(5 continued)

FDAA STRENGTHS

An excellent law (P.L. 93-288) and adequate funding for their mission of Disaster Recovery.

FDAA WEAKNESSES

Regulations are too voluninous and too restrictive. Forty
pages of regulations were issued to cover one paragraph
(Section 408) of the law.

Assistance is primarily provided for government agencies with
individual assistance provided by insurance, bank or SBA
loans. In extreme circumstances a pauper can qualify for
the 408 Program.

Overall guidance for Natural Disaster Preparedness is limited
yet the state and local communities are expected to make an
immediate response.

It

FDAA's pretentions are large but its performance is small. will only assist the states when it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no way whatsoever that the state can financially assist in a community's complete recovery.

FPA Coordination exists between the Regional Director and State Director. There is no equivalent state or local function.

FPA does not concern itself with any natural disaster preparedness.

6.

Looking at the problem from your perspective as State Director, what would be the optimum preparedness organization at the federal level? What would you find easiest to work with and most effective?

Answer:

A new Federal Disaster Administrative Agency should be created by either legislation or Executive Order. All disaster missions of preparedness, response and recovery and of civil defense should be given to it along with the authority to require all other federal agencies to participate in its missions when appropriate. All present budgets and unexpened funds should be transferred to it and its manpower authority should be no more than 50 percent of the total strength of the three agencies involved. The funds thus saved should be spent in the political subdivisions where the people are who need the disaster protection and not wasted on Washington based administrative personnel.

7.

What do you think are the strengths and weaknesses of your own state organizations? Where do you have problems that need

B.

C.

A.

B.

C.

D.

A.

A comprehensive disaster law that allows free transfer of personnel, funds and equipment between state agencies to this department in response to disaster.

An executive order that directs the state disaster
planning and recovery activities.

WEAKNESSES

Lack of adequate staff in certain key positions.

Limited field staff.

Motivation and professionalism of some local directors and elected officials leaves much to be desired.

Lack of a public information program.

CORRECTIONS REQUIRED

Strengthen the local organization by increased emphasis
on training and education of local directors and elected
officials. A substantial number of elected officials
do not consider Civil Defense a full-time position.

8.

What is your evaluation of the proposal made in testimony that all nuclear attack programs be fully funded and operated by the federal government under new legislation? This proposal would still permit state inputs to the programs.

Answer: We do not desire a fully federal funded program operated by the federal government. We feel it must be a joint federal/state/local program.

9.

If a clean division were made, with all natural disaster responsibilities going to the states and all nuclear attack responsibilities resting solely with the federal government, would that clear up some of the present management and other problems?

Answer: No, in fact, I see the problem compounded.

Actually,

County,
city and state must be equal partners in disaster planning.
The county and city initially must survive on their own
in a disaster; it is only after the passage of time that
state and federal response are brought on the scene.
chaos would be created under the "clean division" concept.
If disaster preparedness for attack and natural disaster
are not combined into one all-risk program each will
suffer with financial malnutrition and both would
eventually die of monetary and leadership starvation.

10.

Does your emergency preparedness unit receive adequate
cooperation from other relevant state government departments?
Could other state agencies provide personnel on loan to
your department in times of crisis, emergency or disaster
to obviate the need for extended use of federally-funded
planning personnel for crisis operations?

Answer:

11.

Yes; Under Indiana P.L. 110 and Executive Order 9-75, each state agency responds to disaster. This department coordinates the state effort between city, county, state and federal agencies where there are numerous quasi-official agencies that meet with this department in frequent planning/coordination meetings and respond to disaster (i.e. American Red Cross, Salvation Army, Mennonite Disaster Service, CAP, etc.).

Please list in order of frequency the crises, emergencies,
or disasters most often faced by your state emergency
preparedness unit. Please list also in order of magnitude
of crisis or disaster.

Fortunately the U.S. has not participated in a nuclear
war. However, we feel this is a constant threat and must
be a continuous planning element.

Frequency and magnitude are in the same numerical order:

BRIG. GEN. WILLIAM WELLER

RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD

In response to your letter of July 14, 1976, in which you requested considered replies to several questions, we are pleased to submit the following:

1. One of the problems faced in the national preparedness effort is that there is a wide disparity in the adequacy of various state and local programs. Some citizens get very good emergency protection and others get very little, depending on where they happen to live. Can you suggest ways of making preparedness programs more uniform? Should the federal government mandate minimum standards for state and local programs?

Some variation in adequacy of state and local programs exists because of varying degrees of perception for the threat of nuclear attack and the potential for recovery after such an attack and for the onset of natural disaster. Programs located in low risk, low vulnerability areas do not need to maintain the same level of preparedness as may be needed elsewhere. The question of what is adequate is particularly subjective and is also influenced by varying attitudes of dependence or independence from central authority that are present within our federal system. On the other hand, certain restrictions must be placed on these varying attitudes toward autonomy when other people or organizations will be asked to provide an interrelated defense network or pay large scale bills when disaster occurs. I feel, therefore, that a total system of uniformity is unnecessary and unwise; this would foster the attitude of resistance to strong federal control. I would suggest, however, the formulation of guidelines to cover most aspects of preparedness. These can be left to state and local adoption supported by a system for: 1. incentives towards adoption and; 2. for pressure through open and public discussion, But, a few requirements must be adhered to. Where the lives of others are placed in jeopardy or when significant federal financial help is expected, rules and standards should be mandated and enforced. All levels of government should be encouraged to develop integrated preparedness plans which incorporate rules and guidelines for nuclear and natural disaster, and which can be analyzed, discussed, tested and re-examined. A few standards should be

The Honorable William Proxmire

July 29, 1976

insisted upon, but the process of preparedness and its constant updating is more important than any production set of rules.

The effects of preparedness for nuclear attack on the war strategy of the nation will require more strict standards in federal direction of nuclear preparedness than for natural disaster prepared-. ness. The current standards promulgated by DCPA have been accepted at both state and local level. Many of these standards assist local preparedness for all kinds of emergency response programs. Therefore measurement against these standards provide an index useful in evaluating total preparedness programs without necessarily directing standards in other areas.

2. What, in brief, will be the actual impact on your state programs of the changed federal philosophy concerning natural disaster and nuclear attack preparedness?

In my view, the present federal philosophy concerning preparedness will result in a further reduction in preparedness for nuclear disaster at local, city and county levels. Unless adjustments are made between the DCPA program and FDAA program, significant reductions in local coordinator training and exercises which have been sustained in the DCPA program will occur, thus deteriorating total emergency preparedness as well as nuclear preparedness. State level emergency preparedness planning will not be seriously eroded and in the area of "crisis relocation" will be accelerated. Atrophy of our readiness posture will result from deep cuts in our local structures (people, expertise, facilities, and equipment) and reductions in our ability to provide training, planning, and operational control from the state level. But the federal philosophy should be thought of as a variable not a constant. FDAA may be induced, for example, to assume responsibility for certain local training, planning, and operating, regardless of near term changes in the federal structure, or announced philosophy. Hopefully, a variety of relatively small adjustments can be made in the system whether or not an optimum federal organization is achieved. I am certain that pressure to induce change and to stimulate coordination necessary to react to future change would be useful, regardless of organizational outcome.

3. Do state organizations have the management capability to keep pace with the DCPA Management System?

In general, state organizations exhibit somewhat different characteristics than does the DCPA management system. State organizations are not as deeply involved in national level nuclear technicalities, and expertise in various specialties is not so available. On the other hand, state organizations have developed a deeper understanding