Have We Become Too Dependent On The Federal Government?
Those who read my blog regularly know I am not a supporter of many of the emergency management policies espoused by the current Republican administration. Let me be clear from the start. I do not support politicizing disaster relief. Nor do I support withholding relief funds because of the optics of asking for additional allocations to the disaster relief fund or withdrawing funds allocated by Congress for mitigation projects. However, holding to the theory that a broken clock is right twice a day, I do think that the administration’s avowed intention to “return emergency response to the states” does have some merit and raises questions that might be worth discussing.
If we look at disaster declarations over time, we note that they have increased significantly. Based on FEMA data, the average number of Presidential disaster declarations in the 1960’s was 18.6. This rose to 57.1 in the early 2000’s. However, during the period 2020-2024, Presidential declarations averaged 164 per year. This can be partially attributed to the increased frequency and magnitude of disasters resulting from climate change. For example, prior to 1994 the most common disaster in the US was flooding. It has gradually shifted to fires, with recent Palisades Fire in California an example of how climate change has increased the risk of major fires.
However, not all disasters can be attributed to climate change, and the increased frequency of declarations raises the question of whether communities have come to see the federal government as the insurer of last resort. Many communities rely on self-insurance using emergency funds or simply retain the risk, betting that a disaster won’t occur and that the federal government will make them whole. There are also communities that cannot afford to fund the resources needed to adequately respond to disasters. Would limiting the availability of federal disaster relief encourage increased investment in emergency preparedness? It might, but it would require an increase in federal preparedness funding, something that the current administration seems determined to eliminate based on its clawback of mitigation funding and halting distribution of Emergency Management Preparedness Grant (EMPG) funds.
Federal funding under the EMPG program has contributed in an odd fashion to limits on preparedness in some communities. I’ve encountered a few communities where the emergency management budget is limited to the EMPG funds received and any matching requirements. In one jurisdiction, the emergency management program coordination was performed as an additional duty by a secretary because of funding limitations. (In this case, the government got a bargain – she was a real professional who took the job seriously.) Would cutting EMPG funds stimulate communities to better fund local emergency management programs as the current administration seems intent on doing, or would local programs simply cease to exist? Currently funds are distributed based on a fixed amount plus an amount determined by population. Could a reduction to the amount provided to larger communities that have the resources to fund an emergency program be used to provide increased funding to less affluent jurisdictions?
Emergency managers are well aware of the return on investment on funds spent on mitigation. If we are indeed seeking to encourage communities to be more resilient, stimulating investment in mitigation measures must play a critical role. Unfortunately, we’re seeing the opposite occurring. For example, the current administration froze a $20 million grant to Alaska earlier this year that would help mitigate future disasters such as the floods that affected Kipnuk, Kwigillingok, and other Alaskan communities. Funds were frozen so the Environmental Protection Agency could conduct a review of all grants that had to do with what they refer to as “climate justice.” This could well affect any grants that support mitigation projects focused on natural hazards.
I’ve previously written about the importance of FEMA beyond disaster relief (see my blog post What The Public Doesn’t Know About FEMA), so I won’t go into detail here. The issue here is that if we push increased responsibility on states without the support of an agency that coordinates doctrine and standards, we risk each state creating its own version of how disaster relief should be administered. Mechanisms that support mutual aid, such as the Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC) or the Incident Command System, would lose their effectiveness, leaving states to “go it alone.”
To summarize, the concept of encouraging states to be more self-reliant is not in itself a bad thing. However, it is not a cost-saving measure nor a simplification of the administration of disaster relief. It would require an increase in pre-disaster funding and a redirection of much of that funding to states lacking the resources to create effective emergency management programs. It could mean the loss of a coordinated national system and its replacement with a patchwork of different programs. Not a good plan.