Today's Article
'A major disaster
declaration would
open up more ...
programs that might
be especially
appropriate' for the
Gulf area, states a
congressional study.
The American Spark
Feds Not Utilizing All Legal Options In Gulf Oil Disaster  

By Cliff Montgomery - June 28th, 2010

Washington so far has revealed a frightful inability to handle the growing BP oil spill disaster in the Gulf of
Mexico. But a congressional report released this May suggests a powerful legal option to government officials.

Potential Stafford Act Declarations for the Gulf Coast Oil Spill: Issues for Congress was created by the
Congressional Research Service (CRS) for Capitol Hill lawmakers. It points out that "an emergency
declaration under the Stafford Act would appear a potential approach to the current situation since it is
intended to lessen the impact of an imminent disaster.

"A major disaster declaration would open up more Stafford Act programs that might be especially appropriate
for the needs generated by the spill," added the study.

Currently the Gulf spill is "being addressed by a law fashioned for [such a] purpose, the Oil Pollution Act of
1990," states the report.

The American Spark below has provided readers with the CRS report summary:


"The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act...presents several options, and could
provide a number of programs, to address the Gulf Coast oil spill. That spill is currently being addressed by a
law fashioned for that purpose, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990."

"An emergency declaration under the Stafford Act would appear a potential approach to the current situation
since it is intended to lessen the impact of an imminent disaster. A major disaster declaration would open up
more Stafford Act programs that might be especially appropriate for the needs generated by the spill.

"FEMA assistance can be rapid and flexible, but it also would need to be carefully delineated to avoid
duplication of benefits and general confusion when working in the milieu of [the Oil Pollution Act of 1990].

"Under that law, which provides both authorities and a fund for compensation, the incident is currently being
addressed and the federal response coordinated.

"During the previous large spill, the Exxon Valdez in 1989, the President turned down the governor of Alaska’s
two requests for an emergency declaration. The rationale for the turndowns was that a declaration by the
President would hinder the government’s litigation against Exxon that promised substantial compensation for
the incident.

"Using a Stafford Act declaration, either an emergency or a major disaster declaration, for Gulf Coast states
that are now approaching the fifth anniversary of the Hurricane Katrina landfall would present not only a
reminder of difficult, lingering issues from that disaster in 2005 but also an opportunity for a second chance at
long-term recovery assistance.

"Managing public expectations is difficult even in the smallest disaster event. Working with a region that is
aware of the potential aid under Stafford and mistrustful of its delivery is a hard challenge. Since FEMA would
be attempting to work in coordination with another set of authorities being carried out by other agencies and
departments, the complexity would only increase.

"Although FEMA has new leadership, it has compiled a mixed record over the last few years, from an
accelerated response to Hurricanes Gustav and Ike to an arbitration process on large projects from the
Katrina recovery, that has called into question the judgment and accuracy of its
processes.

"Also, any additional work would add to the imbalance in the largely depleted Disaster Relief Fund (DRF). The
DRF is currently awaiting congressional action on the President’s request for $5.1 billion in supplemental
funds, which was made months before the oil spill occurred.

"Disasters can be complex events, raising thorny issues that resist the simplest solutions. When several
federal authorities are at work, those issues could multiply as questions of compensation for individuals and
communities are considered. It could be argued that the absence of increased federal involvement could serve
to simplify the response.

"At least one area--long-term recovery--is not directly addressed in [the Oil Pollution Act of 1990].

"Some might argue it is also an area that the federal government did not address in the aftermath of Katrina.

"In response to congressional direction, FEMA has published a draft National Disaster Recovery Framework
(NDRF). Perhaps amidst the current complications of overlapping authorities and funds, implementing that
framework could provide a viable and limited option for the use of Stafford Act authorities."



Like what you're reading so far? Then why not order a full year (52 issues) of  The American Spark
e-newsletter for only $15? A major article covering an story not being told in the Corporate Press will be
delivered to your email every Monday morning for a full year, for less than 30 cents an issue. Order Now!
Wait, why does an
independent news source
run advertisements? The
Spark answers in its
advertising policy.
* Please check out our ads--they
help keep this news site running.
Thanks!