Disaster Relief : The Past, The Present, and The Future - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 18
About This Presentation
Title:

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

Description:

Damage estimates for South Carolina alone reached $5 billion, while overall ... Overall, the flood damaged more than 4300 structures in the county and forced ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:78
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 19
Provided by: srtu
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: 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.
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com