Federal Disaster Role Grows

Flames near Big Sur, California (June 2008)

Photo by Kurt Rogers, San Francisco Chronicle

On June 28 President Bush, responding to a request from California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, declared an emergency for seven California counties fighting wildfires. The Presidential Declaration authorized federal assistance under the Stafford Act. The Emergency Declaration succeeds a June 22 federal Fire Management Assistance Declaration for two counties in California.

This was the fifth Emergency Declaration issued by the President in 2008. According to the Department of Homeland Security the purpose of the Emergency Declaration is, "to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, and to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe."

Thirty-seven Major Disaster declarations have been issued since January. (A listing of Presidential Declarations is available from FEMA.) As defined by the Stafford Act an Emergency Declaration differs from a Disaster Declaration primarily in terms of the anticipated federal expenditure. There is a $5 million cap for an "emergency" while there is no cap for a "disaster." There are also expeditious ways to exceed the cap on federal funding of emergencies. Federal funding usually requires a local funding match of 25 percent. (More information on the difference between a disaster and emergency is available from SEMP.)

The number of Presidential Disaster Declarations is increasing over time. (The total number of Disaster Declarations per year is also available from FEMA.) Between 2002 and 2007 the average number of Disaster Declarations per year was 57.4. For the prior five-year period the average was 50.6. For the period 1993-1998 there was an average of 42 Disaster Declarations per year. It is difficult to track federal expenditures for disaster response, but a recent Congressional Research Service study found that emergency supplemental funding for disasters had increased from roughly $6 billion in 1998 to over $467 billion in 2008.

Several factors have influenced the increased federal role, including the escalating impact and cost of disasters, intensive national media coverage, and the political vulnerability of appearing to be less than fully responsive to local disasters. Some express concern that federal responsiveness is discouraging more aggressive local and state action that could reduce vulnerability to disasters. (See Feds and Fire from the Los Angeles Times)