FEMA Disaster Cost-Shares: Evolution and
Analysis
Francis X. McCarthy
Analyst in Emergency Management Policy
March 9, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41101
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress

---

FEMA Disaster Cost-Shares: Evolution and Analysis

Summary
The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (The Stafford Act, P.L. 93-
288) contains discretion for the President to adjust cost-shares for the Public Assistance (PA)
program, Sections 406 and 407 of the act, that provides assistance to states, local governments
and non-profit organizations for debris removal and rebuilding of the public and non-profit
infrastructure. The language of the Stafford Act defining cost-shares for the repair, restoration,
and replacement of damaged facilities provides that the federal share “shall be not less than 75
percent.” These provisions have been in effect for over 20 years. While the authority to adjust the
cost-share is long standing, the history of FEMA’s administrative adjustments and Congress’
legislative actions in this area, are of a more recent vintage.
In all, there have been 222 cost-share adjustments of varying sizes and lengths of time. In 1998
FEMA promulgated, in regulation, a more consistent and open approach to cost-share
adjustments. The overwhelming majority of these actions have been based on that regulatory
authority and carried out by the executive branch through administrative actions. However, since
1997, and particularly in the wake of the difficult issues caused by the Gulf Coast storms of 2005,
Congress has begun to exercise its authority to adjust cost-shares. The recent trend toward
legislative cost-share waivers suggests that Congress may have an interest in continuing to
influence the federal/state relationship in providing resources to respond to disaster situations.
The cost-share regulation cites per capita damage amounts that could qualify a state for cost-share
reductions. The per capita amounts are updated on an annual basis. With the adjustment process
in regulation, and with larger disasters more frequent in succeeding years, the cost-share waivers
have also become more common. Certainly the interest in achieving such a reduction for the state
and local share has grown with the awareness of the cost-share adjustments during large disaster
events such as Hurricane Katrina. Beyond actions by the executive branch, Congress has adjusted
cost-shares through legislation when a state or states may not, or have yet to meet, the per capita
threshold. FEMA and the Clinton administration adjusted the cost-shares for some states affected
by the 1993 Mississippi River flooding that had not met the per capita policy amount. In 2007,
Congress adjusted the cost-shares following the Gulf Coast hurricanes of 2005 for states that did
not meet the identified threshold and also waived cost-shares for programs other than the PA
program. Most recently, in P.L. 111-32, Congress again adjusted the state cost-shares for the two
states most impacted by Hurricane Ike in 2008. The legislation also waived the cost-share for two
other states, separate from the hurricane area, with major disaster declarations that did not meet
the qualifying threshold.
Under the Insular Areas Act, a different threshold is implemented for U.S. territories that provides
a more generous cost-share for smaller disaster events in several of the territories. These cost-
share waivers have been frequently applied.
Cost-share waivers can be a great help to a state and its communities seeking to recover from a
disaster event and reeling from the economic problems caused by the disaster. But such actions
also reduce the supplemental nature of Stafford Act funding through the increase of the federal
share. How such cost-share waivers are administered is an issue that FEMA has addressed
through regulation and Congress has addressed through legislation. This report will be revised as
warranted by events.

Congressional Research Service

---

FEMA Disaster Cost-Shares: Evolution and Analysis

Contents
Historical Cost-Share Thresholds: Authorities and Regulations.................................................... 1
Authorities ............................................................................................................................ 1
Regulations ........................................................................................................................... 1
FEMA’s Cost-Share Rule ................................................................................................ 3
Timing and Frequency of Cost-Share Adjustments ...................................................................... 3
Cost-Share Waivers By Program Area ......................................................................................... 6
Public Assistance Cost-Share Waivers ................................................................................... 6
Other Needs Assistance Cost-Share Waivers.......................................................................... 6
Cost-Share Waivers for Hazard Mitigation ............................................................................ 6
Specific Cost-Shares ................................................................................................................... 7
Mount St. Helens and the Birth of the 25-Percent State and Local Share................................ 7
Hurricanes Hugo and Andrew and a Different Cost-Share ..................................................... 8
The Floods of 1993 and the Current Cost-Share Formula....................................................... 8
Red River Floods of 1997 and the First Statutory Waiver....................................................... 9
Hurricanes Katrina, Wilma, Dennis, and Rita .............................................................................. 9
Administrative and Congressional Waivers of Cost-Shares .................................................... 9
Other Hurricane Katrina Cost-Shares ........................................................................................ 11
Section 403 Housing/Sheltering .......................................................................................... 11
Hurricanes Gustav and Ike and Other Disasters, 2009................................................................ 11
Administrative and Congressional Statutory Cost-Share Adjustments .................................. 11
Other Cost-Shares ..................................................................................................................... 12
World Trade Center - 9/11 Cost-Share Waivers.................................................................... 12
Columbia Shuttle Response................................................................................................. 12
Corollary Issues – The Politics of Disasters and the Degree of Congressional Involvement ........ 13
Conclusion................................................................................................................................ 14

Figures
Figure 1. Types of Cost-Share Waivers ........................................................................................ 5

Tables
Table A-1. Major Disaster Declarations: Cost-Share Adjustments .............................................. 16

Appendixes
Appendix. Major Disaster Declarations ..................................................................................... 16

Congressional Research Service

---

FEMA Disaster Cost-Shares: Evolution and Analysis

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 24

Congressional Research Service

---

FEMA Disaster Cost-Shares: Evolution and Analysis

Historical Cost-Share Thresholds: Authorities and
Regulations
Authorities
FEMA’s cost-share policy for the public assistance program that repairs, restores or replaces
public facilities of all kinds (buildings, roads, public utilities, water and sewer projects, etc.) was
part of the original Disaster Relief Act of 1974.1 That statute authorized the President to help state
and local governments in the repair or replacement of public facilities and mandated that “the
federal contribution for grants made under this section shall not exceed 100 per centum of the net
cost.”2 However, the defined cost-share commitments were established by regulation in 1980. As
one observer explained,
The nonfederal contribution to all other assistance remained subject to negotiation until May
1980, when FEMA administratively adopted a general policy of requiring state and local
governments to agree to pay 25 percent of the eligible costs of public assistance programs.
This policy removed the administrative problem associated with attempting to determine a
“reasonable” commitment for each disaster.3
This administrative policy was codified into law in amendments to the Stafford Act contained in
P.L. 100-707, in 1988:
Minimum federal share – Except as provided in paragraph (2), the Federal share of assistance
under this section shall not be less than 75 percent of the eligible cost of repair, restoration,
reconstruction, or replacement carried out under this section.4
Regulations
Currently, a state must have accumulated more than $125 in damages per capita within the state
to reach a traditional cost-share waiver for sections 403, 406 and 407.5 Sections 403, 406 and 407
of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (P.L. 93-288, the Stafford
Act) address emergency assistance, infrastructure damage and debris removal. These sections all
share the same statutory language regarding the federal share; that it “shall not be less than 75
percent of the eligible costs.”6 The cost-shares are reflective of the Stafford Act’s fundamental

1 P.L. 93-288, May 22, 1974, 88 Stat. 143.
2 P.L. 93-288, Sec. 402, 88 Stat. 153.
3 Rutherford H. Platt, Disasters and Democracy: The Politics of Extreme Natural Events, Island Press: (Washington,
DC; Covelo, California, 1999), p. 24.
4 42 U.S.C. 5172(b).
5 44 CFR §206.47. This figure has been adjusted based on Consumer Price Indexes. In calendar year 2002 the amount
was $102, and has moved up at $2 or so increments each year.
6 42 U.S.C. 5170b, 5172, and 5173.
Congressional Research Service
1

---

FEMA Disaster Cost-Shares: Evolution and Analysis

insistence on state participation and that the State “will comply with all applicable cost-sharing
requirements of this Act.”7
Emergency assistance (Section 403) can entail overtime payments for safety personnel,
reimbursements for actions the state has taken such as executing an evacuation plan or
sandbagging to prevent additional flooding. It can also include the provision of federal resources
(equipment, supplies) referred to as Direct Federal Assistance, such as providing temporary
facilities for essential community services such as temporary classrooms for schools.8
Section 406 is the repair or replacement of public infrastructure. The actual categories are: A –
Debris Removal, B – Emergency Protective Measures, C – Road Systems and Bridges, D – Water
Control Facilities, E – Buildings, Content and Equipment, F – Utilities, and G – Parks,
Recreational Facilities and Others. Also, non-profit organizations may be eligible for this form of
assistance if they are providing “critical services” such as power, water, water treatment,
emergency medical service or other similar service.9
Assistance for debris removal under Section 407 is generally used (with some exceptions) for the
removal of debris from publicly owned lands. Typically this aid involves clearance of debris from
main public roads to provide access for the community to their homes, jobs and public services.10
Information provided by FEMA indicates that the larger cost-share adjustment, affecting Public
Assistance categories C through G, has been done 47 times, or for about 21% of all cost-shares
and less than 0.5 % of all major disasters declared since 1985. These figures point to an
exceptional event being needed to qualify a state for the reduction in cost-share. An adjustment of
the cost-share from 25% state and local share of a project to 10%, as proscribed in regulation, can
greatly reduce the costs of the disaster for state and local governments while increasing federal
expenditures.
As noted earlier, the state and local cost-share had been placed in regulation in 1980 and was then
codified in law in 1988. But the greatest attention to that amount, and provisions for its
adjustment, were made in the spring of 1993.
The cost-share amount was set at $64 per capita for the Midwest floods of 1993.11 FEMA
increased this amount through rulemaking initiated with a proposed rule in 1998 and set in
regulation in April of 1999. The rule stated that the $64 amount had been in use since 1985, so
bringing it up to current dollars in 1999 would set the per capita amount at $75. The rule then
increased the effective amount to $85 beginning on January 1, 2000, to $100 per capita on
January 1, 2001, and then adjusted that amount for inflation after January 1, 2002, based on the
Consumer Price Index.12 As of 2009, the per capita amount of damage required for a cost-share
adjustment is $125. That amount far exceeds the per capita costs that FEMA employs when
determining if an incident qualifies for a disaster declaration.13

7 42 U.S.C. 5170.
8 42 U.S.C. 5170b.
9 42 U.S. C. 5172.
10 42 U.S.C. 5173.
11 Memorandum from FEMA Director James Lee Witt to Federal Coordinating Officers, Sept. 2, 1993.
12 Federal Register, Vol. 64, No. 76, p. 1498.
13 In recent years, the per capita amount to qualify a state for consideration for a major disaster declaration for public
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
2

---

FEMA Disaster Cost-Shares: Evolution and Analysis

FEMA’s Cost-Share Rule
In comments on the proposed rule for cost-share adjustments ten years ago, several parties noted
that there was no analysis of the original per capita threshold and that any raising of that amount
would not consider individual state capabilities and would also discourage states from taking
mitigation measures that would limit the impact of future disasters. FEMA’s response indicated
that since the base threshold amount had not been changed for a number of years it was in need of
adjustment.
Rather, the $64 threshold is simply a yardstick to determine when the economic impact of a
disaster is of such severity that it warrants recommendation for a cost-share adjustment. We
are quite willing to work with our state partners to identify capability or mitigation measures
that might justify consideration of a cost-share adjustment. However, we view that as a
longer-term effort separate from this rule. With respect to measuring economic impact, no
commenters offered alternatives to the use of a per capita impact although two did suggest
that we lower the threshold to $50 per capita. We believe instead that the 1985 threshold
should be brought up to current dollars and adjusted annually using the Consumer Price
Index for All Urban Consumers, since that is the legislative basis for annually adjusting the
small project grants under the Public Assistance Program and grants under the Individual and
Family Grant Program.14
Some have questioned whether the per capita amount employed by FEMA is reasonable based on
average per capita amounts of damages for major disaster declarations. Some postulate that the
per capita threshold may be set at too high an amount for most states to qualify for a reduced
cost-share. Others suggest that the threshold is set at an appropriate level that signals an
extraordinary event meriting special consideration for a reduced state and local share. These
figures point to an exceptional event being required to qualify a state for the reduction in cost-
share.
Timing and Frequency of Cost-Share Adjustments
In some catastrophic events, such as Hurricane Katrina, the estimated eligible damage amounts
crested the cost-share threshold early in the disaster recovery period (in the case of Katrina, two
months following the event) and the cost-share was adjusted. For other events, such as Hurricane
Floyd that hit North Carolina in 1999, the cost-share waiver was not made until one year later,
when the accumulated total eligible costs had surpassed the state per-capita threshold. The time
involved in determining whether a state has reached its threshold can be important, since many
decisions made at the state and local level are based on the amount of cost-share that the entities
anticipate when selecting and prioritizing projects.
As of November 2009, a total of 222 cost-share adjustments have been made for major disaster
declarations over the last 24 years. The Appendix of this report provides a listing of cost-shares

(...continued)
assistance (infrastructure) damage has been in the range of $1.22 or just under 1% of the cost-share per capita amount
of $125. That per capita amount is now $1.31, indicating that a disaster would be nearly 100 times that amount of
damage to qualify for a reduced cost-share. For additional information on disaster declarations see CRS Report
RL34146, FEMA’s Disaster Declaration Process: A Primer, by Francis X. McCarthy.
14 Ibid. p. 1496. (Note: The Individual and Family Grant program is now the Other Needs Assistance Program).
Congressional Research Service
3

---

FEMA Disaster Cost-Shares: Evolution and Analysis

adjusted by FEMA from 1985 to 2009.15 It may be useful to break down the large number of
waivers into four, non-exclusive categories:
1. repairs or replacement of structures, roads, and other permanent work;
2. cost-share waivers for U.S. territories;
3. cost-share waivers for a limited time period; and
4. other historical waivers that used a cap of state per capita costs.
Category 1 represents cost-share adjustments for the PA program (generally beyond emergency
work, encompassing PA categories C through G). These are the waivers intended to be made
through FEMA’s cost-share adjustment process as defined in regulation using a per capita
threshold amount of damage. While the majority of cost-share waivers have met this threshold,
others have been included for various reasons that will be detailed throughout this report.
Category 2 represents a significant number of the adjustments (with more eligible categories of
spending included) provided to the U.S. territories due to the provisions of the Insular Areas Act
that allow for broader cost-shares with a less stringent threshold than that described for Category
1 for permanent work. The territories account for 57, or just over 25%, of all cost-share
adjustments. The Insular Areas Act provides for a waiver of “any requirement for local matching
funds under $200,000 (including in-kind contributions) required by law to be provided by
American Samoa, Guam, the Virgin Islands and the Northern Mariana Islands.”16
Also, a substantial number of the cost-share adjustments have been for Category 3, the short-term
or time-limited variety, such as waiving of the cost-share for a 72 hour (or other limited) period
while states and local governments address the most significant, and costly, immediate problems.
The time periods involved have ranged from 48 hours all the way up to 319 days. These waivers
are not tied to the per capita threshold but are based on FEMA’s judgment regarding the severity
of a situation. These adjustments are based on FEMA regulations that offer limited relief for the
start of the disaster. The regulation states:
(d) If warranted by the needs of the disaster, we recommend up to one hundred percent
(100%) Federal funding for emergency work under Section 403 and 407, including direct
Federal assistance, for a limited period in the initial days of the disaster irrespective of the
per capita impact.17
The language of the regulation with phrases such as “if warranted” and “a limited period” provide
a significant amount of discretion to FEMA and the actions resulting from this regulation rest on
FEMA’s judgment of a disaster situation. The invocation of this waiver during the “initial days” is
not commonplace but has happened frequently. Out of 222 approved cost-share adjustments, 90
(or just over 40%) have been in the “limited time” category (see the Appendix and Figure 1).

15 It is also instructive to note that a large number of cost-share waivers are often approved for the same event as
FEMA makes adjustments on an interim basis. For example, the Gulf Coast hurricane season of 2005 resulted in 43
separate cost-share measures for the five states affected by the storm (33 of the adjustments were made by FEMA and
10 were made by Congress through legislation.) Similarly, the 1993 Midwest floods resulted in 18 cost-share
adjustments for 8 states.
16 48 U.S.C. §1469a (d).
17 44 CFR 206.47 (d). Section 403 of the Stafford Act covers Essential Assistance that can include various emergency
protective measures. Section 407 is the Debris Removal section of the Stafford Act.
Congressional Research Service
4

---

FEMA Disaster Cost-Shares: Evolution and Analysis

It can be argued that it is valuable for FEMA to have this option available early on in a disaster in
order to act quickly and decisively in ways that aid state and local governments in accomplishing
emergency missions. This vital early work, such as the clearing of debris from major roads, can
contribute to an expedited recovery. However, while this option is beneficial, it might be argued
that FEMA should consider identifying some of the indicators employed in reaching this decision,
similar to the factors employed when considering disaster requests.18
Category 4 represents a small number of waivers that were made from 1984 to 1992 that capped
state and local contributions at the level of $10 per capita with all remaining eligible costs being
absorbed by the federal government.
Figure 1. Types of Cost-Share Waivers
222 Waivers 1984 to 2009
Permanent Work
Others
(Categories C
through G)
Limited Time
Waivers
(Categories A&B)
Territories

Source: FEMA Declarations Unit, November 2009.
Notes: (1) 47 waivers - Permanent Work: These waivers can provide the greatest benefit due to the potential
cost of the permanent work. (2) 57 waivers - Territories. These waivers, for some territories, are provided
regularly due to the Insular Areas Act provision that provides broader cost-share considerations. (3) 90 waivers
- Limited Time Waivers: Though most frequent, these limited waivers are contained by a time period and are
generally limited to Debris Removal and (Emergency Protective Measures as well as, for some events, Direct
Federal Assistance. (4) 28 waivers - Others. This general y references waivers in the early 1980’s through 1992
that used a formula of capping state cost-shares at a $10 per capita level with the remaining costs above that
amount being 100% federal.

18 44 CFR 206.48.
Congressional Research Service
5

---

FEMA Disaster Cost-Shares: Evolution and Analysis

The growing frequency of cost-share adjustments reflects not only the increased scope and impact
of large scale disasters but also the expectations of state and local governments that a cost-share
waiver may be the rule rather than the exception. As one observer noted in the aftermath of
Hurricane Katrina:
State and local officials, for their part, have been called in by Congress to testify on how the
intergovernmental response to disasters ought to go. But such sessions have frequently had
the familiar ring of both state and local tensions over who controls federal funding, as well as
a little tin-cup rattling.19
Cost-Share Waivers By Program Area
Public Assistance Cost-Share Waivers
Sections 403, 406, and 407 are those Stafford provisions that reimburse emergency work,
permanent infrastructure repair and debris removal.20
Other Needs Assistance Cost-Share Waivers
Along with the sections previously listed, Congress included, for Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Wilma
and Dennis, a cost-share waiver for the Other Needs Assistance (ONA) program within Section
408, which authorizes the Individuals and Households Program (IHP).21 The ONA waiver for the
Gulf Coast marks only the second legislative waiver (see “World Trade Center - 9/11 Cost-Share
Waivers” later in this report) for this program or its predecessor. It could be argued that ONA
spending was so great for these disasters that the ONA waiver provided effective relief for states
absorbing those costs.
The ONA portion of IHP is the program that helps to pay for furniture, personal belongings, some
uninsured medical and funeral expenses. Unlike the flexibility noted above for the programs with
a floor of “not less than 75 percent,” the Stafford Act states that “the Federal share shall be 75
percent,” necessitating legislation to adjust that amount for the ONA program. Along with ONA,
the Individuals and Households (IHP) program includes temporary housing, which is always
funded at 100% by the federal government.
Cost-Share Waivers for Hazard Mitigation
In addition to the programs previously noted, the cost-share for the Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program (HMGP, Section 404 of the Stafford Act) has only been waived once, for the WTC
declaration in 2001. Section 404 of the statute provides that “the President may contribute up to
75 percent of the cost of hazard mitigation measures.”22 Cost-share reduction legislation for the

19 Ronald J. Daniels, Donald F. Kettl, and Howard Kunreuther (eds.), On Risk and Disaster – Lessons from Hurricane
Katrina, (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006), p. 261.
20 42 U.S.C. §5170b, 5172, and 5173.
21 42 U.S.C. 5174..
22 42 U.S.C. §5170c.
Congressional Research Service
6

---

FEMA Disaster Cost-Shares: Evolution and Analysis

Gulf Coast did not address the HMGP section; as a result, the cost-share for hazard mitigation
costs remains at 75 % federal and 25% state and local. While the declaration for New York for
9/11 required no cost-share for hazard mitigation work or any other program related to that
disaster, the President’s declaration letter also reduced by two-thirds the amount of potential
hazard mitigation funding from 15% of total disaster spending to 5% of total disaster spending for
this large event, as noted below.
Furthermore, because of the unique nature and magnitude of this event, the federal
contribution for the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program is authorized for up to five percent of
the estimated aggregate amount of grants (less any associated administrative costs).23
In this instance, the “unique nature” was a terrorist event of tragic and tremendous consequences.
Based in part on this experience, Congress has provided a formula to project the amount of funds
that will be made available for hazard mitigation based on the size of disasters. Under P.L. 109-
295, the Post Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act (PKEMRA):
The third sentence of section 404(a) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170c(a)) is amended by striking ‘‘7.5 percent’’ and inserting ‘‘15
percent for amounts not more than $2,000,000,000, 10 percent for amounts of more than
$2,000,000,000 and not more than $10,000,000,000, and 7.5 percent on amounts of more
than $10,000,000,000 and not more than $35,333,000,000’’.24
Essentially, this formula would put the great majority of disaster declarations (those with less than
$2 billion in estimated damages) at the 15% level and reduce the percentage as the total estimated
damage increases.
Specific Cost-Shares
Mount St. Helens and the Birth of the 25-Percent State and Local
Share
The first large disaster to be cost-shared under Stafford Act authority was the Mount Saint Helens
volcano explosion in the state of Washington which was declared a disaster by President Carter
on May 21, 1980. Part of the impetus for the cost-share policy came from then FEMA Associate
Director William H. Wilcox who had previously been director of recovery for the state of
Pennsylvania.25

23 U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, “New York, Amendment No.1 to Notice of Major Disaster
Declaration (FEMA 1341-DR),” 66 Federal Register 49674, Sept. 28, 2001.
24 P.L. 109-295, 120 Stat. 1447.
25 Following Hurricane Agnes in 1972, the state of Pennsylvania had authorized $150 million in state funds to provide
state assistance to complement federal assistance following that event. Associated Press, The Christian Science
Monitor, July 5, 1974, pg. 5A, (ProQuest Historical Newspapers).
Congressional Research Service
7

---

FEMA Disaster Cost-Shares: Evolution and Analysis

Hurricanes Hugo and Andrew and a Different Cost-Share
During the disaster-quiescent 1980’s the question of cost-share was not a prominent part of the
discussion for either Congress or the state and local governments affected by disaster
declarations. The principle that states should have a financial stake in their own recovery was a
part of legislation across the range of federal assistance programs and was evident in the Stafford
Act in Section 401 that listed a “state commitment” that should be significant.26 But in the wake
of the devastation left by Hurricane Hugo in 1989 and later Hurricane Andrew in 1992, FEMA
and the President George H.W. Bush Administration developed a formula to lessen the cost-share
burden on the states most impacted by that storm, Florida and Louisiana, and their respective
communities.
For Hurricane Andrew, FEMA-955-DR-FL27 and FEMA-956-DR-LA, federal funding was
75 percent for the first $10 per capita of State population and then 100 percent for all
remaining costs. So Florida paid a cost-share of about $33 million and Louisiana paid $10.5
million.
The State of Florida provided $33 million in non federal cost-share (25 percent of first $132
million). FEMA provided 100 percent federal funding for all costs above $132M. The total
assistance provided was $718 million.
Therefore, the effective federal cost-share was 95.6 percent (100 percent - 33/751) for
Florida and 87 percent (100 percent - 10.5/79.5) for Louisiana.28
The Floods of 1993 and the Current Cost-Share Formula
The formula for cost-share adjustments following the multi-state floods along the Mississippi in
1993 employed the then traditional per capita amount of $64.29 But the federal government also
added a second qualifying factor that sought to cast the cost-share decision in a national light. The
second criteria for shifting to a 90/10 cost-share was presented as the following: “for multi-state
disasters with significant impact on the national economy, the alternative threshold has been
established at 0.1 % of the Gross Domestic Product.”30 This second threshold was used to qualify
the nine Midwestern states most impacted by the flooding for a reduced cost-share. However, a
closer examination suggests that at the time of the adjustment, total cost projections for the nine
states totaled $900 million. Even with the large hazard mitigation grant program that followed
those floods, it seems unlikely that disaster costs ever reached 0.1% of a Gross Domestic Product
in 1993 of more than $6.6 trillion.31 Computed against a national total, disaster damage amounts

26 42 U.S.C. 5170.
27 FEMA numbers all disaster and emergencies. Disasters are identified by DR and emergencies by EM, along with the
state abbreviation.
28 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Cost-Share Adjustment History,
June 4, 2009 at http://www.fema.gov/media/fact_sheets/cost-share.shtm.
29 Memorandum from FEMA Director James Lee Witt to Federal Coordinating Officers, Sept. 2, 1993. The states of
Missouri and Iowa were close to reaching this threshold at the time of the release of the 1993 memorandum.
30 FEMA Press Release, Sept. 22, 1993.
31 Economic Report of the President, National Income or Expenditure, Table B-1. – Gross Domestic Product, 1959-
2007, Feb., 2008, p. 224.
Congressional Research Service
8

---

FEMA Disaster Cost-Shares: Evolution and Analysis

generally do not have the same significance for the nation as a whole as they would suggest for
the region that experienced the flooding damage.32
Red River Floods of 1997 and the First Statutory Waiver
The flooding of the Red River in the spring of 1997 was a huge disaster event for the states of
North Dakota, South Dakota, and Minnesota. Using the per capita formula, North Dakota easily
qualified for a cost-share adjustment with per capita costs approaching $617.33 South Dakota also
qualified for the reduced cost-share based on per capita costs of $94. However, due to the size of
its population against the total eligible damage, Minnesota’s per capita damage of $61 did not
meet the threshold requirement.
President Clinton and House leaders, along with other Members of Congress, visited the area in
late April of 1997 and promised help for the area as a whole. Since the FEMA regulatory cost-
share adjustments were made for the Dakotas at the end of April, Members exerted pressure to
provide similar treatment for Minnesota. This legislative change to the cost-share was effected in
the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 which became law in early August. The provision stated that
assistance to several Minnesota counties damaged by the Red River flooding “shall be at least 90
percent.”34 This appears to be the first legislative waiver of disaster costs for state and local
governments since the cost-share adjustment regulations were created in 1980.
The section that follows will discuss recent cost-share waivers; some that have qualified based on
per capita thresholds, some made legislatively as a part of an overall regional waiver regardless of
estimated damage amounts, and a few others that fall outside of those parameters.
Hurricanes Katrina, Wilma, Dennis, and Rita
Administrative and Congressional Waivers of Cost-Shares
Deliberations in the 110th Congress on P.L. 110-28, supplemental appropriations legislation for
the war in Iraq and disaster recovery from Hurricane Katrina, along with congressional hearings
focusing on Gulf Coast recovery after the 2005 hurricanes, again brought attention to the subject
of state cost-shares in presidentially declared disasters. The attention was warranted since the
cost-share reductions in the legislation were among the largest ever granted.
A provision of P.L. 110-28 provides a waiver of all state and local cost-shares for four disaster
assistance programs that are a part of the Stafford Act. These programs generally are cost-shared
in statute at 75% federal and 25% state and local. The exceptional nature of this legislation was
both its federal assumption of all costs (rather than a 90% federal, 10% state and local ratio) and
its inclusion of state costs under the Other Needs Assistance (ONA) program within Section 408.
That section of Stafford states that the “Federal share shall be 75 percent.” Given that language,

32 For a brief review of economic impacts of large disaster events, particularly Hurricane Katrina, see CRS Report
RS22260, The Macroeconomic Effects of Hurricane Katrina, by Brian W. Cashell.
33 This figure is based on estimated FEMA eligible expenditures of more than $340 million divided by a 1990 Census
population estimate of just over 638,000 residents.
34 P.L. 105-33, Section 9301, 115 Stat. 671.
Congressional Research Service
9

---

FEMA Disaster Cost-Shares: Evolution and Analysis

FEMA does not have discretion to grant a cost-share adjustment and legislative language was
necessary to waive that cost-share.
Section 4501 of P.L. 110-28, the “U.S. Troops Readiness, Veterans Care, Katrina Recovery, and
Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007,” states in part, the following:
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including any agreement, the Federal share
of assistance, including direct Federal assistance, provided for the States of Louisiana,
Mississippi, Florida, Alabama and Texas in connection with Hurricanes Katrina, Wilma,
Dennis and Rita under sections 403, 406, 407, and 408 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 USC 5170b, 5172, 5173, and 5174) shall be 100
percent of the eligible costs under such sections.
(b) APPLICABILITY
(1) IN GENERAL—The federal share provided by subsection (a) shall apply to disaster
assistance applied for before the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) LIMITATION—In the case of disaster assistance provided under Section 403, 406 and
407 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, the Federal
share provided by subsection (a) shall be limited to assistance provided for projects for
which a “request for public assistance form” has been submitted.
The statutory cost-share waivers were provided for five states. Per capita damage for Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Alabama from Hurricane Katrina, and for Louisiana from Hurricane Rita, had
already qualified those states for a decreased state cost-share (from 25% to 10%) through FEMA’s
regulatory formula based on estimated damage. Congress’ inclusion of Florida and Texas may
have been an effort to not separate out related damages within a devastating hurricane season.
Also, the decision to grant cost-share waivers to Florida and Texas may have been a recognition
of the amount of help both states had provided to Mississippi and Louisiana in both emergency
management resources and in hosting large numbers of evacuees in the wake of the storms of
2005.
The “Limitation” in the legislation was intended to ensure that the projects receiving the waiver
were ones already identified by applicants and not newly created projects, or perhaps, projects not
necessarily related to the event. The legislation states that a “request for public assistance”
submitted prior to enactment of the bill (May 25, 2007) will require no cost-share. Any “requests
for public assistance” not submitted prior to the enactment of the bill will be cost-shared at the
90% federal, 10% state and local cost-share for the affected states. This provision appeared to be
intended to provide the generous cost-share to those projects already selected by the state rather
than projects that could be developed or submitted based on 100% federal funding.
There have been several instances when Congress chose to adjust a state’s cost-share by
legislation. Prior to large cost-share adjustments made to several FEMA programs as noted above,
Congress also legislatively reduced cost-shares for states affected by Hurricane Rita. In June of
2006, P.L. 109-234 included the following provision.
That for states in which the President declared a major disaster (as that term is defined in
Section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
USC 5122) on September 24, 2005, as a result of Hurricane Rita, each county or parish
eligible for individual and public assistance under such declaration in such states will be
Congressional Research Service
10

---

FEMA Disaster Cost-Shares: Evolution and Analysis

treated equally for purposes of cost-share adjustments under such Act, to account for the
impact in those counties and parishes of Hurricanes Rita and Katrina.35
Arguably, through this action Congress recognized not only the degree of localized damage in
some areas, but also that the state of Texas had absorbed the great majority of evacuees from
Hurricane Katrina. The state was reimbursed for that sheltering effort, but not all costs incurred
were necessarily covered. This legislation may have been a way to provide additional help to the
state of Texas by lessening its cost-share for public assistance damage as a result of Hurricane
Rita (Louisiana had qualified for such an adjustment for Hurricane Rita eight months earlier).
Other Hurricane Katrina Cost-Shares
Section 403 Housing/Sheltering
In addition to the cost-shares that were computed and adjusted based on accumulated damage
estimates, FEMA provided 100% cost-shares to 44 states (this includes the District of Columbia)
that received emergency declarations for hosting Hurricane Katrina evacuees. This emergency
sheltering was performed under the authority of Section 403 of the Stafford Act and was
reimbursed fully by FEMA.36 Section 403 costs are generally cost-shared on a 75% federal and
25% state and local basis.
The 44 states were those that took in thousands of evacuees in the weeks following the impact of
Hurricane Katrina and provided them shelter, food, and other services while the evacuees were
being registered for standard FEMA Stafford Act assistance. Since the states were offering their
help in coordinating this effort in response to a disaster that was not within their borders, FEMA
and the Administration elected to provide all eligible funding without a cost-share.
Hurricanes Gustav and Ike and Other Disasters,
2009
Administrative and Congressional Statutory Cost-Share
Adjustments
Supplemental appropriations legislation for FY2009, P.L. 111-32, reduced cost-shares for
damages from Hurricane Ike.37 The legislation reduced the state and local share for permanent
rebuilding work from 25% to 10% and eliminated all state and local cost-shares for emergency
work, which includes debris removal and emergency protective measures. This applied to two
disaster declarations made for Hurricane Ike, DR-1791 for Texas and DR-1792 for Louisiana in
2008.

35 P.L. 109-234, 120 Stat. 459.
36 For a full listing of states receiving emergency declarations for Hurricane Katrina evacuees, see the FEMA website
(fema.gov) on disaster information for declarations at http://www.fema.gov/news/disasters.fema? year=2005.
37 P.L. 111-32, 123 Stat. 1883.
Congressional Research Service
11

---

FEMA Disaster Cost-Shares: Evolution and Analysis

While the damage estimates for Texas indicated it would surpass the $122 per capita threshold,
Louisiana damage for Hurricane Ike alone did not appear to meet that mark. However, Louisiana
had sustained a great amount of damage earlier from Hurricane Gustav, for which it had its cost-
share adjusted from 25% to 10%. The decision to adjust the cost-share for Louisiana would
provide a cost-share dividend for the state. But the adjustment, it can be argued, was important to
lessen administrative confusion since all of the parishes designated for assistance due to
Hurricane Ike had also been designated just two weeks earlier for Hurricane Gustav.
The decision to include Louisiana was also similar to previous congressional cost-share actions
that sought to include all states affected by a chain of disaster events. This approach was used on
cost-share adjustments for Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Dennis and Wilma as discussed in the
previous section. But along with those cost-share waivers, the supplemental legislation also
included similar waivers for disasters that occurred in Kentucky and West Virginia earlier in the
spring of 2009. Those disasters were declared based on severe storms and flooding. However, the
per capita damage amounts in both states were far below the per capita qualifying criteria.38
Other Cost-Shares
World Trade Center - 9/11 Cost-Share Waivers
Broad waivers of 100% across all programs for the Gulf Coast states, as provided for in P.L. 110-
28, had only one similar precedent; the legislation following the World Trade Center (WTC)
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. In that event, the Bush Administration established the
federal nature of the contribution early in the process.39
Given the unique and tragic circumstances of the 9-11 attacks, and the federal responsibility for
the overall response, the legislation eliminated all cost-shares and settled on an overall federal
payment to address all associated costs..
Columbia Shuttle Response
Following the Columbia Space Shuttle tragedy, FEMA provided 100% assistance to Texas and
Louisiana to reimburse some of their search efforts.40

38 Based on available listing of expenditures from the fema.gov website, the per capita amounts for Kentucky and West
Virginia in July of 2009, just after the passage of P.L. 111-32, appear to be in the range of $5 to $7 respectively.
39 U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, “New York, Amendment No.1 to Notice
40 U.S. Department of Homeland Security-Federal Emergency Management Agency, “Texas Disaster History” at
http://www.fema.gov/news/disasters_state.fema?id=48.
Congressional Research Service
12

---

FEMA Disaster Cost-Shares: Evolution and Analysis

Corollary Issues – The Politics of Disasters and the
Degree of Congressional Involvement
The consideration of cost-share waivers links closely with the general discussion of how disasters
are declared and the role of political favoritism in those decisions. One observer suggested that
the cost-shares in 1992 reflected not only the major damage incurred but the political realities of
the time as well.
Two weeks after Hurricane Andrew, Hurricane Iniki struck Hawaii, causing intense
devastation on the island of Kauai. No direct legislative response ensued from the
Andrew/Iniki disasters since the Bush administration would soon leave office. In the midst of
his re-election campaign, however, President Bush enlarged the federal share of disaster
assistance in both recovery efforts to virtually 100 percent. 41
Similar suggestions of political influence have been made regarding disaster cost-share assistance
decisions made during ensuing administrations, ascribing political motivations, as both disaster
damage and disaster costs have grown. Two researchers asserted that presidential and
congressional influence have an impact on the decisions for declarations and spending.
We find that presidential and congressional influences affect the rate of disaster declaration
and allocation of FEMA disaster expenditures across states. States politically important to
the President have a higher rate of disaster declaration by the President, and disaster
expenditures are higher in states having congressional representation on FEMA oversight
committees. 42
While those findings comported with suspicions or assumptions of political corruption of the
disaster declaration process and disaster spending, follow-up studies have questioned those
assumptions. As two other researches have noted:
There was no statistical evidence to suggest that gubernatorial and presidential party
similarity, U.S. House of Representatives and presidential party similarity, FEMA
congressional oversight committee membership, electoral votes, or FEMA regional office
location influenced success in securing emergency or major disaster declarations.43
Another researcher who has closely followed disaster declaration activity noted the declining rate
of turn downs for governors’ requests and concluded:
Since 1989, following adoption of the Stafford Act, the odds that the president will approve a
governor’s request have risen to about four in five (80.3 percent) chance. Certainly the
broader authority to judge what is or is not a disaster under the Stafford Act has provided
president’s since 1988 with more latitude to approve unusual or “marginal” events as

41 Rutherford H. Platt, Disasters and Democracy, (Washington, DC: Island Press, 1999), p. 86.
42 Thomas A. Garrett and Russell S. Sobel, “The Political Economy of FEMA Disaster Payments,” Economic Inquiry,
Vol. 41, No. 3, July 2003, pp. 496-509, http:www3/interscience/wiley.com/cgi-bin/fultext/120806584/PDFSTART.
43 Richard S. Salkowe and Jayajit Chakraborty, “Federal Disaster Relief if the U.S.: The Role of Political Partisanship
and Preference in Presidential Disaster Declarations and Turndowns,” Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency
Management, Vol. 6, Issue 1, Article 28, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
13

---

FEMA Disaster Cost-Shares: Evolution and Analysis

disasters or emergencies. This may be one reason for the higher rate of gubernatorial request
approvals since 1988.44
An additional reason for the increase in approvals may also rest with the increasing capacity of
states to make effective requests and understand and anticipate FEMA’s review process and what
would likely constitute a request that would result in a declaration.
While this discussion and these studies focused on various forms of disaster declaration decisions
and overall spending, none of these studies has focused on the cost-share adjustments that have
been made by the executive and legislative branches. These changes have generally comported
with regulations in place or have been done within a context of overall help to a region. But some
recent cost-share waivers for disasters that do not approach the damage threshold indicate a
willingness for increased congressionally directed spending for all disasters.
In a sense, this takes the issue full circle to a time when Congress legislated assistance by specific
incident and proscribed the form and amount of the assistance. As one observer has noted:
The U.S. Congress was not entirely unmoved by these and other disasters: Between 1803 and
1947, 128 specific acts expressed sympathy and sometimes supplied token financial
assistance. 45
Obviously now the assistance available is well beyond token, and in fact, the negligible
contribution could conceivably be the state’s share. This is the exception since most states have a
clear interest in the recovery work that is reflected in their work and commitment. But regulatory
cost-share waivers, if applied broadly and without the compelling support of recent congressional
legislative waivers, could chip away at that commitment and complicate, rather than strengthen,
the federal-state partnership
Conclusion
The cost-shares for the funding of Stafford Act programs speak to the cooperative working
relationship reflected in that legislation between the two levels of government in addressing
disaster response and recovery work. While waivers can grant needed relief to states that have
absorbed a great deal of disaster damage, those same waivers can undercut the state’s investment,
not only in resources but also in its oversight and accountability, in contributing to its own
recovery.
The adjustment of cost-shares is likely to remain a subject of interest to all states and localities
that receive a major disaster declaration and have an interest in reducing their state commitment
of resources during the recovery process. All discussions of cost-shares over the last four years
lead back to the hurricane season of 2005 and the damage inflicted by Hurricane Katrina. The
damage Katrina delivered has also affected public policy expectations. Hurricane Katrina was an
outlier in its size and impact, yet many legislative modifications meant to adapt solely to that

44 Richard Sylves, Disaster Policy and Politics, (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2008), p.100.
45 Peter J. May, Recovering from Catastrophes: Federal Disaster Relief Policy and Politics, (Westport, Conn.:
Greenwood Press, 1985), p.20.
Congressional Research Service
14

---

FEMA Disaster Cost-Shares: Evolution and Analysis

storm and its unprecedented aftermath, are now used as rationale for suggesting identical
treatment for subsequent disasters.
Congress may continue, after future disasters, to consider legislative adjustments to Stafford Act
cost-share requirements, examining the need for exceptions to current regulatory waivers or
expanding such waivers. Congress may wish to consider if the threshold currently employed
appropriately reflects state capacities and commitments toward disaster recovery.
Recent congressional actions demonstrate a recognition of the financial burdens caused by
disaster damage, while also demonstrating a willingness to adjust cost-share amounts for events
that are not of the scope and size associated with previous cost-share adjustments. Just as with
Katrina for large events, these adjustments for lesser damage can also push public policy
expectations. The resulting additional assistance provided to states and localities, through more
generous cost-shares, increases the overall disaster costs to the federal government.
For the last decade the federal government has begun to budget for disaster spending through
greater annual appropriations.46 While not entirely accounting for all disaster spending, the
increases in annual budgets for the Disaster Relief Fund reflect a lessening of the dependency on
emergency spending for that purpose. Within this new reality, the cost-share adjustments, and
their increase of the federal share, could begin to impinge on the annual budget choices faced by
the Obama Administration and Congress.

46 For additional information on disaster spending see CRS Report R40708, Disaster Relief Funding and Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations, by Bruce R. Lindsay and Justin Murray.
Congressional Research Service
15

---

FEMA Disaster Cost-Shares: Evolution and Analysis

Appendix. Major Disaster Declarations
Table A-1. Major Disaster Declarations: Cost-Share Adjustments
1985-2009
Disaster
Date
Date
FY Number State Adjusted % Federal Category & Timea Declared
Incident
FY2010 1829
ND 11/6/2009 90%
PA
3/24/2009
SS and FL
FY2009 1841
KY 6/24/2009 100%
DFA, PA (A&B)b
5/29/2009
SS, T, FL & Mud
FY2009 1841
KY 6/24/2009 90%
PA (C-G)b
5/29/2009
SS, T, FL & Mud
FY2009 1838
WV 6/24/2009 100%
DFA, PA (A&B)b
5/15/2009
SS, F, Land & Mud
FY2009 1838
WV 6/24/2009 90%
PA (C-G)b
5/15/2009
SS, F, Land & Mud
FY2009 1792
LA
6/24/2009 100%
DFA, PA (A&B)b 9/13/2008
Hurricane
Ike
FY2009 1792
LA 6/24/2009 90%
PA (C-G)b 9/13/2008
Hurricane
Ike
FY2009 1791
TX 6/24/2009 100%
DFA, PA (A&B)b 9/13/2008
Hurricane
Ike
FY2009 1791
TX 6/24/2009 90%
PA (C-G)b 9/13/2008
Hurricane
Ike
FY2009 1763
IA
6/11/2009 100%
DFA, PA (A&B 14-day) 5/27/2008
Midwest Flooding
FY2009 1791
TX 11/26/2008 100%
PA (A 6-months)
9/13/2008
Hurricane Ike
FY2008
1786 LA
11/24/2008
90% PA
9/2/2008 Hurricane
Gustav
FY2009
1792 LA
10/8/2008
100% PA
(A&B
44-day) 9/13/2008 Hurricane
Ike
FY2009
1791 TX
10/8/2008
100% PA
(A&B
30-day) 9/13/2008 Hurricane
Ike
FY2008
1791 TX
9/16/2008
100% PA
(A&B
14-day) 9/13/2008 Hurricane
Ike
FY2008 1791
TX 9/13/2008 100%
PA (A 72hr)
9/13/2008
Hurricane Ike
FY2008 1763
IA 9/8/2008 90%
PA
5/27/2008
Midwest Flooding
FY2008 1773
MO 6/30/2008 90%
PA (B) & DFAc 6/25/2008
Midwest
Flooding
FY2008 1771
IL
6/30/2008 90%
PA (B) & DFAc 6/24/2008
Midwest
Flooding
FY2008 1768
WI 6/30/2008 90%
PA (B) & DFAc 6/14/2008
Midwest
Flooding
FY2008 1766
IN
6/30/2008 90%
PA (B) & DFAc 6/8/2008
Midwest
Flooding
FY2008 1763
IA
6/30/2008 90%
PA (B) & DFAc 5/27/2008
Midwest
Flooding
FY2007 1699
KS
6/19/2007 100%
PA (A&B 72hr)
5/6/2007
SS, T & F
FY2007 1609
FL 5/25/2007 100%
ONA, PA, DFAd 10/24/2005
Hurricane
Wilma
FY2007 1607
LA 5/25/2007 100%
ONA, PA, DFAd 9/24/2005
Hurricane
Rita
FY2007 1606
TX 5/25/2007 100%
ONA, PA, DFAd 9/24/2005
Hurricane
Rita
FY2007 1605
AL 5/25/2007 100%
ONA, PA, DFAd 8/29/2005
Hurricane
Katrina
FY2007 1604
MS 5/25/2007 100%
ONA, PA, DFAd 8/29/2005
Hurricane
Katrina
FY2007 1603
LA 5/25/2007 100%
ONA, PA, DFAd 8/29/2005
Hurricane
Katrina
FY2007 1602
FL 5/25/2007 100%
ONA, PA, DFAd 8/28/2005
Hurricane
Katrina
FY2007 1595
FL 5/25/2007 100%
ONA, PA, DFAd 7/10/2005
Hurricane
Dennis
FY2007 1594
MS 5/25/2007 100%
ONA, PA, DFAd 7/10/2005
Hurricane
Dennis
Congressional Research Service
16

---

FEMA Disaster Cost-Shares: Evolution and Analysis

Disaster
Date
Date
FY Number State Adjusted % Federal Category & Timea Declared
Incident
FY2007 1593
AL 5/25/2007 100%
ONA, PA, DFAd 7/10/2005
Hurricane
Dennis
FY2007
1687 AL
3/30/2007
100% PA
(A&B
48hr) 3/3/2007 SS
&
T
FY2007
1686 GA
3/30/2007
100% PA
(A&B
48hr) 3/3/2007 SS
&
T
FY2007 1605
AL 1/25/2007 90%
PA
8/29/2005
Hurricane Katrina
FY2007 1609
FL 1/5/2007 90%
PA
10/24/2005 Hurricane Wilma
FY2006 1606
TX 8/18/2006 90%
PA
9/24/2005
Hurricane Rita
FY2006 1606
TX 8/18/2006 100%
PA (A&B) 246-days
9/24/2005
Hurricane Rita
FY2006 1649
PA 6/30/2006 100%
PA (A&B 72hr)
6/30/2006
SS, F & Mud
FY2006 1604
MS 6/29/2006 100%
PA (A)e 319-days
8/29/2005
Hurricane Katrina
FY2006 1603
LA 6/29/2006 100%
PA (A)f 184-days
8/29/2005
Hurricane Katrina
FY2006 1611
CNMI 5/1/2006 100%
HM
11/8/2005
Typhoon Nabi
FY2006 1604
MS
3/7/2006 100%
PA (A&B) 107-days
8/29/2005
Hurricane Katrina
FY2006 1567
VI 12/22/2005 100%
HM
10/7/2004
Tropical Storm Jeanne
FY2006 1604
MS
12/21/2005 100%
PA (A&B) 59-days
8/29/2005
Hurricane Katrina
FY2006 1607
LA
12/20/2005 100%
PA (A&B) 166-days
9/24/2005
Hurricane Rita
FY2006 1603
LA
12/20/2005 100%
PA (A&B) 166-days
8/29/2005
Hurricane Katrina
FY2006 1607
LA
11/19/2005 100%
PA (A&B) 50-days
9/24/2005
Hurricane Rita
FY2006 1604
MS
11/19/2005 100%
PA (A&B) 50-days
8/29/2005
Hurricane Katrina
FY2006 1603
LA
11/19/2005 100%
PA (A&B) 50-days
8/29/2005
Hurricane Katrina
FY2006 1607
LA
10/26/2005 100%
PA (A&B) 30-days
9/24/2005
Hurricane Rita
FY2006 1607
LA 10/26/2005 90%
PA
9/24/2005
Hurricane Rita
FY2006 1609
FL
10/24/2005 100%
PA (A&B 72hr)
10/24/2005
Hurricane Wilma
FY2006 1604
MS 10/22/2005 90%
PA
8/29/2005
Hurricane Katrina
FY2006 1604
MS
10/22/2005 100%
PA (A&B) 30-days
8/29/2005
Hurricane Katrina
FY2006 1603
LA 10/22/2005 90%
PA
8/29/2005
Hurricane Katrina
FY2006 1603
LA
10/22/2005 100%
PA (A&B) 30-days
8/29/2005
Hurricane Katrina
FY2006 1582
AS
10/12/2005 90%
ONA, PA, HM
2/18/2005
Tropical Cyclone Olaf
FY2005 1606
TX 9/27/2005 100%
PA (A&B) 34-days
9/24/2005
Hurricane Rita
FY2005 1607
LA
9/24/2005 100%
PA (A&B) 34-days
9/24/2005
Hurricane Rita
FY2005 1606
TX 9/24/2005 100%
PA (A&B 72hr)
9/24/2005
Hurricane Rita
FY2005 1605
AL
9/1/2005 100%
PA (A&B) 60-days
8/29/2005
Hurricane Katrina
FY2005 1604
MS
9/1/2005 100%
PA (A&B) 60-days
8/29/2005
Hurricane Katrina
FY2005 1603
LA
9/1/2005 100%
PA (A&B) 60-days
8/29/2005
Hurricane Katrina
FY2005 1605
AL
8/29/2005 100%
PA (B 72hr)
8/29/2005
Hurricane Katrina
FY2005 1604
MS 8/29/2005 100%
PA (B 72hr)
8/29/2005
Hurricane Katrina
FY2005 1603
LA
8/29/2005 100%
PA (B 72hr)
8/29/2005
Hurricane Katrina
Congressional Research Service
17

---

FEMA Disaster Cost-Shares: Evolution and Analysis

Disaster
Date
Date
FY Number State Adjusted % Federal Category & Timea Declared
Incident
FY2005 1602
FL
8/28/2005 100%
PA (B 72hr)
8/28/2005
Hurricane Katrina
FY2005 1595
FL
7/10/2005 100%
PA (B 72hr)
7/10/2005
Hurricane Dennis
FY2005 1594
MS 7/10/2005 100%
PA (B 72hr)
7/10/2005
Hurricane Dennis
FY2005 1593
AL
7/10/2005 100%
PA (B 72hr)
7/10/2005
Hurricane Dennis
FY2005 1532
CNMI 6/16/2005 100%
HM
7/29/2004
Typhoon Tingting
FY2005 1549
AL 3/2/2005 90%
PA
9/15/2004
Hurricane Ivan
FY2005 1541
CNMI 2/23/2005 90%
ONA, PA, HM
8/26/2004
Super Typhoon Chaba
FY2005 1532
CNMI 2/23/2005 90%
PA, HM
7/29/2004
Typhoon Tingting
FY2005 1558
WV 12/17/2004 100%
PA (A&B 72hr)
9/20/2004
SS, F & Land
FY2005 1561
FL 10/7/2004 90%
PA
9/26/2004
Hurricane Jeanne
FY2005 1551
FL 10/7/2004 90%
PA
9/16/2004
Hurricane Ivan
FY2005
1545 FL
10/7/2004
90% PA
9/4/2004 Hurricane
Frances
FY2005 1539
FL
10/7/2004 90%
PA
8/13/2004
T.S. Bonnie & H. Charley
FY2004 1561
FL
9/26/2004 100%
PA (A&B 72hr)
9/26/2004
Hurricane Jeanne
FY2004 1554
GA 9/18/2004 100%
PA (A&B 72hr)
9/18/2004
Hurricane Ivan
FY2004 1553
NC 9/18/2004 100%
PA (A&B 72hr)
9/18/2004
Hurricane Ivan
FY2004 1552
PR
9/17/2004 100%
PA (A&B 72hr)
9/17/2004
Tropical Storm Jeanne
FY2004 1551
FL
9/16/2004 100%
PA (A&B 72hr)
9/16/2004
Hurricane Ivan
FY2004 1550
MS
9/15/2004 100%
PA (A&B 72hr)
9/15/2004
Hurricane Ivan
FY2004 1549
AL
9/15/2004 100%
PA (A&B 72hr)
9/15/2004
Hurricane Ivan
FY2004 1548
LA
9/15/2004 100%
PA (A&B 72hr)
9/15/2004
Hurricane Ivan
FY2004 1506
AS
9/13/2004 90%
ONA, PA, HM
1/13/2004
Tropical Cyclone Heta
FY2004 1546
NC 9/10/2004 100%
PA (A&B 72hr)
9/10/2004
Tropical Storm Frances
FY2004
1545 FL
9/4/2004
100% PA
(A&B
72hr) 9/4/2004 Hurricane
Frances
FY2004 1539
FL
8/16/2004 100%
PA (A&B 72hr)
8/13/2004
T.S. Bonnie & H. Charley
FY2004 1511
FSM 7/21/2004 90%
PA
4/10/2004
Typhoon Sudal
FY2004 1503
VI
2/10/2004 100%
HM
12/9/2003
SS, F, Land & Mud
FY2004 1473
AS
10/14/2003 90%
ONA, PA, HM
6/6/2003
Heavy Rain, F, Land & Mud
FY2004 1446
GU 10/14/2003 100%
ONA, PA (A&B)
12/8/2002
Super Typhoon Pongsona
FY2004
1430 CNMI 10/14/2003
100% HM
8/6/2002 Typhoon
Chata'an
FY2003 1446
GU 3/14/2003 90%
ONA, PA, HM
12/8/2002
Super Typhoon Pongsona
FY2003 1447
CNMI 3/11/2003 90%
ONA, PA, HM
12/11/2002
Super Typhoon Pongsona
FY2003
1430 CNMI 3/11/2003
90% PA,
HM
8/6/2002 Typhoon
Chata'an
FY2003 1427
FSM 1/31/2003 90%
PA
7/11/2002
Typhoon Chata'an
FY2002
1426 GU
8/28/2002
90% IFG,
PA,
HM
7/6/2002 Typhoon
Chata'an
FY2001 1392
VA 9/21/2001 100%
PA (A&B)
9/21/2001
9/11 Terrorist Attack
Congressional Research Service
18

---

FEMA Disaster Cost-Shares: Evolution and Analysis

Disaster
Date
Date
FY Number State Adjusted % Federal Category & Timea Declared
Incident
FY2001 1391
NY 9/18/2001 100%
PA
9/11/2001
9/11 Terrorist Attack
FY2001 1334
ND 5/31/2001 90%
PA
6/27/2000
SS, F & Ground Saturation
FY2001 1354
AR 4/24/2001 100%
PA (A 180 days)
12/29/2000
Severe Winter Ice Storm
FY2001 1357
LA
3/13/2001 100%
PA (A 60 days)
1/12/2001
Severe Winter Ice Storm
FY2001 1356
TX 3/13/2001 100%
PA (A 180 days)
1/8/2001
Severe Winter Ice Storm
FY2001 1355
OK 3/13/2001 100%
PA (A 180 days)
1/5/2001
Severe Winter Ice Storm
FY2001 1354
AR 3/1/2001 100%
PA (A 120 days)
12/29/2000
Severe Winter Ice Storm
FY2001 1356
TX 2/15/2001 90%
PA (A 180 days)
1/8/2001
Severe Winter Ice Storm
FY2001 1355
OK 2/5/2001 90%
PA (A 180 days)
1/5/2001
Severe Winter Ice Storm
FY2001 1354
AR 2/5/2001 90%
PA (A 120 days)
12/29/2000
Severe Winter Ice Storm
FY2001 1357
LA
2/2/2001 90%
PA (A 60 days)
1/12/2001
Severe Winter Ice Storm
FY2001 1356
TX 1/18/2001 90%
PA (A 60 days)
1/8/2001
Severe Winter Ice Storm
FY2001 1355
OK 1/18/2001 90%
PA (A 60 days)
1/5/2001
Severe Winter Ice Storm
FY2001 1354
AR 1/10/2001 90%
PA (A 60 days)
12/29/2000
Severe Winter Ice Storm
FY2001 1193
GU 12/6/2000 100%
PA (A&B)
12/17/1997
Typhoon Paka
FY2000 1292
NC 9/29/2000 90%
PA
9/16/1999
Hurricane Floyd
FY2000 1309
VI
6/9/2000 90%
IFG, PA, HM
11/23/1999
Hurricane Lenny
FY2000 1248
VI
1/20/2000 90%
IFG, PA, HM
9/24/1998
Hurricane Georges
FY2000 1279
ND 10/5/1999 90%
PA
6/8/1999
SS, F, T, Snow, Land & Mud
FY1999 1292
NC 9/29/1999 90%
PA (A&B 72hr)
9/16/1999
Hurricane Floyd
FY1999 1273
KS
5/7/1999 100%
PA (A 30 days)
5/4/1999
SS & T
FY1999
1273 KS
5/7/1999
100% PA
(A&B
72hr) 5/4/1999 SS
&
T
FY1999 1272
OK 5/7/1999 100%
PA (A 30 days)
5/4/1999
SS & T
FY1999
1272 OK
5/5/1999
100% PA
(A&B
72hr) 5/4/1999 SS
&
T
2/1/1999
PA ( A) & Temp
FY1999 1266
AR
100%
Schools
1/23/1999
SS, T & High Winds
FY1999 1194
CNMI 1/4/1999 100%
HM
12/24/1997 Typhoon Paka
FY1999 1247
PR 11/20/1998 90%
PA
9/24/1998
Hurricane Georges
FY1998 1246
LA
9/28/1998 100%
PA (B 72hrs)
9/23/1998
T.S. Frances & H. Georges
FY1998 1240
NC 8/27/1998 100%
PA (A&B 72hr)
8/27/1998
Hurricane Bonnie
FY1998 855
AS 6/17/1998 90%
PA
2/9/1990
Hurricane Ofa
FY1998 855
AS
6/17/1998 100%
IFG < $400,000
2/9/1990
Hurricane Ofa
FY1998 855
AS
6/17/1998 90%
IFG > $400,000
2/9/1990
Hurricane Ofa
FY1998 1194
CNMI 6/16/1998 100%
IFG
12/24/1997 Typhoon Paka
FY1998 1210
RMI 4/28/1998 90%
PA
3/20/1998
Severe Drought
FY1998 1192
CNMI 3/3/1998 90%
IFG, PA, HM
12/8/1997
Super Typhoon Keith
FY1998 1193
GU 3/2/1998 90%
IFG, PA, HM
12/17/1997
Typhoon Paka
Congressional Research Service
19

---

FEMA Disaster Cost-Shares: Evolution and Analysis

Disaster
Date
Date
FY Number State Adjusted % Federal Category & Timea Declared
Incident
FY1998 1193
GU 2/20/1998 90%
IFG, PA, HM
12/17/1997
Typhoon Paka
FY1998 1193
GU 12/21/1997 100%
DFA, for 3 days
12/17/1997
Typhoon Paka
FY1998 1193
GU 12/17/1997 100%
DFA, 72 hrs
12/17/1997
Typhoon Paka
FY1998 1173
SD
10/20/1997 90%
PA (C-G)
4/7/1997
F, SWS & Rapid Snowmelt
FY1997 1175
MN 8/5/2009 90%
PA (C-G)
4/8/1997
F, SWS & Snowmelt
FY1997 1174
ND 6/18/1997 90%
PA (C-G)
4/7/1997
F, SWS & Rapid Snowmelt
FY1997 1136
PR 6/12/1997 90%
PA
9/11/1996
Hurricane Hortense
FY1997 1175
MN 5/10/1997 100%
DFA for 7 days
4/8/1997
F, SWS & Snowmelt
FY1997 1175
MN 4/30/1997 100%
DFA for 10 days
4/8/1997
F, SWS & Snowmelt
FY1997 1174
ND 4/30/1997 100%
DFA for 10 days
4/7/1997
F, SWS & Rapid Snowmelt
FY1997 1175
MN 4/24/1997 100%
PA (A&B)
4/8/1997
F, SWS & Snowmelt
FY1997 1174
ND 4/24/1997 100%
PA (A&B)
4/7/1997
F, SWS & Rapid Snowmelt
FY1997 1173
SD
4/24/1997 100%
PA (A&B)
4/7/1997
F, SWS & Rapid Snowmelt
FY1997 1175
MN 4/22/1997 100%
DFA for 23 days
4/8/1997
F, SWS & Snowmelt
FY1997 1174
ND 4/22/1997 100%
DFA for 24 days
4/7/1997
F, SWS & Rapid Snowmelt
FY1997 1173
SD
4/22/1997 100%
DFA for 24 days
4/7/1997
F, SWS & Rapid Snowmelt
FY1997 1162
AR 3/5/1997 100%
DFA for PA (A)
3/2/1997
SS & T
FY1997
1134 NC
12/6/1996
90% PA
9/6/1996 Hurricane
Fran
FY1996 1136
PR
9/11/1996 100%
DFA for 72 hrs
9/11/1996
Hurricane Hortense
FY1996 1134
NC 9/11/1996 100%
DFA for 8 days
9/6/1996
Hurricane Fran
FY1996 1134
NC 9/8/1996 100%
DFA for 72 hrs
9/6/1996
Hurricane Fran
FY1996 1135
VA 9/6/1996 100%
DFA for 72 hrs
9/6/1996
Hurricane Fran
FY1996 1134
NC 9/6/1996 100%
DFA for 72 hrs
9/6/1996
Hurricane Fran
FY1996 1126
VI
7/31/1996 90%
IFG, PA, HM
7/11/1996
Hurricane Bertha
FY1996 1102
ID
2/11/1996 100%
DFA for 72 hrs
2/11/1996
SS & F
FY1996 1099
OR 2/9/1996 100%
DFA for 72 hrs
2/9/1996
SS, F & High Winds
FY1996 1070
AL
10/4/1995 100%
DFA for 72 hrs
10/4/1995
Hurricane Opal
FY1996 1069
FL
10/4/1995 100%
DFA for 72 hrs
10/4/1995
Hurricane Opal
FY1995 1067
VI
9/29/1995 90%
IFG, PA, HM
9/16/1995
Hurricane Marilyn
FY1995 1067
VI
9/24/1995 100%
DFA for 5 days
9/16/1995
Hurricane Marilyn
FY1995 1067
VI
9/20/1995 100%
DFA for 9 days
9/16/1995
Hurricane Marilyn
FY1995 1068
PR
9/16/1995 100%
DFA for 72 hrs
9/16/1995
Hurricane Marilyn
FY1995 1067
VI
9/16/1995 100%
DFA for 72 hrs
9/16/1995
Hurricane Marilyn
FY1995 1059
VA 7/1/1995 100%
DFA, PA (A&B) 72 hrs 7/1/1995
SS & F
FY1995 1049
LA
5/10/1995 100%
DFA for 72 hrs
5/10/1995
SS, F & T
FY1995 1048
OK 5/5/1995 100%
PA (A&B)
4/26/1995
Oklahoma City Bombing
Congressional Research Service
20

---

FEMA Disaster Cost-Shares: Evolution and Analysis

Disaster
Date
Date
FY Number State Adjusted % Federal Category & Timea Declared
Incident
FY1995 1039
AK 2/16/1995 85%
PA
9/13/1994
SS & F
FY1995
1033 GA
10/13/1994
90% PA
7/7/1994 Tropical
Storm
Alberto
FY1994 1008
CA 1/25/1994 90%
PA
1/17/1994
Northridge Earthquake
FY1994 1008
CA 1/20/1994 100%
DFA, PA (A&B) 6 days 1/17/1994
Northridge Earthquake
FY1994 1008
CA 1/17/1994 100%
DFA, PA (A&B) 72 hrs 1/17/1994
Northridge Earthquake
FY1993 1001
ND 9/27/1993 100%
DFA for PA (A&B)
7/26/1993
SS & F
FY1993 1001
ND 9/27/1993 90%
PA
7/26/1993
SS & F
FY1993 1000
KS
9/27/1993 90%
PA (C-G)
7/22/1993
SS & F
FY1993 1000
KS
9/27/1993 100%
DFA, PA (A&B)
7/22/1993
SS & F
FY1993 999
SD
9/27/1993 100%
DFA for PA (A&B)
7/19/1993
SS & F
FY1993 999
SD 9/27/1993 90%
PA
7/19/1993
SS & F
FY1993 998
NE 9/27/1993 100%
DFA for PA (A&B)
7/19/1993
SS & F
FY1993 998
NE 9/27/1993 90%
PA
7/19/1993
SS & F
FY1993 997
IL
9/27/1993 90%
PA
7/9/1993
Mississippi River Flooding
FY1993 997
IL
9/27/1993 100%
DFA for PA (A&B)
7/9/1993
Mississippi River Flooding
FY1993 996
IA 9/27/1993 90%
PA
7/9/1993
SS & F
FY1993 996
IA
9/27/1993 100%
DFA for PA (A&B)
7/9/1993
SS & F
FY1993 995
MO 9/27/1993 90%
PA
7/9/1993
SS & F
FY1993 995
MO 9/27/1993 100%
DFA for PA (A&B)
7/9/1993
SS & F
FY1993 994
WI 9/27/1993 90%
PA
7/2/1993
SS, F & T
FY1993 994
WI 9/27/1993 100%
DFA for PA (A&B)
7/2/1993
SS, F & T
FY1993 993
MN 9/27/1993 90%
PA
6/11/1993
SS, F & T
FY1993 993
MN 9/27/1993 100%
DFA for PA (A&B)
6/11/1993
SS, F & T
FY1993 882
Palau 9/7/1993 100%
IFG
11/28/1990 Super Typhoon Mike
FY1993 882
Palau 9/7/1993 90%
PA
11/28/1990 Super Typhoon Mike
FY1993 971
RMI 12/16/1992 90%
PA > $10 per capita 12/16/1992
Typhoon Gay
FY1992 961
HI
9/18/1992 100%
PA > $10 per capita 9/12/1992
Hurricane Iniki
FY1992 957
GU 9/17/1992 95%
PA > $10 per capita 8/28/1992
Typhoon Omar
FY1992 957
GU 9/17/1992 100%
IFG
8/28/1992
Typhoon Omar
FY1992 956
LA
9/5/1992 100%
PA > $10 per capita 8/26/1992
Hurricane Andrew
FY1992 955
FL
9/1/1992 100%
PA > $10 per capita 8/24/1992
Hurricane Andrew
FY1992 932
RMI 8/3/1992 90%
PA > $10 per capita 2/7/1992
Tropical Storm Axel
FY1992 925
RMI 8/3/1992 90%
PA > $10 per capita 12/6/1991
Typhoon Zelda
FY1992 927
AS 2/14/1992 100%
IFG
12/13/1991 Hurricane Val
FY1992 927
AS
2/14/1992 90%
PA > $10 per capita 12/13/1991
Hurricane Val
FY1990 841
VI
10/12/1989 100%
PA > $10 per capita 9/20/1989
Hurricane Hugo
Congressional Research Service
21

---

FEMA Disaster Cost-Shares: Evolution and Analysis

Disaster
Date
Date
FY Number State Adjusted % Federal Category & Timea Declared
Incident
FY1990 842
PR
10/11/1989 100%
PA > $10 per capita 9/21/1989
Hurricane Hugo
FY1990 843
SC
10/6/1989 100%
PA > $10 per capita 9/22/1989
Hurricane Hugo
FY1988 810
GU 8/4/1988 90%
PA > $10 per capita 1/20/1988
Typhoon Roy
FY1989 811
CNMI 7/11/1988 100%
IFG
1/20/1988
Typhoon Roy
FY1989 810
GU 7/11/1988 100%
IFG
1/20/1988
Typhoon Roy
FY1987 783
CNMI 6/7/1988 90%
IFG > $10 per capita 12/10/1986
Typhoon Kim
FY1989 811
CNMI 1/20/1988 90%
PA > $10 per capita 1/20/1988
Typhoon Roy
FY1987 785
AS
3/3/1987 90%
PA > $10 per capita 1/24/1987
Hurricane Tusi
FY1987 783
CNMI 1/15/1987 90%
PA > $10 per capita 12/10/1986
Typhoon Kim
FY1986 753
WV 11/15/1985 100%
PA > $20 million cap 11/7/1985
SS, F & Land
Source: FEMA Declarations Unit, November, 2009.
Notes:
a. For more detail regarding the cost sharing of a specific disaster, please review the actual Federal Register
Notice referenced. Some time extensions are effective back to date of declaration, while others are in
addition to the previous times granted.
b. Pursuant to the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009, P.L. 111-32, the Federal share of assistance,
including direct Federal assistance provided under section 406 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5172), for FEMA-1791-DR, FEMA-1792-DR, FEMA-1838-DR, and
FEMA-1841-DR shal be 90 percent of the eligible costs under such section and shal be 100 percent of such
costs under sections 403 and 407 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 5170b and 5173).
c. Public Assistance Category B (emergency protective measures), including direct Federal assistance, at 90
percent Federal funding of total eligible costs. This adjustment is effective until the respective date at which
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Weather Service River Forecast Center
reports that the rivers in the State of Illinois which have experienced historical flooding, fall below flood
stage.
d. H.R. 2206 - US Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations
Act, 2007. Per Sec 4501. “… the Federal share of assistance, including direct Federal assistance, provided
for the States of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas in connection with Hurricanes Katrina,
Wilma, Dennis, and Rita under sections 403, 406, 407, and 408 of the Stafford Act shal be 100 percent of
the eligible costs under such sections…”
e. Public Assistance Category A (debris removal) limited to existing projects in the Mississippi Sound. The
Sound also incorporates rivers and tributaries in the southern Mississippi region that are part of the intra-
coastal waterway system.
f.
Public Assistance Category A (debris removal) limited to the parishes of Orleans, St. Bernard, St. Tammany,
Washington, and Plaquemines.
Congressional Research Service
22

---

FEMA Disaster Cost-Shares: Evolution and Analysis

Table Legend
Incident Legend
SS
Severe Storms
F
Flooding
T
Tornadoes
Mud
Mudslides
Land
Landslides
T.S.
Tropical Storm
H.
Hurricane
SWS
Severe Winter Storm
Other U.S. Areas
AS
American Samoa
CNMI
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
FSM
Federated States of Micronesia
GU
Guam
Palau
Republic of Palau
PR
Puerto Rico
RMI
Republic of the Marshall Islands
VI
Virgin Islands
Program Category Legend
PA
Public Assistance Program
PA Categories:
A - Debris Removal

B - Emergency Protective Measures

C - Road Systems

D - Water Control Facilities

E - Buildings & Equipment
F
-
Utilities

G - other (recreation, parks)
HM
Hazard Mitigation
DFA
Direct Federal Assistance
IFG
Individual & Family Grant Program
ONA
Other Needs Assistance
<
Less Than
>
Greater Than
Congressional Research Service
23

---

FEMA Disaster Cost-Shares: Evolution and Analysis


Cost-Share Thresholds (thresholds are adjusted annually (Jan) and based on the CPI published each fiscal year in October)
Per Capita
Year
$125 CY-2010
$122
CY-2009
$122
CY-2008
$117
CY-2007
$114
CY-2006
$110
CY-2005
$106
CY-2004
$104
CY-2003
$102
CY-2002
$100
CY-2001
$85
CY-2000


Author Contact Information

Francis X. McCarthy

Analyst in Emergency Management Policy
fmccarthy@crs.loc.gov, 7-9533


Congressional Research Service
24

---