Disaster Relief : The Past, The Present, and The Future

1
Disaster Relief The Past, The Present, and The
Future

• By Sierra R. Turner
• Political Science Senior Capstone
• November 17, 2005

2
Introduction to Natural Disasters
3
Disaster Relief Prior to 1950

• Prior to 1950, there were specific acts in place
  by Congress which expressed sympathy and in some
  cases offered token financial assistance.
• Any assistance provided by the government was
  limited to building flood programs which were a
  part of the larger New Deal public works
  program.
• Before 1950, disaster relief was viewed as the
  moral responsibility of neighbors, churches,
  charities, and communitiesnot the federal
  government.

4
A New Beginning.

• The Disaster Relief Act of 1950 (PL 81-875)
  clearly indicated Congressional aim as regards
  the role of the federal government in disaster
  relief It is the intent of Congress to provide
  an orderly and continuing means of assistance by
  the Federal Government to States and local
  governments in carrying out their
  responsibilities 1) to alleviate suffering and
  damage resulting from major disasters, 2) to
  repair essential public facilities in major
  disasters, and 3) to foster the development of
  such State organizations and plans to cope with
  major disasters as may be necessary.

5
Disaster Relief Act of 1970

• All of the liberal benefits of the 1960s were
  incorporated into the comprehensive Disaster
  Relief Act of 1970.
• Though the Disaster Relief Act of 1970
  represented a comprehensive consolidation of
  relief benefits extended since 1950, there was
  little change in the procedural aspects of the
  federal program.
• The Legislation reiterated the fact that disaster
  relief was principally the responsibility of
  state and local governments.

6
Disaster Relief Act of 1974

• The Disaster Relief Act of 1974 represents
  revision and more significantly, an extension of
  previous disaster assistance. The important
  provisions of the legislation
• authorize the most generous public and private
  relief programs passed in the United States
  history
• introduce long-range economic recovery programs
  for major disaster areas
• encourage the mitigation plans
• establish an insurance program to supplement and
  replace governmental assistance and
• broaden the powers of the President in the
  evaluation of disaster requests and the
  allocation of federal resources.

7
FEMA to the rescue.

• Effective in 1979, the Carter Administration
  established a new federal agency known as the
  Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as in
  independent unit in the Executive branch.
• Emergency responsibilities of the National Fire
  Prevention and Control Administration, the
  Federal Insurance Administration, the Federal
  Preparedness Agency, the Defense Civil
  Preparedness Agency, and the Federal Disaster
  Assistance Administration were merged into the
  new agency.
• However, federal relief programs of the Small
  Business Administration were not incorporated in
  the centralization plan.

8
More FEMA.

• This reorganization of federal disaster services
  was accompanied by a reorientation in federal
  disaster policy. The newly consolidated bureau
  was instructed to underline federal, state, and
  local preparation for peacetime or wartime
  emergencies.
• An additional task was to offer incentives for
  federal agencies which would prepare emergency
  plans in their own procedures.
• Additionally, the agency was to develop
  incentives for all lawmaking levels which would
  stress hazard mitigation.
• Thus in addition to previous attention to tasks
  of rescue and recovery, the Carter Administration
  sought to stress the importance of preparedness
  and prevention.

9
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act.

• In 1988, Congress passed the Stafford Disaster
  Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford
  Act), amending the 1974 Disaster Relief Act and
  prior laws dating back to 1950.
• Important Sections of the Stafford Act
• Section 409 of the Stafford Act reiterated the
  long ignored mandate of the 1974 law that state
  and local governments receiving federal disaster
  assistance must assess and implement
  opportunities to reduce natural hazard risks.
• Section 404 of the Stafford Act created a new
  hazard mitigation grant program to assist states
  in conducting projects identified by Section 409
  plans that are cost effective and which
  substantially reduce the risk of future damage ,
  hardship, loss, or suffering in any area affected
  by a major disaster.

10
Case Studies

• 1906 California Earthquake
• Mexico City Earthquake of 1985
• Hurricane Hugo of 1989
• Loma Prieta Earthquake of 1989
• Oakland-Berkeley Hills Fire of 1991
• St. Charles County, MO Flood of 1993

11
1906 California Earthquake

• The California earthquake of April 18, 1906 ranks
  as one of the most significant earthquakes of all
  time.
• The 1906 catastrophe possessed many elements of a
  contemporary natural disaster
• 1) multiple interrelated hazardsearthquake and
  fire
• 2) failure of vital lifelines that caused various
  secondary impacts
• 3) widespread structural damage due to inadequate
  building standards
• 4) resulting in homelessness and joblessness of
  much of the working-class population but
• 5) a nurturing external society that assisted in
  the immediate response to the disaster and to
  some extent in the longer-term recovery.

12
Mexico City Earthquake of 1985

• On September 19, 1985 an earthquake occurred
  without warning followed by a major aftershock 36
  hours later.
• Considering the fact that the area has a history
  of being seriously and threatened by earthquakes,
  it would seem obvious that there would be some
  type of disaster planning at federal and
  metropolitan areas.
• At the time of the Mexico City earthquake there
  was no overall, system-wide planning at the
  federal district level. Virtually all sectors of
  Mexico Citys economy were affected, including
  health, education, telecommunications,
  manufacturing, public services, tourism, and
  housing.
• A federal emergency plan was put into action
  shortly after the earthquake. However, this plan
  was implemented only in certain areas with the
  military being given the lead role in disaster
  response.

13
Hurricane Hugo of 1989

• Hurricane Hugo slammed into South Carolina,
  resulting in widespread damage all over the
  state.
• Damage estimates for South Carolina alone reached
  5 billion, while overall hurricane damage for
  the Southeastern United States and Caribbean
  exceeded 9 billion, making Hugo the second most
  expensive hurricane to ever hit the United
  States.
• Hurricane Hugo resulted in four presidential
  declarations for the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto
  Rico, South Carolina, and North Carolina.
• It devastated St. Croix in the Virgin Islands and
  caused extensive coastal and inland damage in the
  Carolinas. In both the Virgin Islands and in
  South Carolina there were problems with the
  federal response, which showed up more
  extensively again after Hurricane Andrew in
  Florida in 1992.

14
Loma Prieta Earthquake of 1989

• The Loma Prieta Earthquake hit the Bay Area of
  California a few weeks after Hurricane Hugo.
• In general, the earthquake caused four kinds of
  impacts from infrastructure damage
• 1) direct physical and economic damage to the
  systems themselves,
• 2) diminished ability to carry out emergency
  response activities,
• 3)inconvenience due to temporary service
  interruption, and
• 4)longer-term economic losses due to limits on
  recovery.

15
Oakland-Berkeley Hills Fire of 1991

• The Oakland-Berkeley Hills Fire of October 20,
  1991 reminded disaster planners worldwide that
  natural hazards may be immeasurably aggravated by
  ill-advised building patterns and neglect of
  common-sense hazard improvement.
• The risk of urban wildfire in this region and
  similar areas in the West arises from several
  interrelated factors
• 1) vegetation,
• 2) fire suppression,
• 3) drought,
• 4) building materials,
• 5) narrow roads,
• 6) wind,
• 7) water supply,
• 8) arson, and
• 9) floods and debris floods.

16
St. Charles County, MO Flood of 1993

• St. Charles County, Missouri, occupies 586 square
  miles, comparable to half the area of Rhode
  Island.
• Roughly 50 percent of St. Charles County is
  recognized as floodplain. In fact, the county
  lies in the path of two inevitable and opposing
  forces water and people.
• The flooding of 1993 in St. Charles County was
  unprecedented in terms of record-setting and the
  extent of the flooding. Overall, the flood
  damaged more than 4300 structures in the county
  and forced more than 2000 families from their
  farms, homes, and in some cases mobile homes.
• St. Charles County responded to the disaster by
  developing a three step-process to guide damage
  assessment and the rebuilding process. The
  process consisted of
• 1) damage inspection and assessment,
• 2) homeowner review, and
• 3) negotiation to expedite the repair or removal
  of flood-damaged structures in the floodplain.

17
Findings/Observations

• The case studies presented in this paper show an
  apparent double standard that afflicts national
  policy regarding natural hazards, particularly in
  areas of high amenity value such as coasts and
  steep hillsides. On the other hand, the federal
  government is increasingly expected to bear the
  major proportion of local and private economic
  costs of disasters through its grant, loan, and
  insurance programs. However, government at all
  levels is obstructed in preventing building and
  rebuilding in areas of known risk due to the
  property rights movement and fear of the taking
  issue.
• When considering alternatives to the present
  system of federal disaster assistance there are a
  few possible approaches and they include, but are
  not limited to
• 1) depoliticize individual assistance o reduce
  the number of disaster declarations
• 2) reduce the magnitude and cost-share of federal
  assistance
• 3) eliminate federal incentives to build or
  rebuild in areas subject to repetitive natural
  hazards and
• 4) strengthen nonfederal hazard mitigation
  through land use controls and incentives.

18
Conclusion.

• Disaster policy in the United States is an
  extensive program which focuses on relief and
  compensation as opposed to readiness and
  prevention. It can be further characterized as
  highly susceptible to political manipulation due
  to the central role assigned to the President.
  This is combined with the lack of a clear
  definition of disaster as well as an open-minded
  provision for relief.