Considerations for a Catastrophic Declaration:
Issues and Analysis
Bruce R. Lindsay
Analyst in Emergency Management Policy
Francis X. McCarthy
Analyst in Emergency Management Policy
June 21, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41884
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
Considerations for a Catastrophic Declaration: Issues and Analysis
Summary
The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (the Stafford Act) is the
principal authority governing federal emergency and disaster response in the United States. The
act authorizes the President to issue three categories of declaration: (1) major disaster,
(2) emergency, or (3) fire assistance declarations in response to incidents that overwhelm the
resources of state and local governments. Once a declaration is issued, a wide range of federal
disaster assistance becomes available to eligible individuals and households, public entities, and
certain nonprofit organizations. Disaster assistance authorized by the Stafford Act is appropriated
by Congress and provided through the Disaster Relief Fund.
Emergency declarations supplement and promote coordination of local and state efforts such as
evacuations and protection of public assets. They may also be declared prior to the impact of an
incident to protect property, public health and safety and lessen or avert the threat of a major
disaster or catastrophe. Major disaster declarations are issued after an incident and constitute
broader authority to help states and localities, as well as families and individuals, recover from
the damage caused by the event. Fire assistance declarations provide grants to state and localities
to manage fires that threaten to cause major disasters.
Recently there has been discussion that the Stafford Act should be amended to include a fourth
category, generally called a “catastrophic declaration.” If approved, catastrophic declarations
could be invoked for high-profile, large-scale incidents that threaten the lives of many people,
create tremendous damage, and pose significant challenges to timely recovery efforts.
This report examines concerns expressed by policymakers and experts that current Stafford Act
declarations are inadequate to respond to, and recover from, highly destructive events, and
presents the arguments for and against amending the act to add a catastrophic declaration
amendment. This report also includes data analyses of past and potential disasters to determine
what incidents might be deemed as catastrophic, and explores alternative policy options that
might obviate the need for catastrophic declarations.
This report will be updated as events warrant.
Congressional Research Service
Considerations for a Catastrophic Declaration: Issues and Analysis
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
Overview of Stafford Act Declarations ........................................................................................ 2
Fire Management Assistance Grant Program Declarations ..................................................... 2
Emergency Declarations........................................................................................................ 3
Major Disaster Declarations .................................................................................................. 3
Proposed Catastrophic Declaration..............................................................................................4
Potential Uses and Benefits of a Catastrophic Declaration ........................................................... 5
Prior to an Incident................................................................................................................ 5
During an Incident ................................................................................................................ 6
After an Incident ................................................................................................................... 7
Analysis of Congressional Action After the Incident .................................................................... 8
Analysis of Catastrophic Events Past and Future ......................................................................... 9
Previous Incidents with Extraordinary Damages.................................................................. 11
Previous Incidents by VSL and Damage Costs .................................................................... 13
Disasters Past and Future .................................................................................................... 15
Summary of Analysis and Policy Implications..................................................................... 15
Caveats and Methodology ................................................................................................... 16
Summary of Potential Implications............................................................................................ 17
Potential Benefits of a Catastrophic Declaration .................................................................. 17
Potential Drawbacks of a Catastrophic Declaration.............................................................. 17
Further Considerations .............................................................................................................. 17
Potential Alternatives to a Catastrophic Declaration............................................................. 19
Figures
Figure 1. Previous Large-Scale Disasters by Damage Estimate, through 2008............................ 12
Figure 2. Previous Large-Scale Disasters by Combined VSL and Damage Estimates,
Through 2008 ........................................................................................................................ 14
Tables
Table 1. Emergency Supplemental Funding for Large Disasters................................................... 8
Table 2. Previous and Potential Catastrophic Incidents, Through 2008....................................... 10
Table 3. Prior Large-Scale Disasters by Damage Estimate, through 2008................................... 11
Table 4. Previous Large-Scale Disasters by Combined VSL and Damage Estimates................... 13
Appendixes
Appendix. Sources .................................................................................................................... 21
Congressional Research Service
Considerations for a Catastrophic Declaration: Issues and Analysis
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 23
Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................... 23
Congressional Research Service
Considerations for a Catastrophic Declaration: Issues and Analysis
Introduction
Numerous studies issued by policy experts, congressional committees, the White House, federal
offices of Inspector General, and the Government Accountability Office (GAO), among others,
have concluded that the government response to Hurricane Katrina was subject to a variety of
deficiencies that occurred at all levels of government.1 Such deficiencies include questionable
leadership decisions and capabilities, organizational failures, overwhelmed preparation and
communication systems, and inadequate statutory authorities. Additionally, oversight and
investigations into Gulf Coast recovery efforts has led some to conclude that federal recovery
assistance has been overly bureaucratic and untimely.2 Others have argued that the disaster
declaration process “does not provide the necessary framework to manage the challenges posed
by 21st century catastrophic threats.”3
These conclusions have led to a number of reforms in federal emergency management laws and
policies. For example, one proposed reform currently being contemplated by policymakers is an
amendment to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (hereinafter
the Stafford Act)4 that would add a new category of disaster declaration known as a “catastrophic
declaration” for events characterized by extraordinary devastation.5 Proponents of such a measure
would argue that adding a catastrophic declaration provision could streamline response and
recovery processes and/or possibly increase the amount of federal assistance provided to states
and localities after large-scale disasters. Opponents, on the other hand, would argue that
implementing a catastrophic declaration is not necessary and may create confusion for emergency
managers and officials. States, they say, might be enticed to request a catastrophic declaration
rather than a major disaster, if catastrophic declarations trigger an increased federal share of the
assistance.
This report examines concerns expressed by policymakers and experts that current Stafford Act
declarations are inadequate to respond to, and recover from, highly destructive events, and
presents the arguments for and against amending the act to add a catastrophic declaration
amendment. These arguments are framed by data analyses of past and potential disasters that
1 For example see Richard T. Sylves, “President Bush and Hurricane Katrina: A Presidential Leadership Study ,”
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, volume 604 (March 2006), pp. 26-56, U.S. Congress,
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Hurricane Katrina: A Nation Still Unprepared,
109th Cong., 2nd sess., S.Rept. 109-322 (Washington: GPO, 2006); U.S. Congress, House Select Bipartisan Committee
to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina, A Failure of Initiative: Final Report of the House
Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina, 109th Cong., 2nd
sess., H.Rept. 109-377 (Washington: GPO, 2006), and the White House Homeland Security Council, The Federal
Response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons Learned (Washington: February 23, 2006).
2 For example, see U.S. Congress, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Economic
Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management, Post Katrina: What it Takes to Cut the Bureaucracy and
Assure a More Rapid Response After a Catastrophic Disaster, Opening Statement of Representative Diaz-Balart, 110th
Cong., 1st sess., July 27, 2009.
3 Frances Townsend, The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons Learned, The White House, Washington
DC, February 23, 2006, p. 52, http://library.stmarytx.edu/acadlib/edocs/katrinawh.pdf.
4 P.L. 93-288, 42 U.S.C. 5721 et seq.
5 Historic events that might qualify for a catastrophic declaration are the 1906 San Francisco earthquake and fire, the
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and Hurricane Katrina. A catastrophic declaration might be used for a nuclear
bomb explosion, a tsunami hitting a highly populated area, or an immense and destructive earthquake, among others.
Congressional Research Service
1
Considerations for a Catastrophic Declaration: Issues and Analysis
might be considered as “catastrophic.” The report also explores alternative policy options that
might obviate the need for catastrophic declarations.
Overview of Stafford Act Declarations
The Stafford Act is the principal authority governing federal assistance for emergencies and
disasters in the United States.6 The act authorizes the President to issue declarations that trigger
federal assistance programs to help states respond to and recover from natural and human-caused
incidents.7 While the Stafford Act authorizes assistance from numerous federal agencies, the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is the primary federal agency responsible for
coordinating the federal response as well as response activities provided by other agencies and
nongovernmental entities.8
Two organizing principles guide the declaration process. First is the preservation of the
governor’s discretion to request federal assistance. Second is the President’s discretion to decide
to issue or deny the request for federal assistance.
The President cannot issue either an emergency or a major disaster declaration without a
gubernatorial request. The only exception to this rule is the authority given to the President to
declare an emergency when the President “determines that an emergency exists for which the
primary responsibility for response rests with the United States because the emergency involves a
subject area for which, under the Constitution or laws of the United States, the United States can
exercise exclusive or preeminent responsibility and authority.”9 The Stafford Act stipulates
several procedural actions a governor must take prior to requesting federal disaster assistance.
The governor cannot request a declaration unless he or she determines the event has overwhelmed
the state’s resources to such an extent that federal resources are needed.
The Stafford Act authorizes three types of presidential declarations—the proposal for a
catastrophic declaration would add a fourth type of declaration. The three currently authorized by
the Stafford Act include (1) Fire Management Assistance Grant Program declarations (FMAGP),
(2) emergency declarations, and (3) major disaster declarations.
Fire Management Assistance Grant Program Declarations
While the President has the sole authority to issue an emergency or major disaster declaration, the
determination to issue a FMAGP declaration can be rendered either by the President or FEMA.10
A FMAGP declaration authorizes various forms of federal assistance, such as equipment,
6 For further analysis on the Stafford Act see CRS Report RL33053, Federal Stafford Act Disaster Assistance:
Presidential Declarations, Eligible Activities, and Funding, by Francis X. McCarthy.
7 For more information on emergency and disaster declarations see CRS Report RL34146, FEMA’s Disaster
Declaration Process: A Primer, by Francis X. McCarthy.
8 For example, the Red Cross. In some cases FEMA will assign services from other federal agencies. These are called
“Mission Assignments.”
9 P.L. 93-288, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 5191(b). Examples of these declarations include the April 19, 1995 bombing of the
Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, and the September 11, 2001 attack on the Pentagon.
10 44 CFR 204.24.
Congressional Research Service
2
Considerations for a Catastrophic Declaration: Issues and Analysis
personnel, and grants to any state or local government for the control, management and mitigation
of any fire on public or private forest land or grassland that might become a major disaster.11
Emergency Declarations
The Stafford Act defines an emergency broadly as
any occasion or instance for which, in the determination of the President, federal assistance
is needed to supplement State and local efforts and capabilities to save lives and to protect
property and public health and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in any
part of the United States.12
Emergency declarations authorize activities that can help states and communities carry out
essential services as well as activities that might reduce the threat of future damage. Emergency
declarations, however, do not provide assistance for repairs and replacement of public
infrastructure or nonprofit facilities.13 Emergency declarations may be declared before an incident
occurs to save lives and prevent loss. For example, emergency declarations have been declared
prior to a hurricane making landfall to help state and local governments take steps (evacuation
assistance, placement of response resources, etc.) that might lessen the impact of the storm and
prevent a major disaster from occurring.14
Major Disaster Declarations
While emergencies are defined broadly, the Stafford Act defines a major disaster narrowly as:
any natural catastrophe (including any hurricane, tornado, storm, high water, wind-driven
water, tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, mudslide, snowstorm, or
drought), or, regardless of cause, any fire, flood, or explosion, in any part of the United
States, which in the determination of the President causes damage of sufficient severity and
magnitude to warrant major disaster assistance under this chapter to supplement the efforts
and available resources of states, local governments, and disaster relief organizations in
alleviating the damage, loss, hardship, or suffering caused thereby.15
The definition for a major disaster is more precise than an emergency declaration, and the range
of assistance available to state and local governments, private, nonprofit organizations, and
families and individuals is much broader. Under a major disaster declaration, state and local
governments and certain nonprofit organizations are eligible (if so designated) for assistance for
the repair or restoration of public infrastructure such as roads and buildings. A major disaster
declaration may also include additional programs beyond temporary housing such as disaster
11 P.L. 93-288, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 5187(a).
12 P.L. 93-288, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 5122(1).
13 For additional information on the differences between major disaster and emergency declarations, see CRS Report
RL33053, Federal Stafford Act Disaster Assistance: Presidential Declarations, Eligible Activities, and Funding, by
Francis X. McCarthy.
14 Recent examples of pre-event declarations include emergency declarations prior to Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and
Gustav making landfall (emergency declarations 3212, 3260, and 3290 respectively).
15 P.L. 93-288, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 5122(2).
Congressional Research Service
3
Considerations for a Catastrophic Declaration: Issues and Analysis
unemployment assistance and crisis counseling. A major disaster declaration may also include
recovery programs such as community disaster loans.
Proposed Catastrophic Declaration
If amended, the Stafford Act might provide a declaration for what might be classified as a “mega-
disaster” or “catastrophic disaster.” It is unclear, however, what differentiates a disaster from a
catastrophe. Moss and Shelhamer, two policy scholars who have written on the subject, state that
catastrophic incidents
by definition, tend to occur in large metropolitan regions due to the concentration of people
and infrastructure. For example, a category 5 hurricane striking an undeveloped coast will
generate less damage than a category 3 hurricane hitting a major city. Recent catastrophes
include the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake (San Francisco), the 1994 Northridge Earthquake
(Los Angeles), Hurricane Hugo (1989), Hurricane Andrew (1992), Hurricanes Katrina and
Rita (2005), the Midwest Floods of 1993, and the September 11 attacks of 2001.16
The authors then recommend amending Section 102 of the Stafford Act with the language used to
define a catastrophic incident in the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006
(Title VI of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007—hereinafter the
Post-Katrina Act).17 The Post-Katrina Act defines a catastrophic incident broadly as
any natural disaster, act of terrorism, or other man-made disaster that results in extraordinary
levels of casualties or damage or disruption severely affecting the population (including mass
evacuations), infrastructure, environment, economy, national morale, or government
functions in an area.18
The above definition was used in the Post-Katrina Act for the purposes of improving planning
documents by defining the scope of events that should be considered by the Catastrophic Incident
Annex of the National Response Framework (NRF).19 The definition was not used in the context
of actual declared disasters nor was it intended to replace the definition of a major disaster in the
Stafford Act.
The main difference between a catastrophic incident as defined in the Post-Katrina Act and the
definition of a major disaster in the Stafford Act is that the former focuses on the event’s scope,
impact, and severity. In general, a catastrophic incident would carry far-reaching consequences
beyond a state’s borders and have national implications including the economy, infrastructure,
and even national psyche. In contrast, the major disaster definition generally focuses more on
categorizing causes that potentially overwhelm states and localities.
16 Mitchell L. Moss and Charles Shellhamer, The Stafford Act and Priorities for Reform, The Center for Catastrophe
Preparedness & Response, New York University, p. 14.
17 P.L. 109-295, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007. 120 STAT. 1395-1463.
18 6 U.S.C. 701(4).
19 The NRF is the United States’ core emergency and disaster response document. The Catastrophic Incident Annex is a
companion document explicating response activities in the event of a catastrophic incident such as a large hurricane.
For further analysis on the NRF, see CRS Report RL34758, The National Response Framework: Overview and
Possible Issues for Congress, by Bruce R. Lindsay.
Congressional Research Service
4
Considerations for a Catastrophic Declaration: Issues and Analysis
Supporters of catastrophic declarations argue that while “routine disasters” can be managed
through major disaster declarations, large-scale, destructive incidents warrant their own type of
declaration because they pose unique challenges inadequately addressed by major disaster
declarations. Examples of such challenges may include
• The President can declare an emergency without a gubernatorial request, if he
considers the event to be primarily a federal responsibility, but must wait for a
gubernatorial request for most emergencies and all major disasters.20 The wait for
a request could delay the federal response, or federal assistance, or both.
• The response and recovery efforts associated with large-scale disasters involve
multiple federal agencies that require higher levels of leadership to resolve
potential inter-agency conflicts, and effectively coordinate and manage response
and recovery efforts.
• Current response and recovery procedures for major disasters are too
cumbersome for large-scale disasters because the procedures are too rigid and
inefficient to provide assistance at an accelerated rate.
• Some argue that federal assistance is needed more quickly after large-scale,
destructive incidents than routine disasters—the disbursal of assistance provided
through a major disaster declaration is too slow to meet recovery needs.
• Due to the enormous amount of destruction and the economic impacts caused by
large-scale disasters, many states and localities are unable to pay their portion of
the cost-share.
The following section describes how a catastrophic declaration might address these challenges.
Potential Uses and Benefits of a
Catastrophic Declaration
A catastrophic declaration may be used to trigger certain mechanisms before, during, and after a
catastrophe. Policymakers might also elect to apply a catastrophic declaration to one or more
phases of the incident.
Prior to an Incident
The Catastrophic Incident Annex of the NRF states federal resources and assets may be deployed
prior to a catastrophic incident in anticipation of a request from state, tribal, and local
governments that an imminent disaster appears to threaten human health and safety.21 Such
activities may include the placing of resources to reduce the impact of the incident and improve
response capabilities, pre-positioning of emergency and disaster employees and supplies,
monitoring the status of the situation, communicating with state emergency officials on potential
20 44 CFR 206.35(d).
21 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Catastrophic Incident Annex, Washington DC, November 2008, p. 2,
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nrf/nrf_CatastrophicIncidentAnnex.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
5
Considerations for a Catastrophic Declaration: Issues and Analysis
assistance requirements, and deploying teams and resources to maximize the speed and
effectiveness of the anticipated federal response.
As mentioned previously, under certain conditions the Stafford Act authorizes federal support in
the absence of a gubernatorial request to “save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate severe
damage.” If Congress chose to create a catastrophic declaration, it might elect to amend Section
402 to provide the President with similar authority so as to trigger federal activities such the ones
described above. Additionally, the amendment could be designed to signal the immediate
deployment of federal strike teams and surge capacity forces.22 Alternatively, some may argue the
Stafford Act could be amended to authorize the aforementioned precautionary measures for major
disasters without a catastrophic declaration.
During an Incident
The NRF provides the guiding principles for a unified response by assigning roles and
responsibilities to all levels of government, nongovernmental organizations, the private sector,
communities, and communities to all types of hazards regardless of their origin. The unified
response is executed through supporting documents known as annexes: Emergency Support
Functions (ESF) Annexes and Incident Annexes.23
ESFs group federal agencies by their resource and function related to a particular incident. For
example, all federal agencies that play a role in the response and recovery of an oil spill are listed
in ESF #10. The ESF’s function is to designate lead and supporting federal agencies responsible
for incident response and recovery.
Similar to an ESF, Incident Annexes group agencies by matching their resources and functions to
a particular incident. Incident Annexes also designate lead and support agencies. For example,
federal agencies responsible for response and recovery from a biological attack are listed in the
Biological Incident Annex. Incident Annexes differ from an ESF, however, because the incidents
they address have been deemed to require specialized response and recovery activities specific to
the incident.
Response and recovery efforts carried out under each ESF and Incident Annex are executed
through various operational plans. Proponents would argue that a catastrophic declaration could
be used to trigger streamlined procedures within these operational plans. They may further argue
that catastrophic incidents create tremendous uncertainty and that bureaucratic protocols
exacerbate this uncertainty and hinder efforts aimed at a timely response. Thus, streamlining
procedures might provide flexibility to operational plans and promote autonomous decision-
making.
22 P.L. 109-295, Sec. 602, 120 STAT. 1395(15). The Post-Katrina Act defines surge capacity as “the ability to rapidly
and substantially increase the provision of search and rescue capabilities, food, water, medicine, shelter and housing,
medical care, evacuation capacity, staffing (including disaster assistance employees), and other resources necessary to
save lives and protect property during a catastrophic incident.”
23 There are 15 ESFs and seven Incident Annexes. See http://www.fema.gov/emergency/nrf/mainindex.htm. For further
analysis on the NRF Annexes, see CRS Report RL34758, The National Response Framework: Overview and Possible
Issues for Congress, by Bruce R. Lindsay.
Congressional Research Service
6
Considerations for a Catastrophic Declaration: Issues and Analysis
On the other hand, some may argue that, while intuitively appealing, providing additional
flexibility during a catastrophic declaration might produce a chaotic federal response because
operational plans among federal agencies are tightly coupled with each other. Deviation in
response by one agency could have negative rippling effects that could hinder the response of
other agencies.
After an Incident
A catastrophic declaration could be used to automatically alter aspects of recovery polices and
regulations. Such a declaration could have triggers that would cause a change in the percentage of
federal resources as well as adjusting the delivery system of traditional disaster relief programs.
The following recovery strategies might be included in the event of a catastrophic declaration.
• The catastrophic declaration could automatically increase the federal cost-share
to lessen the economic impact states and localities incur from catastrophic
incidents. The Stafford Act provides that the federal share for the repair,
restoration, and replacement of damaged facilities “shall be not less than 75%.”24
A catastrophic declaration could be used to automatically increase the federal
share to 90% or perhaps 100%. Moreover, the 72-hour window of 100% funding
for immediate federal aid could be extended for a longer period. Early knowledge
of such adjustments may accelerate state and local activity because
foreknowledge of the adjustment provides states and localities with an assurance
of fiscal relief which would then encourage them to act quickly to accomplish
necessary repairs and begin comprehensive recovery planning. However, these
adjustments can add significantly to the overall cost of the disaster.25
• A catastrophic declaration could trigger a number of changes to recovery
programs that could speed assistance and provide increased flexibility. Some of
these changes could include the delivery of block grants to states to handle
immediate needs and begin infrastructure repairs. An alternative would be for a
catastrophic event to (1) switch on “gap funding” which provides timely front-
end funding to states and localities to cover initial efforts; (2) make straight-time
force26 account labor (for disaster work) by state and local governments eligible
for reimbursement; (3) automatically increase funding caps for the Community
Disaster Loan (CDL) program;27 and (4) provide clear authority and resources to
FEMA and its federal partners for long-term recovery efforts in partnership with
state and local governments.
• Once declared, catastrophic declarations could trigger certain congressional rules
that might prevent potential deadlock over the passage of disaster relief funds for
disaster-stricken communities.
24 P.L. 93-288, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 5170b, Sec. 5172, and Sec. 5173.
25 For additional information on the cost-share issue see CRS Report R41101, FEMA Disaster Cost-Shares: Evolution
and Analysis, by Francis X. McCarthy.
26 Straight-time force would provide the state funds to pay all labor costs, rather than only overtime costs. See C.F.R.
Title 44—Emergency Management and Assistance.
27 Currently capped at $5 million per community. See 44 C.F.R. 360.361(b). That cap was removed for Special Katrina
loans.
Congressional Research Service
7
Considerations for a Catastrophic Declaration: Issues and Analysis
On the other hand, it could be argued that the Stafford Act could be amended to make these
changes part of a major disaster declaration.
Analysis of Congressional Action After the Incident
Part of the argument for a catastrophic declaration is that it could provide immediate financial
assistance on a broader scale without having to await congressional approval for additional
federal assistance through a supplemental appropriation. An examination of the record, however,
demonstrates that congressional action on emergency supplemental funding in the wake of large
disasters has grown more rapid in recent years (see Table 1).
Table 1. Emergency Supplemental Funding for Large Disasters
Event
Date of Declaration
Congressional Action
Days
Hurricane Katrina
August 29, 2005
September 2, 2005
3
Hurricane Isabel
September 18, 2003
September 30, 2003
12
9/11 Terrorist Attacks
September 11, 2001
September 18, 2001
7
Nisqual y Earthquake
March 1, 2001
July 24, 2001
114
Hurricane Floyd
September 16, 1999
October 20, 1999
34
Northridge Earthquake
January 17, 1994
February 12, 1994
26
Midwest Floods
June 11, 1993
August 12, 1993
62
Hurricane Andrew
August 23, 1992
September 23, 1992
31
Hurricane Hugo
September 20, 1989
September, 29, 1989
9
Source: CRS Report R40708, Disaster Relief Funding and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations, by Bruce R.
Lindsay and Justin Murray.
Note: Table 1 reflects the number of days it took to enact the first supplemental appropriation. Some incidents
(such as Hurricane Katrina) received more than one supplemental appropriation for disaster relief.
It could be argued that Congress has acted expeditiously. On average, Congress has passed
supplemental appropriations for disaster assistance within 33 days of the disaster declaration. It
can also be argued that while resources may be provided relatively quickly for routine disasters,
catastrophic incidents require an accelerated timeframe to provide adequate assistance. In
addition, the results of this analysis indicate that Congress has been responsive to the largest and
most devastating incidents. In some cases, disaster assistance was enacted within one week of the
declaration. Moreover, while it took longer than 30 days to enact some supplemental
appropriations, the incidents for which the funding was enacted generally had fewer damages
than the larger, more expensive disasters.
The reaction to the devastation caused by the 2005 hurricane season resulted in historic amounts
of disaster response and recovery funding. Along with the amount of resources provided by
Congress, it could be argued that the Stafford Act is a very flexible instrument that provides broad
authority for various forms of assistance. The reluctance or inability of some to administer these
authorities in the past does not eliminate their existence or the possible help that can be derived
from those broad authorities under any disaster declaration. Authorities such as Section 402 of
Stafford for “General Federal Assistance” and Section 403 for “Essential Assistance” provide
Congressional Research Service
8
Considerations for a Catastrophic Declaration: Issues and Analysis
FEMA the discretion to use various forms of federal help or to supplement state help to achieve
disaster response and recovery goals.28
Analysis of Catastrophic Events Past and Future
This section analyzes incidents that might be deemed as catastrophic to help frame a debate
concerning the need and desirability of amending the Stafford Act to include a catastrophic
declaration. Because catastrophic incidents are generally characterized as events that cause
extraordinary damage, or loss of life (or both), the following analysis is based on data from past,
large-scale incidents that have occurred in the United States, as well as data derived from studies
that predict damage levels and loss of life for large-scale disasters that could happen in the future
(see Table 2). 29
This report incorporates a method known as the value of statistical life (VSL) to assign a
monetary value to each fatality caused by the given incident.30 VSL helps compare incidents with
many fatalities and little damage (such as the Chicago Heat Wave of 1995) to incidents that
caused significant damages, but had few, or no, fatalities (such as the Love Canal incident in
1978).
This section of the report is divided into four subsections that rank incidents according to the
following: (1) previous large-scale disasters by estimated damage costs; (2) previous large-scale
disasters by estimated damage and VSL costs; (3) previous large-scale disasters and potential
incidents by damage costs; and (4) previous large-scale disasters and potential incidents by
estimated damage and VSL costs.
The percentiles used for this analysis are derived by multiplying the costliest incident in the
subsection by a given percentile.31 It should be noted that the data used for this analysis are
subject to variations and limitations (see “Caveats and Methodology”).
28 42 U.S.C. 5170a and 5170b.
29 The 1919 Influenza Pandemic is included in Table 2 but is not included the analysis because the incident skews the
results. See “Caveats and Methodology”.
30 As part of an economic analysis required by Executive Order 12866, the issuing agencies often place the monetary
value on expected health benefits by determining the number of “statistical lives” that the rules are expected to extend
or save, and then multiplying that number by an estimated “value of a statistical life.” For further analysis on how
agencies monetize statistical lives see CRS Report R41140, How Agencies Monetize “Statistical Lives” Expected to Be
Saved By Regulations, by Curtis W. Copeland.
31 For example, in terms of damages alone, the 1871 Chicago Fire was the costliest disaster in the United States ($168
billion). Thus, to determine the 90th percentile the following formula was used: $168,000,000,000 x 0.90 =
$151,200,000,000. The formula for the 80th percentile was: $168,000,000,000 x 0.80 = $134,400,000,000, and so on.
Congressional Research Service
9
Considerations for a Catastrophic Declaration: Issues and Analysis
Table 2. Previous and Potential Catastrophic Incidents, Through 2008
(2010 dollars)
Value of Statistical Life
Combined VSL and
Disaster Fatalities
(VSL) Damage
Estimate Damage Estimate
1871 Chicago Fire
300
180,000,000,000
168,000,000,000
348,000,000,000
1900 Galveston Hurricane
9,000
5,400,000,000,000
700,000,000
5,400,700,000,000
1906 San Francisco Earthquake
3,000
1,800,000,000,000
9,579,792,048
1,809,579,792,048
1919 Influenza Pandemic
675,000
405,000,000,000,000
0
405,000,000,000,000
1929 Great Mississippi Flood
1,000
600,000,000,000
2,899,905,508
602,899,905,508
1964 Alaska Earthquake/Tsunami
131
78,600,000,000
311,000,000
78,911,000,000
1969 Hurricane Camille 256
153,600,000,000 1,421,000,000 155,021,000,000
1965 Hurricane Betsy
81
48,600,000,000
1,400,000,000
50,000,000,000
1974 Xenia (Easter) Tornado Outbreak
330
198,000,000,000
1,000,000,000
199,000,000,000
1978 Love Canal
0
0
400,000,000
400,000,000
1980 Mount St. Helens
57
34,200,000,000
1,000,000,000
35,200,000,000
1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake
63
37,800,000,000
10,000,000,000
47,800,000,000
1992 Hurricane Andrew
23
13,800,000,000
27,000,000,000
40,800,000,000
1995 Chicago Heat Wave
525
315,000,000,000
0
315,000,000,000
1989 Hurricane Hugo
57
34,200,000,000
7,000,000,000
41,200,000,000
1994 Northridge Earthquake
60
36,000,000,000
20,000,000,000
56,000,000,000
2001 September 11th Terrorist Attacks
2,978
1,786,800,000,000
42,600,000,000
1,829,400,000,000
2005 Hurricane Katrina
1,833
1,099,800,000,000
148,000,000,000
1,247,800,000,000
2008 Hurricane Ike
20
12,000,000,000
19,300,000,000
31,300,000,000
ARkStorma 1,000
600,000,000,000
400,000,000,000
1,000,000,000,000
New Madrid Earthquakeb 85,000
51,000,000,000,000
120,000,000,000
51,120,000,000,000
Southern San Andreas Fault Earthquakeb 1,800
1,080,000,000,000
200,000,000,000
1,280,000,000,000
Source: Data derived from supplemental appropriations and government studies and reports. See the Appendix for a full list of the sources used for this table.
a. ARkStorm is a hypothetical flood disaster that could occur (see footnote 35).
b. Denotes a hypothetical earthquake that could occur (see Appendix).
CRS-10
Considerations for a Catastrophic Declaration: Issues and Analysis
Previous Incidents with Extraordinary Damages
This subsection ranks some of the costliest incidents to ever occur in the United States in the past
140 years (Table 3). Assuming catastrophic incidents are the most expensive events, then the
following conclusions could be drawn: If the 90th percentile ($151 billion or more in damages) of
incidents are catastrophic, then only the 1871 Chicago Fire would qualify as a catastrophic
incident. If the 80th percentile ($134 billion or more in damages) of incidents are catastrophic,
only the 1871 Chicago Fire and Hurricane Katrina would qualify as catastrophic incidents. These
would remain constant until the 20th percentile ($34 billion or more in damages), which would
then include the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
Table 3. Prior Large-Scale Disasters by Damage Estimate, through 2008
(2010 dollars)
Disaster Damage
Estimate
Rank
1871 Chicago Fire
168,000,000,000
1
↑ 90th Percentile (≥ $151 billion) ↑
2005 Hurricane Katrina
148,000,000,000
2
↑ 80th Percentile (≥ $134 billion) ↑
2001 September 11th Terrorist Attacks
42,600,000,000
3
↑ 20th Percentile (≥ $34 billion) ↑
1992 Hurricane Andrew
27,000,000,000
4
1994 Northridge Earthquake
20,000,000,000
5
2008 Hurricane Ike
19,300,000,000
6
1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake
10,000,000,000
7
1906 San Francisco Earthquake
9,579,792,048
8
1989 Hurricane Hugo
7,000,000,000
9
1929 Great Mississippi Flood
2,899,905,508
10
1969 Hurricane Camille 1,421,000,000 11
1965 Hurricane Betsy
1,400,000,000
12
1974 Xenia (Easter) Tornado Outbreak
1,000,000,000
13
1980 Mount St. Helens
1,000,000,000
14
1900 Galveston Hurricane
700,000,000
15
1978 Love Canal
400,000,000
16
1964 Alaska Earthquake/Tsunami
311,000,000
17
Source: Data derived from supplemental appropriations and government studies and reports. See Appendix.
sources for a ful list of the sources used for this table.
Methodology: $168,000,000,000 x 0.90 = $151,200,000,000, $168,000,000,000 x 0.80 = $134,400,000,000, and
$168,000,000,000 x 0.20 = $33,600,000,000. Some figures have been rounded.
Figure 1 presents the same data in chronological order. Again, assuming catastrophic incidents
are the most expensive events, then the following conclusions could be drawn: over 130 years has
Congressional Research Service
11
Considerations for a Catastrophic Declaration: Issues and Analysis
elapsed between the most expensive incident (the 1871 Chicago Fire) and the second and third
most expensive incidents (Hurricane Katrina, and the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks,
respectively). However, many of the most expensive disasters have occurred in more recent
times. In the last 30 years, at least six incidents that had damages of $10 billion or more have
occurred, and in the last 16 years, at least five incidents that had damages of $19 billion or more
have occurred.
Figure 1. Previous Large-Scale Disasters by Damage Estimate, through 2008
(2010 dollars)
Source: Data derived from supplemental appropriations and government studies and reports. See the
Appendix for a full list of the sources used for this figure.
Methodology: See methodological description in Table 3.
Given the number of large-scale disasters occurring in the last 30 years, one might conclude that
large-scale disasters are occurring more frequently—which might support an argument for a
catastrophic declaration. A counterargument, on the other hand, is that in terms of damage costs,
only Hurricane Katrina truly qualifies as a catastrophic event when compared to other, recent
incidents. It might be further argued that while many of the most expensive disasters have
occurred in recent years, the increased costs associated with such incidents are a function of
variables that are not necessarily related to the magnitude of the incidents (such as increased
federal expenditures for assistance and recovery projects, the replacement of expensive
infrastructure, and the development of previously uninhabited areas). Consequently, opponents of
a catastrophic declaration might conclude that damage costs are not a suitable determinant for
Congressional Research Service
12
Considerations for a Catastrophic Declaration: Issues and Analysis
assessing the need for the new declaration because it fails to address the response and recovery
issues previously discussed in this report.
Previous Incidents by VSL and Damage Costs
Table 4 lists the same incidents presented in Table 2 ranked according to combined VSL and
damage costs. Assuming that catastrophic incidents are incidents with the highest combined VSL
and damage costs, then the following conclusions could be drawn: If the 90th percentile ($4.9
trillion or more) of incidents are catastrophic, then only the 1900 Galveston Hurricane would
qualify as a catastrophic incident. This event would remain singular until the 30 percentile ($1.6
trillion or more) in which the September 11th terrorist attacks and the 1906 San Francisco
Earthquake and Fire would qualify as catastrophic. Hurricane Katrina would be deemed
catastrophic if the 20th percentile of incidents qualify as a catastrophic event ($1 trillion or more).
Table 4. Previous Large-Scale Disasters by Combined VSL and Damage Estimates
(2010 dollars)
Combined VSL and
Disaster
Damage Estimate
Rank
1900 Galveston Hurricane
5,400,700,000,000
1
↑ 90th Percentile (≥ $4.9 trillion) ↑
2001 September 11th Terrorist Attacks
1,829,400,000,000
2
1906 San Francisco Earthquake
1,809,579,792,048
3
↑ 30th Percentile (≥ $1.6 trillion) ↑
2005 Hurricane Katrina
1,247,800,000,000
4
↑ 20th Percentile (≥ $1 trillion) ↑
1929 Great Mississippi Flood
600,252,713,730
5
1871 Chicago Fire
348,000,000,000
6
1995 Chicago Heat Wave
315,000,000,000
7
1974 Xenia (Easter) Tornado Outbreak
199,400,000,000
8
1969 Hurricane Camille 155,021,000,000 9
1964 Alaska Earthquake/Tsunami
78,911,000,000
10
1994 Northridge Earthquake
56,000,000,000
11
1965 Hurricane Betsy
50,000,000,000
12
1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake
47,800,000,000
13
1989 Hurricane Hugo
41,200,000,000
14
1992 Hurricane Andrew
40,800,000,000
15
1980 Mount St. Helens
35,200,000,000
16
1978 Love Canal
400,000,000
17
Source: Data derived from supplemental appropriations and government studies and reports. See the
Appendix for a full list of the sources used for this table.
Congressional Research Service
13
Considerations for a Catastrophic Declaration: Issues and Analysis
Methodology: $5,400,700,000,000 x 0.90 = $4,860,630,000,000, $5,400,700,000,000 x 0.30 =
$1,620,210,000,000, and $5,400,700,000,000 x 0.20 = $1,080,140,000,000. Some figures have been rounded.
Figure 2 presents the data from Table 4 in chronological order. Using the above VSL and damage
cost assumptions from above to examine large-scale incidents over the past 140 years, the
analysis suggests that approximately 100 years has elapsed between the highest ranked disaster
(the 1900 Galveston Hurricane) and the second highest ranked disaster (the September 11, 2001
terrorist attacks).
Figure 2. Previous Large-Scale Disasters by Combined VSL and Damage Estimates,
Through 2008
(2010 dollars)
Source: Data derived from supplemental appropriations and government studies and reports. See the
Appendix for a full list of the sources used for this figure.
Methodology: See the methodological description in Table 4.
Additionally, whereas this analysis on damage costs alone might indicate that the “worst”
disasters have occurred within the last 30 years, some might conclude that combining VSL with
damage costs tends to support the opposite conclusion—that the worst disasters occurred around
the turn of the century. Based on the latter conclusion, some may question the need for
catastrophic declarations for contemporary incidents. On the other hand, others may argue that
recent incidents should still be taken into consideration when evaluating the need for catastrophic
Congressional Research Service
14
Considerations for a Catastrophic Declaration: Issues and Analysis
declarations. This is because two of the four highest ranked disasters have occurred within the last
ten years.
Disasters Past and Future
When the analysis is extended to capture all of the incidents in Table 2,32 the inclusion of
potential disasters changes the order of percentile rankings. However, the number of incidents
meeting certain catastrophic thresholds remains low.
In terms of damage costs alone, if one assumes catastrophic incidents are the most expensive
events, then the following conclusions could be drawn: If the 90th percentile ($360 billion or
more) of incidents are catastrophic, then only the hypothetical “ARkStorm” would qualify as a
catastrophic incident. This event would remain singular until the 50th percentile ($200 billion or
more) in which the hypothetical Southern San Andreas Fault Earthquake would also qualify as
catastrophic. If the catastrophic incident threshold includes incidents in the 40th percentile ($160
billion or more) or higher, then the 1871 Chicago Fire would be included as catastrophic. 33
When the highest combined VSL and damage costs are included, the following conclusions could
be drawn: If the 90th percentile ($460 trillion or more) of incidents are catastrophic, then only the
New Madrid Earthquake scenario would qualify as a catastrophic incident. This event would
remain singular until the 10th percentile ($51.1 trillion or more), in which the 1900 Galveston
Hurricane would be included as catastrophic.34
Summary of Analysis and Policy Implications
Upon reviewing the results of the comparative analysis of destructive incidents, it could be
argued that highly destructive events occur too rarely to warrant a catastrophic declaration. Using
the 90th percentile as a benchmark, only one event in the last 140 years would be catastrophic and
only four would qualify if the 80th percentile is used as a benchmark. Similar conclusions might
be drawn on the comparative analysis of combined VSL and damage estimate costs—specifically,
that high-impact events are too infrequent to merit the addition of a new declaration category—
only one incident in the last 100 years meets the 90th percentile threshold. Additionally, the
threshold would have to be adjusted to the 20th percentile to include more than one incident.
Critics of the additional declaration might further argue that VSL is a poor determinant for a
catastrophic declaration because federal assistance is predominately tied to recovery projects
rather than victim or survivor compensation.
With regard to recent disaster activity, proponents who support the addition of a catastrophic
declaration could argue that, in terms of damage estimates, three of the top four incidents have
occurred within the last 40 years. In terms of combined VSL and damage estimate costs, two of
the top four incidents have occurred within the last 40 years. To some, this may be taken as an
32 Excluding the 1919 Influenza Pandemic as an outlier.
33 Methodology: $400,000,000,000 x 0.90 = $360,000,000,000, $400,000,000,000 x 0.50 = $200,000,000,000, and
$400,000,000,000 x 0.40 = $160,000,000,000.
34 Methodology: $51,120,000,000,000 x 0.90 = $460,080,000,000, and $51,120,000,000,000 x 0.10 =
$51,120,000,000. The 1919 Influenza Pandemic is included in Table 2 but is not included in the analyses because the
incident skewed the results. See “Caveats and Methodology.”
Congressional Research Service
15
Considerations for a Catastrophic Declaration: Issues and Analysis
indication that catastrophic incidents are increasing in frequency. They may also argue that future
disasters might be more destructive due to increases in population, development, and
infrastructure. Thus, they might argue the scope of this analysis should be limited to more recent
incidents. Proponents who support the addition of a catastrophic declaration could also argue that
the analysis fails to take into account potential future incidents.
While opponents of a catastrophic declaration might conclude that this analysis demonstrates that
catastrophic incidents are too rare to warrant a new type of declaration, supporters might make
the claim that the damage and VSL costs portrayed in this analysis would have been reduced if
carried out according to the provisions provided under a catastrophic declaration.
Caveats and Methodology
The data sources for the above analyses have been assembled from multiple governmental
sources and are listed in the Appendix. As mentioned previously, the data on fatalities and
damages from these sources are subject to variation and should not be viewed as definitive.
Additionally, many studies report death tolls in ranges for various incidents. For the purposes of
this report, the average number between the range was used as a fatality figure. The hypothetical
scenarios used for the analyses do not represent the universe of possible incidents—such as a
nuclear detonation, an asteroid incident, or another influenza pandemic.
There were also some reporting anomalies. The United States Geological Survey (USGS)
ARkStorm scenario study did not provide a fatality estimate.35 For the purposes of this report, the
number of fatalities from the 1929 Mississippi flood was used because reporting no deaths
produced outlying figures that skewed the data results. Similarly, the 1919 Influenza Pandemic
was eliminated from the analyses because the number of fatalities (675,000) produced an outlying
figure that skewed the data results.
The comparative analysis spans over a century and the incident computations reported in the
analyses do not reflect increases in development, infrastructure, and populations that would have
made earlier incidents more costly were they to occur in this period of time. The computations in
this report do not reflect current mitigation and response mechanisms that might have decreased
the impacts of previous events had they been available.
VSL computations vary among federal agencies from roughly $5 million to $10 million per
individual. While FEMA does not use a VSL computation, the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) uses a VSL of $6 million per individual for certain attack scenarios. The VSL value used
by DHS was used for this report.
As mentioned previously, damage costs are not the sole determinant for disaster declarations. The
purpose of these analyses is to develop a model to determine which incidents could be deemed as
catastrophic based on damages and VSL costs. Other considerations, such as potential economic
or social impacts of the incidents are not reflected in the analyses. Statistically reliable forecasts
of the occurrence of future events based on this data could not be completed due to insufficient
data points.
35 The ARkStorm is a hypothetical study conducted by the USGS that combines prehistoric flood history in California
with modern flood mapping and climate-change projections to produce a hypothetical but, according to the USGS,
plausible disaster scenario. See http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1312/ for an overview of the scenario.
Congressional Research Service
16
Considerations for a Catastrophic Declaration: Issues and Analysis
The data presented in this report are not definitive and should be interpreted with care before
drawing any conclusions.
Summary of Potential Implications
Potential Benefits of a Catastrophic Declaration
Depending on its design, certain benefits may be derived from using a catastrophic declaration for
large-scale disasters, including
• accelerated and more robust federal assistance to states prior to an incident,
• the use of specialized response plans and guidelines for the federal response,
• the elimination or reduction of procedures and protocols that might impede
response and recovery activities and efforts,
• the elimination or reduction of procedures and protocols that might delay the
disbursal of federal assistance, and
• increasing the amount of federal assistance through various mechanisms to help
states recovery more quickly and avoid economic hardship.
Potential Drawbacks of a Catastrophic Declaration
The potential drawbacks of a catastrophic declaration may include
• unclear authority and responsibility designations could confuse those responsible
for executing the response and recovery,
• increased federal costs for disaster assistance due to increased declaration
activity,
• increased federal costs for disaster assistance due to the increased federal cost-
share provisions included with the declaration, and
• increased federal involvement and responsibility for incident response.
Further Considerations
Some may argue that the Stafford Act’s broad definition of an emergency lacks sufficient specific
criteria and provides the President with too much discretion to determine which incidents are
emergencies. This, in turn, may have increased the federal role (and by extension—the amount of
federal expenditures for disaster assistance) in emergency assistance through declaration “creep.”
Critics assert that once an incident qualifies as an emergency, the odds are improved that a similar
incident in the future will be declared as an emergency. The Post-Katrina Act also uses a broad
definition to define a catastrophe. It could be argued that the addition of a broad definition of a
catastrophe could also lead to declaration “creep” of major disasters.
Congressional Research Service
17
Considerations for a Catastrophic Declaration: Issues and Analysis
The use of an arithmetical formula or sliding scale based on income or population to declare a
major disaster or an emergency is precluded by Section 320 of the Stafford Act. Amending the
Stafford Act to include a catastrophic declaration would be presumably be subject to the same
limitation—unless the amendment requires some form of measurable criteria to be applied.
One method that could be used to keep assistance costs down is legislative language that allows a
catastrophic declaration to be downgraded to a major disaster if it was determined that damages
did not merit a catastrophic declaration. Downgrading a catastrophic declaration, however, may
appear indecisive and create confusion.
Another consideration involves aspects of politics more than policy. It may be difficult for the
President to deny a request for a catastrophic declaration because the President might be seen as
failing to properly respond to a calamitous event—even if it were declared a disaster.
The predecessor to the NRF, the National Response Plan (NRP) contained guidelines for an
“Incident of National Significance” which was intended as a triggering mechanism for various
levels of response activities. It was eliminated however, because the designation caused confusion
during the Hurricane Katrina response—primarily because the designation established a different
leadership structure than was commonly used for “routine” disasters.36 One the one hand, a
catastrophic declaration could be designed to trigger a chain of command structure consisting of
higher levels of leadership and rank to address the catastrophe. On the other hand, altering the
command structure could create conflicts and confusion because it may be unclear as to who is in
charge of the incident. Similarly, a catastrophic declaration designed to alter the response in some
manner could also create additional layers of bureaucracy that impede or hinder the response.
Some may argue a catastrophic incident would not receive unique resources that are not already
authorized and provided for a major disaster declaration. If this is the case, one might question the
need for catastrophic declarations.
A full federal cost-share, if included in a catastrophic declaration, might tempt states to request a
catastrophic declaration to increase the amount of federal assistance provided for the incident. If
that became the case, a catastrophic declaration would incentivize requests for the declaration and
drive up the costs of federal funding for disaster relief.
Natural disasters on a truly catastrophic scale, such as the San Francisco earthquake and fire of
1906 and Hurricane Katrina, are infrequent, and might be called “100-year events.” If used for
such events the declaration might not be put to use for an extended period of time. If a
catastrophic declaration is used infrequently, it might become antiquated over time and fail to
meet the needs of the incident. Furthermore, infrequent use of the declaration could create
confusion because lawmakers and officials may have to become reacquainted with the declaration
before applying its provisions. Thus, it could be argued that these incidents would be better
handled through special legislation on an as-needed basis.
36 For similar problems regarding the role of the Federal Coordinating Officer (FCO) and the Principal Federal Official
(PFO), see CRS Report RL34758, The National Response Framework: Overview and Possible Issues for Congress, by
Bruce R. Lindsay.
Congressional Research Service
18
Considerations for a Catastrophic Declaration: Issues and Analysis
Potential Alternatives to a Catastrophic Declaration
Perhaps the strongest rationale for the development of a catastrophic declaration grew out of the
Hurricane Katrina response and recovery experience which began in 2005 and now, nearly six
years later, is still the focus of debate and the template for legislative attempts aimed at improving
response and recovery.
While considering the possible changes and improvements that could potentially be a part of a
catastrophic declaration, reviewing the changes that have been made since the Katrina disaster
could be useful.
The Post-Katrina Act made some significant changes to the Stafford Act. Since the changes were
not retroactive and could not be applied to the Katrina disaster, the actual program adjustments
have not been fully tested. These changes include
• The authority to provide case management for disaster victims.37 This change
provides assistance for a major disaster where large numbers of people may be
displaced and need help in understanding the assistance that is available, and to
connect people, particularly those with special needs, with other forms of help
from both public and private sources.
• Removal of the $5,000 cap on home repairs to make a home habitable.38
Under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, home repairs were limited to $5,000
with the remainder of work to be accomplished with a Small Business
Administration disaster loan, assuming an applicant qualified for the loan. Since
the Post-Katrina Act, repairs can be done for up to the maximum amount
available under the Individuals and Households Program (IHP).39
• Pilot Program for Public Assistance (PA). The PA pilot program accelerated
debris removal at the local level by permitting payment of straight time wages to
government employees involved in debris removal work and encouraged local
communities to have a debris removal plan in place by decreasing the state and
local share by 5% of costs (from 25% to 20%).40 This authority expired in 2008.
FEMA intends to develop regulations to implement provisions of the PA pilot.
This would include a public comment period and related parts of the rule-making
process. While FEMA considers this “a priority of the Agency” it has not yet
determined a timeframe for publication of the proposed rule.41
• Pilot Program for Individual Assistance (IA). This pilot program permitted
FEMA to make repairs on privately owned rental units to increase the available
housing stock after a disaster event.42 Reports by FEMA indicate that this was a
37 42 U.S.C. 5189d.
38 P.L. 109-295, 120 Stat. 1448.
39 Originally set at $25,000, with Consumer Price Index adjustments, the total amount available to households under
IHP is now in the $30,000 range. SBA loans can be for up to $200,000 for the repair of primary homes.
40 P.L. 109-295, 120 Stat. 1455.
41 E-mail to the author from Ted Litty, Senior Policy Advisor, Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security, May 18, 2011.
42 P.L. 109-295, 120 Stat. 1454.
Congressional Research Service
19
Considerations for a Catastrophic Declaration: Issues and Analysis
successful program that decreased temporary housing costs in comparison to
other housing alternatives. The authority for the program expired on December
31, 2008. As with the PA Pilot, FEMA released a report two years ago on the IHP
pilot program. The report concluded that “Analysis and recommendations on
additional authorities will be provided at a later date.”43 FEMA now has
determined that “through our existing authority, that we may repair multi-family
rental housing units for use by disaster survivors. We expect to implement this
authority in future disasters, as appropriate.”44
Taken together, these changes to Stafford created a more flexible framework that can more easily
be scaled up to meet the needs of extraordinary events. However, as the discussion of adding a
catastrophic declaration attests, there is considerable debate concerning whether additional
changes are necessary to increase FEMA’s ability to assist state and local governments and
individuals and families affected by disasters.
43 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Individuals and Households Pilot
Program, Fiscal Year 2009 Report to Congress, May 19, 2009, p. 15.
44 E-mail to the author from Ted Litty, Senior Policy Advisor, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Department of Homeland Security, May 18, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
20
Considerations for a Catastrophic Declaration: Issues and Analysis
Appendix. Sources
1871 Chicago Fire
Wayne Blanchard, Ph.D., Worst Disasters - Lives Lost (U.S.), Federal Emergency Management
Agency, FEMA Emergency Management Higher Education Project, July 5, 2006.
1900 Galveston Hurricane
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, The Great Galveston Hurricane of 1900,
August 30, 2007, http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/magazine/galv_hurricane/.
1906 San Francisco Earthquake
Wayne Blanchard, Ph.D., Worst Disasters - Lives Lost (U.S.), Federal Emergency Management
Agency, FEMA Emergency Management Higher Education Project, July 5, 2006.
1919 Influenza Pandemic
Wayne Blanchard, Ph.D., Worst Disasters - Lives Lost (U.S.), Federal Emergency Management
Agency, FEMA Emergency Management Higher Education Project, July 5, 2006.
1929 Great Mississippi Flood
Hydrologic Information Center, Flood Losses: Compilation of Flood Loss Statistics, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Weather Service, Silver Spring, MD, February
1, 2011.
1964 Alaska Earthquake/Tsunami
United States Geological Survey, 40th Anniversary of “Good Friday” Earthquake Offers New
Opportunities for Public and Building Safety Partnerships, Reston, VA, March 26, 2004,
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=106.
1969 Hurricane Camille
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration /National Weather Service, Hurricane Camille
1969, Flowood, MS, August 20, 2010, http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jan/?n=
1969_08_17_hurricane_camille.
Edward N. Rappaport , Jose Fernandez-Partagas, and Jack Beven, The Deadliest Atlantic
Tropical Cyclones, 1492 - Present, APPENDIX 1: Atlantic tropical cyclones causing at least 25
deaths, April 22, 1997, http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdeadlya1.html.
Congressional Research Service
21
Considerations for a Catastrophic Declaration: Issues and Analysis
1974 Xenia (Easter) Tornado Outbreak
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Weather Service Commemorates Nation’s
Worst Tornado Outbreak, March 31, 1999, http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/storms/release.html.
1978 Love Canal
Eckardt C. Beck, The Love Canal Tragedy, Environmental Protection Agency, January 1979,
http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/lovecanal/01.htm.
2008 Hurricane Ike
Robbie Berg, Tropical Cyclone Report: Hurricane Ike, National Hurricane Center, AL092008,
May 3, 2010, p. 9, http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL092008_Ike_3May10.pdf.
1980 Mount St. Helens
Robert I. Tilling, Lyn Topinka, and Donald A. Swanson, Economic Impact of the May 18, 1980
Eruption, United States Geological Survey, Eruptions of Mount St. Helens: Past, Present, and
Future: USGS Special Interest Publication, 1990.
1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake
Robert A. Page, Peter H. Stauffer, and James W. Hendley II, Progress Toward A Safer Future
Since the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake, United States Geological Survey, U.S. Geological
Survey Fact Sheet 151-99 Online Version 1.0, 1999, http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1999/fs151-99/.
1992 Hurricane Andrew
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Famous Hurricanes of the 20th and 21st
Century In the United States 1900 - 2004, September 16, 2010.
1995 Chicago Heat Wave
Jim Angel, The 1995 Heat Wave in Chicago, Illinois, Illinois State Climatologist Office,
Champaign, IL, http://www.isws.illinois.edu/atmos/statecli/General/1995Chicago.htm.
1989 Hurricane Hugo
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Famous Hurricanes of the 20th and 21st
Century In the United States 1900 - 2004, September 16, 2010.
1994 Northridge Earthquake
United States Geological Survey, Alaska and Washington Yield Largest U.S. Earthquakes ... Most
Significant Earthquakes of ’96 Rattle China, Indonesia, February 13, 1997, http://www.usgs.gov/
newsroom/article_pf.asp?ID=975.
Congressional Research Service
22
Considerations for a Catastrophic Declaration: Issues and Analysis
2001 September 11th Terrorist Attacks
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon The United States, 9/11 Commission Report,
Notes On Chapter 9, Washington, DC, p. 552.
2005 Hurricane Katrina
Richard D. Knabb, Jamie R. Rhome, and Daniel P. Brown, Tropical Cyclone Report, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Hurricane Center, Hurricane Katrina 23-30
August 2005, August 9, 2006, p. 11, http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL122005_Katrina.pdf.
2008 Hurricane Ike
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Hurricane Center, Hurricane
History: Ike 2008, http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/HAW2/english/history.shtml#ike.
ARkStorm Scenario
United States Geological Survey, Overview Of The ARkStorm Scenario, Open File Report 2010-
1312, http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1312/of2010-1312_text.pdf.
New Madrid Earthquake
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee on Technology and
Innovation, The Reauthorization of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program: R&D
for Disaster Resilient Communities, Hearing, 111th Congress, June 11, 2009.
South San Andreas Fault Earthquake
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee on Technology and
Innovation, The Reauthorization of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program: R&D
for Disaster Resilient Communities, Hearing, 111th Congress, June 11, 2009.
Author Contact Information
Bruce R. Lindsay
Francis X. McCarthy
Analyst in Emergency Management Policy
Analyst in Emergency Management Policy
blindsay@crs.loc.gov, 7-3752
fmccarthy@crs.loc.gov, 7-9533
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the help of Keith Bea, a retired CRS Specialist in American
National Government.
Congressional Research Service
23