Disaster Relief : The
Past, The Present, and
The Future
By: Sierra R. Turner
Political Science Senior Capstone
November 17, 2005
Introduction to Natural Disasters
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 communities—not the federal
government.
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.
Disaster Relief Act of 1970:



All of the liberal benefits of the 1960’s
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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
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 hazards—earthquake 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 workingclass 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.
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, systemwide planning at the federal district level. Virtually all sectors of Mexico
City’s 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 stepprocess 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.
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.
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.