Support for the Reformation of the Stafford Act

Stafford Act can rightly be considered the principle legislation governing emergency and disaster management in the U.S., spelling "out - among other things - how disasters are declared, the types of assistance to be provided, and the cost-sharing arrangements between federal, state, and local governments" (Moss & Shelhamer, 2007, p. 3). FEMA is, essentially, charged with implementing the Act and overseeing its two incident levels - major disasters and emergencies. However, despite the fact that it is put into place several times every year, during declarations of catastrophes and emergencies, the Stafford Act is not without its critics who have outspokenly called for an overhaul to some of is fundamental provisions. The author posits that in its present state, the Stafford Act lacks standardized mitigation procedures, and ought, therefore, to be "reformed to aggressively encourage the reconstruction of improved infrastructure, in addition to providing funding for mitigation projects" (Moss & Shelhamer, 2007, p. 5).

The Issues and Possible Reform Measures

Policies Governing Catastrophic Incidents: the threats the U.S. faces have become more extensive and now include unprecedented national disasters as well as terrorism. As the population swells, more and more people are moving to areas vulnerable to earthquakes and hurricanes; yet the Act only recognizes two incident levels - major disasters (large events) and emergencies (limited scale events) (Moss & Shelhamer, 2007). Following Katrina, Congress saw the need to introduce an additional category and it to that effect, passed the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006, establishing a new 'catastrophic incident' level (Moss & Shelhamer, 2007). However, the new provisions weren't captured in the Stafford Act -- meaning that the law continues in existence without a clear distinction between a tornado or blizzard, and enormous damage brought about by a large-scale terrorist attack, hurricane, or earthquake (Bea, 2003; Moss & Shelhamer, 2007).

Section 102 of the Stafford Act ought to be amended to include the definition of ruinous incidents on the basis of the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 -- "any natural disaster, act of terrorism, or other man-made disaster that results in extraordinary levels of causalities or damage or disruption severely affecting the population" (Moss & Shelhamer, 2007, p.15). Under this definition, the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico would qualify as a catastrophic incident, and the recovery/clean-up efforts would be "eligible for the full range of federal disaster assistance" (Moss & Shelhamer, 2007, p.12).

Reimbursement of Lost Revenue: disaster loans (at the community level) accessible as per the Stafford Act are currently capped at $5million; a figure that is by far inadequate to help localities recover from the damage caused by a major disaster, given that they perform rescues, ensure public safety and order, administer public recovery programs, remove debris, and inspect buildings to determine which ones are safe, among many other things (Bea, 2003). Following the 9/11 attacks, for instance, New York City spent between $2.5 and $2.9 billion; and in the aftermath of Katrina, Alabama; Mississippi; and Louisiana, three of the most affected states, lost $38, $108, and $179.6 in tax revenues respectively (Moss & Shelhamer, 2007). This demonstrates why the $5 million cap on community disaster loans needs to be abolished; and the Act amended to allow FEMA to fund, not only the overtime pay, but also part of the salaries of public employees to prevent situations where localities end up bankrupt and have to consequently lay off some of their workers (Hunter, 2009).

21st Century Threats: not all disasters are covered under the scope of 'major disaster'. The Stafford Act qualifies a major disaster as an explosion, flood, fire, drought, snowstorm, mudslide, landslide, volcanic eruption, earthquake, tsunami, tidal wave, wind-driven water, high water, storm, tornado, or hurricane (Hunter, 2009). This implies that nuclear, radiological, biological, and chemical incidents are not classified as major disasters under the Act (Moss & Shelhamer, 2007). The President, under such laws as the National Emergencies Act, the Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response Act, possesses power to respond to interferences or disruptions that trigger the release of hazardous substances; however, these laws do not offer financial aid to the affected jurisdictions (Moss & Shelhamer, 2007). The Stafford Act accords a serving President power to declare an emergency in such cases, but then the aid would only be limited to $5milion unless the President dictates an expansion (Moss & Shelhamer, 2007). These illustrations demonstrate the need to amend the Stafford Act to incorporate the aforementioned incidents, because then, the federal government would have the flexibility to declare the same a major disaster and to subsequently release the relevant aid (Moss & Shelhamer, 2007).

Insurance: federal policy requires that an individual or business be compensated first by insurance. The Stafford Act prevents duplication by ensuring that disaster victims who receive compensation from insurance do not receive federal assistance (Moss & Shelhamer, 2007). Worryingly, insurance companies are moving to minimize losses, and in so doing, leaving victims stranded and unable to rebuild (Moss & Shelhamer, 2007). Following Katrina, for instance, most victims who had hurricane, and not flood coverage, were left devastated, with companies that had offered insurance arguing that the damage could not be directly attributed to a hurricane, but to floods (Moss & Shelhamer, 2007). Furthermore, large-scale disasters can overwhelm insurance companies, resulting in massive delays in payments. For instance, $24.3 billion in insured losses was due to be paid to Katrina victims in Louisiana; yet one year after Katrina, only $12.5 billion had been paid out (Moss & Shelhamer, 2007). To this end, the regulations of the Stafford Act have to be modified so that cash assistance, and caps on housing assistance can be advanced to qualified homeowners without them having to avail insurance coverage proof (Moss & Shelhamer, 2007). This way, devastated families can begin the process of recovery, and then the assistance can "be reimbursed to the government when insurance coverage is received, or through income taxes" (Moss & Shelhamer, 2007, p. 20).