--hosted a seminar
``Insuring Against Natural Disasters in Coastal North Carolina--Nuts &
Bolts for Realtors''. The program was held on Wednesday, May 13 at UNC-
Wilmington's University Center. The program included: History &
Background of the National Flood Insurance Program (Roger G.
Widdifield, Regional Manager NFIP); Where You Live Matters--A City/
County Overview (Dexter Hayes, NHC Planning Director); Review of Flood
Insurance Policy Coverages (Roger G. Widdifield, Regional Manager
NFIP); Insuring Coastal Properties (Dascheil Propes, Chief Deputy
Commissioner of Insurance-NCDOI); Mortgage Lender Responsibility &
Notification Procedures(Lena Thompson, Federal Insurance Administration
); Status of Disaster Insurance in NC (Dascheil Propes, NCDOI); and the
Status of Federal Natural Disaster Insurance (Mary Ellen Stevens,
Constituent Service Representative, The Office of the Honorable Mike
McIntyre/U.S. House of Representatives). This program was well
attended, and apparently the first of its kind in the nation.
BellSouth's Business Continuity Services for Disaster Planning,
Wednesday, May 13 at the Wilmington Hilton. BellSouth hosted this
meeting for its largest business customers regarding Disaster Planning.
One of the agenda items included Dan Summers, Director of New Hanover
County Emergency Management regarding hurricane preparedness and
Project Impact. BellSouth hosted this seminar so their customers will
start thinking about developing their own business continuity plan as a
preventive measure in case of an emergency, not just reacting after a
disaster. Joining the seminar was one of BellSouth's largest vendors of
disaster recovery solutions--ComDisco. This type of meeting will be
held in nine (9) other Bell South States.
The New Hanover County Department of Emergency Management hosted a
Public Officials Conference at the Town of Carolina Beach on May 11.
The Wilmington-New Hanover County Comprehensive Plan Subcommittee
met on Saturday, May 2. The Comprehensive Plan also includes the
Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) Land Use Plan Update and important
input into the Wilmington Urban Area Transportation Plan Update. The
Steering Committee & the Subcommittee will meet monthly. A Joint Work
Session will be held in early September, and a draft Plan will be
submitted to the State for initial review around September 30. Public
Hearings on the Comprehensive Plan (& CAMA Land Use Plan Update) will
be in early 1999. County Contact is Patrick Lowe at 341-7165 & the City
Contact is Mark Zeigler at341-5811.
The City of Wilmington made improvements to its Sweeney Water
Plant, including 100 percent operational by generator.
The ``new'' Storm Water Plan for the City of Wilmington was
approved.
The City of Wilmington installed generators in many City facilities
and the fire stations.
April 1998 Activities
Project Impact Kickoff Meeting: First meeting of the Partnership
Committee for Disaster Mitigation and Recovery (Project Impact) was
held on April 29 at the Cape Fear Museum in Wilmington.
New Hanover County Emergency Management installed and tested NOAA
Weather Radios in all County Schools.
New Hanover County Fire Station #5 had its Open House on April 29.
Hoechst Celanese donated the building and land for this County Fire
Station. This fire department is a combination of paid full-time, paid
part-time and volunteers. An award was given to Hoechst Celanese at
this Open House for their corporate contribution in this public &
private partnership.
National Hurricane Conference: At the National Hurricane Conference
in Norfolk, Virginia on April 8, Allen O'Neal, County Manager gave a
presentation on local hurricane mitigation and the view from a disaster
resistant community.
March 1998 Activities
IC-3 Drill (Special Needs Task Force Drill--March 9): In early
1998, a Task Force made up of public and private sectors was developed
to discuss special needs and the rising number of retired persons
moving to this area. The Task Force was developed with 22 participating
agencies forming an alliance to take special need individuals from high
risk areas to an area where their needs can be continued. A separate
EOC has been established called the IC-3 (Individual Care Coordination
Center) which is located in the Area Health Education Center (AHEC).
Agencies have agreed to staff the IC-3 in emergencies, and a successful
table top was held with these agencies in the IC-3 on March 9. A draft
Plan has been developed with triage actions for special needs
individuals. The Task Force is still reviewing liability issues and
working with nursing and rest homes to provide temporary housing. The
Task Force will have a critique of this table top exercise in May.
``Spring Break 98'' was held on March 28. Spring Break is part of
Project Impact, a national effort that shifts the focus of emergency
management from responding to disasters to initiating action to reduce
potential losses prior to disasters. The volunteers for Spring Break
assisted elderly, low income and special needs persons with debris
removal, check and repair of safety/security devices, and installation
of smoke detectors. Over 250 volunteers turned out and assisted 110
families in New Hanover County and the City of Wilmington. Over 60
smoke detectors were installed, more than 60 batteries were installed
in existing smoke detectors, over 30 exterior light bulbs were
installed, a wheel chair ramp was painted, a deck was built for a ramp,
and over 50 yards were cleared of debris. Disaster preparedness
information was also distributed to all of these families. This was a
collaborative effort among the County, City, FEMA, the Corporation for
National Service and students from UNC at Wilmington.
February 1998 Activities
FEMA Pilot Classes: Two FEMA pilot classes were held in the
community. One of the classes was `` When Your Job Is A Disaster'',
which deals with forming partnerships, communication, following-up,
dealing with emotional people, and taking care of yourself. The second
class is ``Managing After A Disaster'', which deals with similar topics
as the previous course and allows students to work on strategies. These
course were well received by the community and are available through
FEMA.
__________
Keys to Hurricane Survival
This material is provided as a public service. Its purpose is to
increase hurricane awareness. The key to survival is advance
preparation.
before a hurricane threatens
Elevation of Your Home Above Sea Level
Get this information from local Emergency Management officials.
Your nearest Weather Service office can supply flood-stage data for
area streams and waterways. Find out if your home is subject to storm
surge (tidal) flooding.
Maximum Storm Surge Which Might Occur
Information about the potential for inland flooding and storm surge
is available through your local Emergency Management Office.
Route to Safety If You Have to Leave
Plan your escape route early. Check with Emergency Management for
low points and flooding history of your route.
Check the number of hours it could take you to evacuate to a safe
area during peak evacuation traffic.
Location of Nearest Official Shelter
Emergency Management can give you the location of the shelter
nearest your home and explain what you should bring with you.
Plan for your family's safety. Know how to contact family members
should the need arise.
How Safe is Your Home?
Near the seashore, plan to relocate during a hurricane emergency.
If you live in a mobile home, always plan to relocate.
The Inventory of Your Property A complete inventory of personal
property will help in obtaining insurance settlements and/or tax
deductions for losses. Inventory checklists can be obtained from your
insurance representative.
Don't trust your memory. List descriptions and take pictures. Store
these and other important insurance papers in waterproof containers or
in your safety deposit box.
What Your Insurance Will Cover
Review your insurance policies and your coverage to avoid
misunderstanding later. Take advantage of flood insurance. Separate
policies are needed for protection against wind and flood damage, which
people frequently don't realize until too late.
when a watch is issued
Monitor storm reports on radio and television.
If considering moving to a shelter, make arrangements for all pets.
Pets are not allowed in shelters.
Refill needed prescriptions.
If evacuation has not already been recommended, consider leaving
the area early to avoid long hours on limited evacuation routes.
Check Supplies
Transistor Radio With Fresh Batteries
Radio will be your most useful information source. Have enough
batteries to last several days. There may be no electricity.
Flashlights, Candles or Lamps, Matches
Store matches in waterproof container. Have lantern fuel for
several days. Know how to use safely.
Full Tank of Gasoline
Never let your vehicle gas tank be less than half-full during
hurricane season; fill up as soon as a hurricane watch is posted.
Remember: when there is no electricity, gas pumps won't work.
Canned Goods and NonPerishable Foods
Store packaged foods which can be prepared without cooking and need
no refrigeration. There may be no electricity or gas.
Containers for Drinking Water
Have clean, air-tight containers to store sufficient drinking water
for several days. The local water supply could be interrupted or
contaminated.
Materials for Protecting Glass Openings
Have shutters or lumber for protecting large windows and doors and
masking tape for use on small windows.
Materials for Emergency Repairs
Your insurance policy may cover the cost of materials used in
temporary repairs, so keep all receipts. These will also be helpful for
any income tax deductions.
when a warning is issued
Listen Constantly to Radio or TV
Keep a log of hurricane position, intensity and expected landfall.
Discount rumors. Use telephone sparingly.
If You Live in a Mobile Home
Check tie-downs and leave immediately for a safer place. Mobile
homes are not safe in hurricane force winds.
Prepare for High Winds
Brace your garage door. Lower antennas. Be prepared to make
repairs.
Anchor Objects Outside
Garbage cans, awnings, loose garden tools, toys and other loose
objects can be deadly missiles. Anchor securely or bring indoors.
Protect Windows and Other Glass
Board up or shutter large windows securely. Tape exposed glass to
reduce shattering. Draw drapes across windows and doors to protect
against flying glass if shattering does occur.
Move Boats on Trailers Close to House
Fill boats with water to weigh them down. Lash securely to trailer
and use tie-downs to anchor trailer to the ground or house.
Check Mooring Lines of Boats in Water, Then Leave Them
Store Valuable and Personal Papers
Put irreplaceable documents in waterproof containers and store in
highest possible spot. If you evacuate be sure to take them with you.
Prepare for Storm Surge, Tornadoes and Floods
Storm surge, tornadoes and flash floods are the worst killers
associated with a hurricane. In a tornado warning, seek inside shelter
below ground level. If outside, move away at right angles from tornado;
if escape is impossible, lie flat in a ditch or low spot. The surge of
ocean water plus flash flooding of streams and rivers due to torrential
rains combine to make drowning the greatest cause of hurricane deaths.
Check Your Survival Supplies Once Again.
if you stay at home
Stay Indoors
In an inside room away from doors and windows. Don't go out in the
brief calm during passage of the eye of the storm. The lull sometimes
ends suddenly as winds return from the opposite direction. Winds can
increase in seconds to 75 mph or more.
Protect Property
Without taking any unnecessary risks, protect your property from
damage. Temporary repairs can reduce your losses.
Stay Away From Windows and Glass Doors
Move furniture away from exposed doors and windows.
Keep a Continuous Communications Watch
Keep radio or television tuned for information from official
sources. Unexpected changes can sometimes call for last minute
relocations.
Remain Calm
Your ability to meet emergencies will help others.
if you must evacuate
Know Where You Are Going . . . Leave Early, In Daylight If
Possible. Move Your Most Valuable Possessions That You Can't Take with
You To Higher Points Within Your Home
For Shelters
Take blankets or sleeping bags, flashlights, special dietary foods,
infant needs and lightweight folding chairs.
Register every person arriving with you at the shelter.
Do not take pets, alcoholic beverages or weapons of any kind to
shelters.
Be prepared to offer assistance to shelter workers if necessary,
and stress to all family members their obligations to keep the shelter
clean and sanitary.
Don't Travel Farther Than Necessary
Roads may be jammed. Don't let your stranded auto become your
coffin.
Lock Windows and Doors
Turn off gas, water, electricity. Check to see that you have done
everything to protect your property from damage and loss.
Carry Along Survival Supplies
<bullet> First Aid Kit;
<bullet> Canned or dried provisions, can opener, spoons, etc.;
<bullet> Bottled water;
<bullet> Extra family medication, prescriptions;
<bullet> Spare eyeglasses, hearing aid and batteries, if required.
Keep Important Papers with You at All Times
<bullet> Driver's License and other identification;
<bullet> Insurance policies;
<bullet> Property inventory;
<bullet> Medic-alert or device with special medical information.
<bullet> Maps to your destination
Take Warm Protective Clothing After the Hurricane
If you are evacuated, delay return until recommended or authorized
by local authorities.
Beware of Outdoor Hazards
Watch out for loose or dangling power lines, and report them
immediately, to proper authorities. Many lives are lost by
electrocution.
Walk or Drive Cautiously
Debris-filled streets are dangerous. Snakes and poisonous insects
may be a hazard. Washouts may weaken road and bridge structures which
could collapse under vehicle weight.
Guard Against Spoiled Food
Food may spoil if refrigerator power is off more than a few hours.
Freezers will keep food several days if doors are not opened after
power failure but do not refreeze food once it begins to thaw.
Do Not Use Water Until Safe
Use your emergency supply or boil water before drinking until
official word that the water is safe. Report broken sewer or water
mains to proper authorities.
Take Extra Precautions to Prevent Fire
Lowered water pressure in city and town water mains and the
interruption of other services may make fire fighting extremely
difficult after a hurricane.
the recovery
Insurance
Insurance representatives will be on the scene immediately
following a major disaster to speed up the handling of claims. Notify
your insurance agent or broker of any losses--and leave word where you
can be contacted.
Take Steps to Protect Property
Make temporary repairs to protect property from further damage or
looting. Use only reputable contractors (sometimes in the chaotic days
following a disaster, unscrupulous operators will prey on the
unsuspecting--check the Better Business Bureau. Keep all receipts for
materials used.
Be Patient
Hardship cases will be settled first by insurance representatives.
Don't assume your settlement will be the same as your neighbor's.
Policy forms differ and storm damage is often erratic.
It Takes a Team Effort
Responsibility for the clean-up falls to numerous local, State and
Federal agencies. A local disaster coordinator/director or his
representative will be on hand to help residents in this effort.
__________
American Public Works Association,
1301 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 501,
Washington, DC 20004-1701, July 22, 1998.
Senator James Inhofe, Chairman,
Senator Bob Graham, Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property, and Nuclear
Safety,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510-6175.
Dear Senators: The American Public Works Association strongly
supports passage of the ``Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act'' and pledges to work with you to see that the
provisions of that Act lead to effective predisaster mitigation
programs. APWA has worked long and hard to raise awareness among
stakeholders about the critical role of public works agencies and
professionals in the disaster arena--not just in disaster clean up and
repair, but also in predisaster mitigation. We commend you for taking
on this vitally important work on behalf of our cities and citizens.
The American Public Works Association is an international
professional association of individuals, agencies and companies from
the public and private sector dedicated to providing public works
services of the highest possible quality to the communities they serve.
APWA is the largest and oldest organization of its kind in the world
with headquarters In Kansas City, Missouri, and over 26,000 members in
67 chapters throughout North America. APWA provides a forum in which
public works professionals can exchange ideas, improve professional
competencies, increase the efficiencies of their agencies and
companies, and bring important public works-related topics to the
public notice in local, State, and Federal arenas.
This Association has a long-standing relationship with the Federal
Emergency Management Agency and will continue to work closely with that
agency, as well as with the National League of Cities and other key
stakeholders to develop and implement sensible, effective disaster
mitigation programs.
For these reasons, we are especially supportive of provisions in
the bill to:
<bullet> evaluate after 18 months the implementation of
predisaster mitigation and make recommendations for a process to
transfer more authority to States and localities for administering the
program and a process for considering private sector predisaster
mitigation initiatives;
<bullet> establish a cost estimation procedure to determine how
much is being spent by Federal, State and local levels to respond to
disasters, as well as how much is being spent on mitigation;
<bullet> have the OCC conduct a study to examine the effectiveness
of this hazard mitigation program, including a review of its goals and
objectives, the cost benefit in terms of mitigation, disaster
avoidance, and dollars saved and report this to Congress within 3
years;
<bullet> have the OCC estimate the reduction in Federal disaster
assistance resulting from implementation of the Act;
<bullet> determine the current and future availability of disaster
insurance for public infrastructure; and
<bullet> examine analytically the major disasters and emergencies
which have been declared since 1974, describing the implied criteria
for these declarations and how they have changed over time, and make
recommendations for appropriate future criteria that should be
considered when making disaster and emergency declarations under the
Stafford Act.
The American Public Works association plans to continue its role as
a leader in disaster preparedness, and we believe this legislation is a
key component in our efforts. We urge you to enact the ``Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act.''
Thank you for your time and consideration of this important issue.
Sincerely,
Robert Albee, President,
American Public Works Association.
__________
Statement of the Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc.
The Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc., has
enthusiastically supported predisaster mitigation efforts as the best
and most effective means of reducing both disaster-related losses and
costs. The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is often cited as a
fundamental predisaster mitigation measure in effect in nearly 19,000
jurisdictions. Our membership includes the NFIP State Coordinators and
local officials who administer the program. We have direct experience
with State and local economic, development and political considerations
associated with reducing future flood losses.
The Association supports the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) in its efforts to promote mitigation as the key to breaking the
build-damage-rebuild-damage again cycle to yield long-term benefits,
including the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, the Flood Mitigation
Assistance Program and the Project Impact initiative. We look forward
to further developing appropriate roles for State floodplain and
emergency management officials.
We respectfully suggest that the Subcommittee review and consider
the report and commentary prepared by an ad hoc panel convened by FEMA.
The report was submitted to the Senate and House Committees on
Appropriations as required by the fiscal year 1998 appropriations
measure. The report is a needs-based analysis and cost-effectiveness
study of mitigation approaches. Importantly, the panel of experts
developed a statement of principles and strategies that reflect the
attributes and priorities by which all predisaster mitigation
alternatives should be measured. This is essential in any comprehensive
long-term predisaster mitigation program. The panel's primary
conclusion was that the ``highest priority in mitigation efforts must
be direct implementation at the local level.''
ASFPM recognizes and appreciates the serious attention this
Committee has given to examining mitigation a key to reducing disaster-
related losses and to reducing the huge costs associated with natural
disasters. We are pleased to have the opportunity to express overall
support of the draft bill which has resulted from the examination. We
would, however, like to offer some comments, concerns and suggestions
which we hope will assist the Committee in achieving the important
objectives of this proposed legislation.
Selected comments in order of appearance in the draft follow:
Sec. 103 Disaster Assistance Plans.
(d) Grants for Disaster Assistance and Hazard Identification
(1) Unfortunately, no requirement of a local predisaster mitigation
plan is included. States should not be required to develop lists of
specific projects, but instead should focus on establishing categories
and mechanisms for identifying priorities. Development of specific
mitigation plans should be done at the local level. Mitigation planning
funds should support development of local mitigation plans.
(2) We question the inclusion of ``testing and application of
improved floodplain mapping technologies'' as an eligible activity.
Other mechanisms already exist by which FEMA engages in agreements,
contracts and partnerships with the public and private sectors to cost-
share development and testing of new floodplain mapping technologies.
It is not appropriate to use this program to support new mapping
technologies, especially since that would be likely to divert important
funding support for State mitigation planning and action to private
sector enterprise.
Sec. 203 Predisaster Hazard Mitigation.
(c) (1) Purpose of Assistance We recommend that mitigation planning
be mentioned specifically as a necessary part of disaster mitigation,
making it clear that planning is an eligible activity for grant
support.
(e) (1-7) Criteria ASFPM believes that the articulation of criteria
for project eligibility is important. The Association is particularly
appreciative of (7) such other criteria as the President establishes in
consultation and coordination with State and local governments. We look
forward to working with the Federal and State governments to develop
other helpful guidelines. An example of a suggestion we would make is
that there should be a requirement that any community subject to
flooding should be compliant with floodplain management requirements of
the NFIP in order to be eligible.
(h) Local Governments
(2) ``delegate the decisions to local governments'' While we fully
endorse the delegation of local plan decisionmaking to local officials,
it is important that the President and State governments assist local
governments through financial support and technical assistance. Locally
developed and driven planning and implementation is key to successful
mitigation, but often financial support and technical assistance is
necessary.
We would urge adding language to specify that, ``The President and
the States shall assist local governments to develop and implement
mitigation options and plans.''
(i) Authorization of Appropriations
While we are very pleased to see the program authorized for a 5
year period, we note with concern that funding provided would decline
in years 3, 4, and 5 of the authorized period. While the damage
reduction resulting from mitigation can be expected to reduce need for
predisaster mitigation efforts over time, it would certainly not be
significantly reduced in 2 years or even 5 years. This is an important
investment in future loss reduction, but significant results do require
a constant level of funding.
We particularly applaud the Subcommittee language requiring
evaluation of the impact of this legislation. We suggest that the
authorized funding level not decrease, but that the Congress use the
evaluation to make appropriate decisions about future program
direction.
(j) Authorization of Section 404 Funds
ASFPM supports rolling in unobligated funds available under Section
404. Defining such funds by a 30 month cutoff of obligation may be too
arbitrary. FEMA can rapidly become severely understaffed simply as a
function of the magnitude and frequency of disasters. It would be
unfair to communities with applications pending under Section 404 to
have those funds automatically evaporate simply because FEMA was unable
to process paperwork. ASFPM suggests that the intent is good, but that
FEMA should work with its partners to establish in regulation such a
cutoff, with provision for extraordinary circumstances.
Establishment of Predisaster Mitigation Fund.
The Association believes that the process of using both
appropriated funds and rolled in unobligated moneys from Section 404
points to the need for a separate Predisaster Mitigation Fund. This
would permit accounting clarity for the President and the Congress in
tracking funds supporting predisaster mitigation.
A new subsection (k) could establish a fund for providing grants
under this section. The fund would be credited with appropriations
(authorized under subsection (i) and already appropriated assistance
under Section 404 of the Stafford Act (post-disaster mitigation
assistance) that has not been obligated within a reasonable period to
be determined by regulation.
Section 106. Interagency Task Force
ASFPM is enthusiastically supportive of coordinating implementation
of predisaster mitigation through an Interagency Task Force. We are in
full agreement with the Committee that this Task Force should be
chaired by the FEMA Director.
Section 107. Maximum Contribution for Mitigation Costs
(a) In General
ASFPM fully agrees with the change to 20 percent.
Section 202. Assistance to Repair, Restore, Reconstruct, or Replace
Damaged Facilities
(C) Large In-Lieu Contributions
If such ``in-lieu'' contributions are used, the recipient (State,
local government or private nonprofit facility) should make certain
that the contribution supports only restoration, expansion or
construction that reduces or minimizes the hazard risk.
Section 208. Study Regarding Disaster Insurance for Public
Infrastructure
ASFPM supports a GAO study of insurance for public infrastructure.
We suggest that the study be broadened or a separate companion study be
added to look at other aspects of reducing infrastructure damage and
costs. An example would be evaluation of design and construction
techniques in various parts of the country that have proven to be
resistant to damage from natural hazards.
The companion study could be tasked with evaluating public
infrastructure facilities located in declared disaster areas subject to
flooding or other damage. The evaluation would identify and document
design and construction elements that contributed to the ability of
those facilities to withstand disaster damage. Public infrastructure
facilities would include roads, bridges, culverts, water supply
facilities, wastewater treatment plants, pump stations, distribution
services for public utilities and recreational facilities.
additional recommendation
Post-Flood Disaster Verification of Flood Hazard Maps
Often, actual floods point out the need to verify and improve flood
hazard maps. In order to capture this ``real world'' verification, it
is important for FEMA to be able to deploy resources and examine field
information. The following language would give FEMA clear authority to
do so in the post-disaster period.
Title IV (44 U.S.C. 55170a) is amended by adding at the end----
``(5) in areas affected by flooding, investigate the causes and
extent of flooding to verify and improve available information and
flood hazard mapping.''
The Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc. is pleased to
have the opportunity to express its overall support of this
Subcommittee's efforts to address the long term costs of disasters.
ASFPM and its State chapters represent over 3,500 professionals engaged
in all aspects of floodplain management and hazard mitigation. Our
members work daily with cities, towns and counties that are struggling
with pressure to build in flood hazard areas, working to rebuild more
wisely after floods and planning to implement new programs and
undertake mitigation projects.
<all>