Emergency preparedness and the federal teat
Those of us residing in South Florida were spared grief this week when Tropical Storm Ernesto weakened to a depression shortly after landfall. Unfortunately, several counties declared local emergencies prior to the storm's destablization and incurred rather steep mobilization and evacuation costs -- and now they are demanding compensation from the federal government.
The rationale that is driving the scheme is understandable and in its simplest form, it starts out like this: Florida statute requires that county governments direct emergency operations at the local level. County governments cannot request state response and recovery assistance without first declaring a local disaster. With me so far?
And of course, Florida cannot request federal assistance or monetary recompense without first receiving a local emergency declaration, then itself declaring a state of localized, regional, or statewide emergency. And any costs incurred prior to the aforementioned declarations are not reimbursable through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
The processes have been over-simplified here for presentation's sake but it seems straightforward so far, doesn't it? So in the case of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and tropical storms), all you have to do is simply wait to see what the storm will do before making your local emergency declaration and thereby save a ton of money. Ah, but as with most things bureaucratic, nothing is quite as straightforward or simple as it first appears.
The local conundrum
South Florida is comprised of a megalopolis extending from the Florida Keys north all the way to West Palm Beach that includes a pesky, 20-mile-wide coastal strip of habitation in which resides more than eight million persons, hundreds of square miles of developed real estate, and a network of major thoroughfares operating at or above capacity even during normal traffic conditions.
Amidst all this, local emergency planners must allow adequate time for the completion of safe, mandatory evacuations, activation of emergency shelters, mobilization and staging of personnel, equipment, and resources, school system closures, suspension of government services, securing government buildings and assets, home and family preparation by critical employees, and all with coordination between state, neighboring, and remote mutual aid jurisdictions. And just for comedic content, let's throw a little mud in the gears by adding that certain actions MUST be taken when specific areas are placed under storm watch and warning designations.
There can be no capricious, spur of the moment decisions; local governments cannot afford the luxury of waiting for the last minute to see what a storm will do, whether it will veer away before landfall, or if it will decrease in intensity. As any emergency manager worthy of the title will attest, the danger is not just from hurricanes -- tropical storms also kill people and damage or destroy critical infrastructure, particularly when they can spawn a dozen or two ancillary tornadoes.
And that is the crux of the argument. Remember, when in doubt always follow the money. Local governments feel they are being unfairly penalized by having to absorb costs incurred when forced by regulations to make early emergency declarations, when they are doing so to facilitate the safety of their residents.
The other side of the coin
Antagonists of this argument state that decent salaries are paid to emergency managers, and their job is to provide recommendations based upon professional expertise to jurisdictional governing bodies when it comes to local activation, emergency declarations, closures, evacuation, and sheltering. In other words, suck it up, make a decision, earn your generous salary, or find another job.
It can be further argued that the reimbursement proposal is nothing more than a cushion for the sake of job and election security, and that taxpayers across the United States should not have to pay for decisions made by any local government, nor for their errors in judgment.
Local governments abhor interference in their affairs when it comes to ... well, er ... local governance, and that includes emergency preparedness. The only reason locals ever tolerate federal involvement in anything is money but as one might imagine, that usually involves a corresponding increase in federal oversight. In effect, and whether this line of reasoning has been considered or not, what South Florida's local governments are asking for is an increase in federal responsibility for a phase of the decision-making process at the local level. Such wishes are seldom granted without unlooked-for consequences.
Any federal agency is comprised of like-minded, top-down technocrats who place emphasis on process, administration, and control rather than bottom-up initiative and real-time assessments from the trenches. It is therefore not unreasonable to assume that this incremental federal foot in the door will not somehow generate another layer of oversight.
A key factor to consider that has thus far been expediently ignored is that for the last several decades, South Florida counties never met a development they didn't like. Thanks to an incredible lack of foresight, our counties can proudly boast of seam-splitting sprawl from the Atlantic Ocean inland to the Everglades. By encouraging mind-numbing, wall-to-wall growth in some of the most disaster-prone real estate in the United States, they have exponentially compounded their own preparedness and recovery concerns with a burgeoning population and billions more dollars in susceptible infrastructure.
So who should pay?
Which brings the discussion back to the fact that the federal government has a responsibility to be judicious in asking for taxpayer dollars, and just as judicious in their expenditure. There are legislators and tens of millions of their constituents in America who think anything that happens in Florida should not be paid for by the rest of the country. They believe there are certain responsibilities that are the sole burden of Floridians. They have a point.
It easy to see why someone living in Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin, would be outraged or at least have difficulty understanding why they must pay for an emergency declaration and its associated costs in Broward County, Florida. Perhaps Florida and its at-risk counties should earmark specific contingency funds to cover such costs should this uncommon situation reoccur.
And before you fire off an email brimming with indignation, please remember that this has merely been an exercise without the detailed background and relevant data necessary for cogent discourse. As the old saying goes, "This has been provided for informational purposes only."
Regardless of your opinion, rest assured that one way or the other, your wallet will take a hit.