This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon, July 25, 2011 - WASHINGTON - It's been a year of disasters, with twisters devastating Joplin and Tuscaloosa, floods inundating lowlands along the Mississippi and Missouri rivers, and other destructive events ranging from ice jams in Alaska to tsunami waves in Hawaii.
The cost of responding to those acts of nature -- and to the record pace of presidential "major disaster" declarations, which require a federal response -- has led the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to consider taking steps to help preserve enough money in the federal disaster relief fund to cover other disasters this year.
And the threat of a legislative storm -- with Capitol Hill caught in a whirlwind of competing deficit-reduction plans that would slash nearly every discretionary budget -- could worsen FEMA's situation if Mother Nature's wrath continues.
"Part of our problem with FEMA is that we have a lot more 'disasters' declared than we used to have," said U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., at a Senate hearing. Noting the steady increase in disaster declarations, Paul expressed concern that "we're declaring everything a disaster and some of this should maybe be taken care of at the state level . . . and save our resources for things like [Hurricane] Katrina and Joplin and Tuscaloosa."
As a tea-party conservative, Paul tends to focus on cost-cutting, but the list of disaster declarations is indeed long. This year alone, the White House has issued 56 "major disaster" declarations as well as 10 lesser "emergency declarations" and dozens of "fire management" declarations.
If the trend continues for the rest of the year -- and an active hurricane season is predicted -- the 2011 total is on a pace to exceed last year's record of 81 "major disaster" declarations. As the Beacon reported in May, the annual number of disaster declaration has been rising since 2005, the year FEMA came under fire for lackluster relief efforts after Hurricane Katrina, which devastated the Gulf Coast, causing $81 billion in damage.
An analysis of FEMA statistics shows a rise in disaster declarations over the last decade. Between 2001 and the end of 2005, there were 267 such declarations; in the following five years, there were 330.
The trend is even more pronounced in Missouri. Since 2006, there have been 24 disaster declarations and four "emergency declarations" in the state -- a sharp increase from the total of seven disaster declarations and one emergency declaration from 2000-2005. In all, Missouri has received 52 federal "major disaster" declarations since 1957, as well as seven "emergency declarations" -- ranking 10th highest among states in declared disasters since the late 1950s.
Illinois also has seen an increase in disaster declarations in recent years --- with 14 such declarations since 2006, versus seven declarations from 2000-2005. Overall, Illinois ranks 11th highest among the states, with 50 disaster declarations since 1957.
Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., who also took part in the hearing of the Senate Homeland Security Committee's disaster recovery subcommittee, told reporters afterward, "I don't think it hurts at all to evaluate the process of why there have been so many more disasters declared under President Obama than under past presidents."
While Blunt defended this year's Missouri disaster declarations as fully justified, he said he would support an analysis of whether some events really merit such FEMA aid.
"It's probably time to carefully analyze the disasters of this year and see how they compare to past disasters and whether or not those were thought to be moments when the federal government would step in," said Blunt. "But I think the Missouri [disasters] are going to meet that criteria."
Will 'weather shifts' lead to FEMA shifts?
FEMA Deputy Administrator Richard Serino, responding to Paul's critique at last week's hearing, explained that a big part of the reason for the rise in disaster declarations is that "we have had some record-setting weather . . . A high number of tornadoes and record high flood stages on the Mississippi and Missouri rivers. So we're seeing disasters in large number mainly because of shifts in some of the weather patterns."
But Serino also told senators that FEMA recognizes that the cost of the federal response has been temporarily draining the disaster relief fund. And he said FEMA is looking at various cost-cutting efforts, including -- in a response to a critical inspector general's report -- centralizing the agency's information technology spending.
Assuming that Congress funds FEMA at expected levels, Serino said the agency should be able to keep what's regarded as the minimum of $1 billion in the disaster fund. If it slips below that level, FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate has said that the agency will put on hold some long-term projects to make funds available for emergency needs.
Earlier this year, FEMA had projected a possible $3 billion shortfall unless congressional appropriators increased the $1.8 billion that President Barack Obama proposed for the disaster relief fund for the fiscal year that starts on Oct. 1. The House recently approved a spending bill with an extra $1 billion for the FEMA fund, but all such spending measures are considered vulnerable as Congress debates rival debt-limit plans that call for trillions of dollars in cuts in discretionary federal spending. And that could mean that Congress would have to approve an emergency spending bill to replenish the disaster account.
At the hearing, subcommittee chair Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., asked Serino point blank whether there was a danger of FEMA's disaster fund running out of money. Serino said the fund has about $1.2 billion, which is being kept afloat partly by "de-obligating" some long-term FEMA funding from previous disasters. "It's been going down a little bit, obviously, with the disasters" of this spring and summer, he said, projecting that the fund might dip below $1 billion by early August.
If necessary, FEMA would then appeal to a cash-strapped Congress for emergency supplemental money. And, Serino said, FEMA would shift to an "immediate needs funding" approach that would "leave the money in place [in the fund] for life-saving issues....We'll put on hold funding some other, long-term projects."
Pryor said he was concerned that this year's multiple disasters "threatens the fiscal health of state and local governments." But he conceded, "We can't rely on the federal government to fill the gaps left by insufficient state and local funds."
Both Blunt and Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., who also attended the hearing, said they expect FEMA to provide the maximum assistance possible in Joplin as well as areas hit by the Mississippi and Missouri floods. McCaskill focused on whether federal funds flowing into hard-hit communities are helping those most in need.
"I'm a little worried about all the money flowing in: Is it getting to the right place?" McCaskill asked subcommittee witness Rob O'Brian, president of the Joplin Area Chamber of Commerce. "Is it accessible by the business community?"
O'Brian told the Senate panel that it would help if FEMA would better explain the resources that are available to communities struck by disaster. "There's a period of time in there where everyone is essentially in shock," and not focused on their exact needs, he said. "But once you can put something forward and say some examples of resources we have available, then that started the thought process for them."
Blunt said he was generally satisfied with the federal response in Joplin but said it might help to provide quicker links to help small business and others secure their computer information after a disaster strikes. He said the hearing was useful because it provided a forum for "a wide-ranging discussion about everything from the Birds Point flooding in the Bootheel to Missouri River flooding that we expect to happen between now and the end of the month of August."
While this year's spike in Missouri disasters may prove to be a fluke, a study of long-term trends indicates that the state has become more vulnerable to adverse events -- or, at least, has become more successful in garnering presidential disaster declarations. A map showing presidential disaster declarations from 2000-2010 shows the darkest red areas receiving the most declarations. When the color gradations are compared to this historical map showing declarations from 1964-2007, it is clear from those maps that Missouri became a "redder" state in the first decade of the 2000s, in terms of the frequency of declared disasters.
Under the law, FEMA is obliged to respond not only to emergencies but also, in some cases, to help communities like post-Katrina New Orleans rebuild over time. The challenge for FEMA, officials said, is continuing the long-term projects while also keeping enough cash in the disaster fund to respond to emergencies.
At the hearing, Paul suggested that Congress and FEMA administrators take a harder look at the process by which the agency responds to emergencies." It's kind of hard to be against declaring a disaster, so we always declare a disaster," he said. "And I think not every disaster is created equally."