federal funding and financing programs...

1CHAPTER

3

Federal Funding and Financing Programs Post-Disaster

Antoinette M. Jackson

I. Introduction

In recent years, the United States has seen an increase of natural and

human-made disasters that have required the need for governmental

funding. These disasters and emergencies have ranged from hurricanes,

fires, floods, and drought to terrorism, oil spills, and hazards associated

with nuclear power plants.1 There are many sources that work to predict

the top disaster threats to the United States by providing safety warnings,

and because of these prediction systems, the number of lives lost has

begun to decrease. However, Matthew Kohn, a professor at the University

of California–Los Angeles, has gathered statistics showing that although

the loss of life has decreased, the number of people left homeless and dis-

placed due to these disasters has increased.2 As a result, this has increased

the need for state and, more specifically, federal post-disaster funding.

This chapter will provide an overview of the history of how the fed-

eral government became involved in disaster response. It will also explain

how disasters are declared and thus become eligible for federal funding.

The chapter will conclude by providing an overview of the various disas-

ter funding programs and incentives, as well as provide a short discussion

about public support.

giL21788_01_c01_p001-028.indd 3giL21788_01_c01_p001-028.indd 3 6/17/13 1:54 PM6/17/13 1:54 PM

Chapter One4

Although there are many funding programs designated for disasters, most leg-

islation is passed in response to the disaster after the needs for appropriate response

have been identified. The issue raised in this chapter is not entirely when the funds

are designated or appropriated by Congress but rather how the funds are distributed

post-disaster and the responsiveness of the agencies handling the distribution.

II. Creation of Funding Sources

A. National Response to Disasters

The coordination of the federal government’s response to domestic disasters can be

traced to as early as the Congressional Act of 1803. This act was created to provide

assistance to a town in New Hampshire after an extensive fire. After this act, legisla-

tion was passed more than 100 times to respond to natural disasters such as floods,

fires, hurricanes, and earthquakes. In the early 1930s, the Reconstruction Finance

Corporation, which was created to provide assistance to railroads, financial institu-

tions, and corporations, offered loans for repair after earthquakes and, subsequently,

following other disasters.3 These duties were expanded to include aid to agriculture

and financing for state and local public needs as a result of the Emergency Relief

Act of 1932. These loans have been recognized as the earliest disaster loans provided

by the federal government. The Reconstruction Finance Corporation was abolished

under the Eisenhower administration in the 1950s and its powers were transferred to

several agencies, including the Housing and Home Finance Agency.4

Other early authority allowed the Bureau of Public Roads to provide funding

for highways and bridges damaged by natural disasters, and the Flood Control Act

provided authority to implement flood control projects. However, it was soon recog-

nized that the government did not have a comprehensive plan and that the scattered

approach was not as effective. The result was the creation of the Disaster Relief Act

of 1950. This legislation would provide better oversight and cooperation between

federal agencies while authorizing the president, rather than Congress, to manage the

disaster activities. The act also allowed that assistance could be distributed through

the American Red Cross.5 The Federal Disaster Assistance Administration was the

entity created as a result of the Disaster Relief Act, and it operated within the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to provide response and

recovery to the growing disasters that were being experienced in the United States.

As a wave of severe and massive natural disasters struck the U.S. in the 1960s and

1970s, it became more and more necessary for the federal government to respond to

them and provide recovery operations. In 1974, the Disaster Relief Act was further

expanded to set out regulation for presidential declarations of natural disasters.6 Even

with these steps, there were more than 100 federal agencies involved in responding

to natural disasters. Additionally, in 1979 following the nuclear power plant accident

at Three Mile Island, hazards associated with nuclear power plants were added to the

lists of emergencies that required federal attention and funding.7 Many agreed that


Federal Funding and Financing Programs Post-Disaster 5

the approach to handling these emergencies was haphazard and sought to decrease

the number of agencies and centralize the federal emergency functions.

Under Executive Order 12127, President Jimmy Carter centralized the federal

emergency functions by merging many of the disaster-related responsibilities into

one agency. The agency created was called the Federal Emergency Management

Agency (FEMA). It was created to coordinate “the federal government’s role in pre-

paring for, preventing, mitigating the effects of, responding to, and recovering from

all domestic disasters, whether natural or human-made, including acts of terror.”8

Since its inception, FEMA has struggled with creating a cohesive and responsive

agency. It has received harsh criticism as a result of its handling of several disasters,

including Hurricanes Hugo, Andrew, and Katrina, the terrorist attacks of 9/11, and

most recently Superstorm Sandy.9

In March 2003, along with 22 other federal agencies, programs, and departments,

the Department of Homeland Security was created as a stand-alone, cabinet-level

department. FEMA was among the agencies included in the new department. Homeland

Security now has the directive of creating a comprehensive and coordinated approach

and response to national security, which includes both natural and human-made disas-

ters and emergencies. The Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act, which

was signed into law in 2006, reorganized FEMA and includes a more comprehensive

and stronger preparedness mission for the agency.10

B. State and Local Responses to Disasters

Prior to the assistance that was provided by the federal government, each state was

required to provide response to natural disasters within its borders. However, as the

size of the disasters grew, states and local jurisdictions began to look more often

to the federal government for assistance and intervention. When a disaster occurs,

state and local governments are the first to respond to determine the level of the

emergency and the needs of those affected. They are also responsible for mobiliz-

ing state and local agencies and determining the level of resources it has to offer

on the state level. The emergency services for each state are directed through the

state’s homeland security or emergency management office.11 Most states have one

entity, but there are a number of states that have several agencies handling these

responsibilities.12 However, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has determined

that although many states appropriate some funds for disasters, the funding for most

states is very limited. Most states appropriate small amounts to a disaster account

legislatively but supplement these accounts after a disaster occurs through unobli-

gated state funds.13 Testimony provided to the CBO has indicated that there does

not appear to be a set standard or formula used by states to determine funding level

for emergencies, but most states are prepared to mobilize funding quickly as needed

through the use of general funds, rainy-day funds, and other funding as determined

by each individual state.

In 1993, Florida created a Disaster Trust Fund, which is funded from insurance

policy surcharges. These funds are then equally distributed to each county for local


Chapter One6

emergency management.14 The Governors Contingency and Emergency Fund for

Arizona allocates a small amount from its general funds for emergencies. There

were few examples found of other states that similarly fund their emergency man-

agement in advance.15

If the state determines that it does not have the resources necessary to address the

disaster, its state agency along with FEMA assesses the damages to determine if the

damages are too costly for the state. If this is determined, the governor may request

a federal disaster declaration, but it is still expected to significantly contribute to the

recovery. As disasters increase, states are becoming more and more dependent upon

the resources that are provided by the federal government.

C. Process for Presidential Declaration

The presidential process for declaring a disaster allows the president to authorize a

declaration for a major disaster or emergency that cannot be handled by state and

local resources.16 There are essentially two types of declarations that can be made

by the president. The first is an emergency declaration that is issued to protect pub-

lic health and safety or to avert a major catastrophe. Emergency declarations are

usually more limited in scope and require the assistance of the federal government

for recovery or prevention of the emergency. The second is a major disaster decla-

ration, which is issued to help a state or local community after a disaster or cata-

strophic event. The assistance can be given in the form of individual assistance that

is directed to individuals and families or it can be public assistance to address infra-

structure repairs. Major disaster declarations are often a result of natural disasters

that require long-term funding from the federal government to assist with recovery

and rebuilding.17 FEMA also tracks Fire Management Assistance Declarations. Fire

Management Assistance Declarations are declarations used to provide assistance for

management, control, and mitigation of fires on public and private land.18

A requirement of a presidential declaration is that the governor of the affected

state must first request the declaration. The gubernatorial request must provide

information regarding state and local resources and certify to the compliance of

cost sharing. The governor makes this determination based upon knowledge of state

resources and the level of the damage. The president then has the discretion whether

to grant the request and may then declare a disaster based upon this request.19

As a part of FEMA’s assessment of the level of state and local assistance for a

disaster, it conducts a Preliminary Damage Assessment (PDA). The PDA process “is

a mechanism used to determine the impact and magnitude of damage and the result-

ing unmet needs of individuals, businesses, the public sector, and the community

as a whole.”20 The PDA, which is used to support a governor’s request for disas-

ter funding, looks at six factors: (1) estimated costs of the assistance, (2) localized

impacts, (3) insurance coverage, (4) hazard mitigation, (5) recent multiple disasters,

and (6) programs of other federal assistance. The team conducting the PDA is made

up of at least one state and one federal official.21 However, the requirement of a joint



PDA may be waived in those cases of “unusual severity and magnitude.”22 As FEMA

assesses estimated costs, it considers as a threshold of $1 million of public assistance

damage and an estimated threshold of $1.30 per capita in estimated disaster costs

dependent on the size of the state.23 These factors also consider the local impact of

infrastructure damage at approximately $3.27 per capita, amount of insurance cov-

erage, and whether there were mitigation efforts made that could have lessened the

disaster’s impact.24 Additionally, the state may request a reduction of its state share

in those cases of extreme economic impact.25

Although all gubernatorial requests are reviewed by FEMA, the agency consid-

ers whether other federal programs are available to respond to the emergency or

disaster. Because of the differences in locations and factors impacting each state,

the disaster requests have varied in type and scope. However, since 1953, when the

presidential declaration process was put into place, a disaster request has been made

and granted to every state and the numbers of presidential declarations have contin-

ued to rise.26 In fact, almost half of all presidential disaster declarations have come

from the last three presidents: President Barack Obama, President George W. Bush,

and President Bill Clinton.27 As a result, the amount of money spent on disasters has

also increased as the disaster declarations increase.

III. Identification of Resources

A. Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act

The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, known as the

Stafford Act, “finds and declares that—

(1) Because disasters often cause loss of life, human suffering, loss of income

and property loss and damage; and

(2) Because disasters often disrupt the normal function of governments and

communities”

—the president can enable federal agencies to provide assistance in response to these

disasters through the presidential disaster declaration process.28 Congress created

this act to “alleviate the suffering and damage which result from such disasters.”29

The Stafford Act specifically establishes programs for preparedness and miti-

gation assistance, coordination of agencies, and procedures for presidential decla-

rations, and identifies assistance programs. Eligible applicants under the Stafford

Act can be states, local governments, individuals, families, and owners of certain

nonprofit facilities such as hospitals. Not everyone affected by a disaster is eligible

for aid under the Stafford Act. If an individual, family, or business is determined to

have sufficient insurance coverage or financial capacity, they may not be eligible for


Chapter One8

assistance under the Act. The act provides for aid to those people in need of assis-

tance as determined by FEMA officials. The Stafford Act provides for a number of

different assistance programs available in response to a disaster or emergency. The

major funding programs under the Stafford Act include (1) General Federal Assis-

tance, (2) Essential Assistance and (3) Hazard Mitigation.30

General Federal Funding provides support to state and local response and recov-

ery efforts. This assistance may or may not reimburse the federal agency providing

the assistance. It also provides for the coordination of relief assistance such as evacu-

ations and recovery. Most important, the funding from General Federal Assistance

provides for an accelerated federal response as needed “to save lives, prevent human

suffering or mitigate severe damage”—which may not be prevented if the assistance

is not provided.31

Essential Assistance offers assistance to address immediate threats to life and

property. Assistance under this portion of the act includes the distribution of medi-

cine, medical equipment, food, and other consumable supplies and services. The

work done under Essential Assistance also includes search and rescue, medical care,

clearance of roads, construction of temporary bridges, demolition of unsafe struc-

tures, and provision of temporary facilities. The federal share under this section of

the act cannot be less than 75 percent of eligible cost of the assistance. The work

under this section of the act is often performed by the Department of Defense.32

Hazard Mitigation allows the president to determine that the contribution of

funding for hazard mitigation measures is cost-effective and will reduce the risk of

future damages and loss. This may include land acquisition to erect a new structure

for relocation out of a hazardous area to prevent or mitigate additional suffering as

a result of the disaster.33

The Public Assistance Grant Program provides grants to state, tribal, and local

governments so that they are able to quickly and effectively respond to a disaster.

(For examples of the use of Public Assistance Programs, see chapters 5, 11, and 17.)

This program is also available to certain private nonprofit corporations. The repair,

restoration, and replacement of governmental facilities are often covered by these

funds in addition to other immediate response activities such as debris and wreckage

removal and other emergency matters.34

Other funding programs under the act include:

Funding Programs Authorization35

Federal facilities repair, restoration, and replacement of federal facilities

Repair, Restoration, and

Replacement of Damaged

Facilities

repair, restoration, or replacement of a public facility or

private nonprofit facility

Debris removal clear debris and wreckage from lands and waters publicly

and privately owned



Funding Programs Authorization

Federal Assistance to Individu-

als and Households

assistance to individuals and households unable to meet

certain needs through other means, including temporary

housing, provisions for repairs, replacement housing, or

permanent construction of housing

Unemployment assistance provides unemployment assistance to those not eligible for

unemployment benefits

Food coupons and distributions provides food coupons from the Department of Agriculture

to those low-income households unable to purchase nutri-

tious food as long as it is determined necessary

Food Commodities authorizes emergency mass feeding

Relocation Assistance authorizes that no person will be denied assistance because

they are unable to meet occupancy requirements

Legal Services coordinates federal agencies with state and local bar asso-

ciations to provide legal services to low-income individuals

who need legal assistance

Crisis Counseling and Training provides counseling services and financial assistance for

those whose mental health problems have been caused or

aggravated as a result of a disaster

Community Disaster Loans offers loans to local governments who have sustained sub-

stantial loss of tax and revenues and need the funding in

order to continue their governmental functions

Emergency Communications establishes temporary communication systems in anticipa-

tion and during a disaster and makes the systems available

to state and local officials

Emergency Public

Transportation

establishes temporary transportation to places necessary to

resume normal life such as governmental offices, supply

centers, stores, post offices, schools, and major employ-

ment centers

Fire Management Assistance provides assistance for the management, mitigation, and

control of fires whose destruction of public or private for-

est land or grassland would be determined a major disaster

In December 2011, Congress passed the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act,

which provided an additional $6.4 billion in the Disaster Relief Fund to remain

available until expended.36 The Disaster Relief Fund is funded through FEMA’s bud-

get in its annual appropriations for major disasters declared pursuant to the Staf-

ford Act. Until recently, funds have remained in the FEMA budget for disasters and

emergencies without fully depleting the budget. However, due to the rising number

of natural disasters as determined by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-

istration (NOAA) National Weather Service, the budget has become vulnerable to

the rising costs and the increased requests for state assistance through presidential

disaster declarations.


Chapter One10

B. Community Development Block Grants Disaster Recovery Funds

Community Development Block Grants Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funds may

be appropriated by Congress to provide additional funding in the event of a disaster.

These CDBG-DR funds are provided in addition to those funds administered by

FEMA, the Small Business Administration and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

The CDBG-DR funds are administered by HUD as grants to state and local govern-

ments to supplement other disaster programs. Congress has appropriated CDBG-DR

funds since 1993 as needed for disaster recovery assistance. To date, Congress has

appropriated the following CDBG-DR funding:

• FY 2013—$16 billion to assist recovery from Superstorm Sandy ($15.18

billion after sequester)37

• FY 2012—$400 million to assist recovery from multiple disasters occurring

in 2011

• FY 2010—$100 million to assist recovery in areas affected by severe storms

and flooding from March 2010 through May 2010

• FY 2008—$6.1 billion to assist recovery from all 2008 disasters, including

Hurricanes Ike, Gustav, and Dolly

• FY 2008—$300 million to assist recovery from the Midwest floods

• FY 2008—$3.0 billion to supplement the LA homeowner assistance program

• FY 2006—$16.7 billion to assist the victims of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita,

and Wilma

• FY 2005—$150 million to assist recovery from multiple disasters

• FY 2002—$2.783 billion to assist post–9/11 New York City’s recovery

efforts

• FY 2001—$700 million to assist post–9/11 New York City’s recovery efforts



• FY 1997—$500 million to assist recovery from upper Midwest floods


• FY 1995—$39 million to assist with recovery from the Oklahoma City

bombing

• FY 1994—$180 million to assist with recovery from Tropical Storm Alberto

• FY 1994—$225 million for the Northridge earthquake

• FY 1994—$425 million for the recovery from the earthquake in Southern

California and Midwest floods

• FY 1993—$85 million to assist with recovery from Hurricanes Andrew and

Iniki and Typhoon Omar38

Because CDBG-DR funds are often a more flexible funding source and not

always paid on a reimbursement basis, CDBG-DR funds have even been considered



to be the best-suited federal funds for addressing post-disaster needs.39 Additionally,

CDBG funds have the ability for local jurisdictions to target the use of the funds

with private investment and stimulate redevelopment. The CDBG-DR funds are pro-

vided as a grant to communities to assist with the needs of its low-income residents

impacted by a disaster. As long as the funds do not duplicate funding from other

disaster sources and benefit at least 51 percent of the low- and moderate-income

population, they can be used for housing, infrastructure, economic development, and

the prevention of additional damage.40 Eligible activities range from acquisition and

infrastructure costs for housing, technical assistance, building of public facilities,

planning and administration costs, job training, and financial support to small busi-

ness, just to name a few.41

The national objective set out for regular CDBG funding must also be met

for the CDBG-DR funds. These three objectives are to (1) benefit low- and

moderate-income people, (2) aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight,

and (3) meet other urgent community development needs because the conditions

pose a serious and immediate threat to the community.42 Although populations

often shift as a result of people relocated after a disaster, the funding is based upon

pre-disaster data to determine a jurisdiction’s funding eligibility.

Since fiscal year 1993, HUD has had approximately $40 billion appropriated

to assist with the recovery of multiple and specific disaster and recovery efforts,

including $16.7 billion that was appropriated to assist the victims of Hurricanes

Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. When the funds are made available, eligible governments

must develop and submit an action plan before receipt of the grants. The action plan

must describe the needs and uses of the CDBG-DR funds. Although federal funding

requirements must be met in the disbursement of these funds, the Stafford Act autho-

rizes the secretary of HUD to suspend certain requirements of funding except those

related to public notice, nondiscrimination, fair housing, labor standards, environ-

mental standards, and activities that benefit low- and moderate-income people.43 The

suspension of certain requirements eliminates some of the impediments to utilizing

the funds and allows jurisdictions to more promptly disburse the funds.

C. HOME Funds

HOME funds are authorized under the HOME Investment Partnerships Act, as

amended.44 These funds provide for a participating jurisdiction to receive an annual

allocation based upon a formula grant for the purpose of creating low-income hous-

ing. As with CDBG-DR funds, HOME statutory and regulatory requirements may be

suspended for disaster activities. HUD may reduce the match requirement for those

disaster areas in order to address the damage and may determine that competitive

bidding is not required.45 Grantees will be required to designate the disaster activities

in its consolidated plan so that the activities are distinguishable. Any HOME funds

used must also meet the “duplication of benefits” test to ensure that the same activi-

ties are not being paid for by multiple governmental agencies or private insurance.


Chapter One12

D. Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program

The Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program, which is the loan guarantee provision of

the CDBG-DR program, may also be utilized for the redevelopment of disaster areas.

Those communities entitled to CDBG-DR funds may receive loan guarantees equal to

five times their entitled amount, and those not in entitled areas may receive a guaran-

tee against the state’s grant program for a period of 20 years. These funds can be uti-

lized for property acquisition, rehabilitation of publicly owned property, infrastructure,

housing rehabilitation, public facilities, and economic development. The funds must

be administered pursuant to CDBG-DR statutory requirements, and unlike the CDBG-

DR and HOME funds, authority has not been provided to waive these requirements.46

E. Capital Fund Emergency/Natural Disaster Funds/Disaster Housing Assistance Program

Congress has appropriated funds for housing authorities from capital funds to be

used for unforeseen emergencies and natural disasters in the amount of $20 million.

Unlike some of the other disaster funds available, those emergencies and disasters

that have been identified by presidential declaration are excluded.47 These funds also

are available to a public housing authority to be used for safety and security reasons.

The safety and security grants are for a maximum of $250,000. However, HUD has

the discretion to determine the amount that will be granted for natural disasters. The

funds are available to a public housing authority (PHA) who sets out the reason for

the funding, the number of units that will be served by the funding, and the severity

of the emergency or disaster through a preliminary request to the HUD local field

office. The emergency or disaster must pose a threat to public housing tenants and

will be funded for capital expenditures on a one-time basis. Often, the identified

needs for disasters exceed the amounts reimbursed by insurance and other sources.48

PHAs that require immediate funding for temporary repairs to ensure habitability

or the structural integrity of units and buildings may request preliminary disaster

grant funding from HUD. These preliminary grant applications for funding are usu-

ally reviewed and funded by HUD within 30 days. Unlike as required by other PHA

funding, the authority is not required to hold public meetings or consult its residents

before applying for these funds. However, resident and public consultation is rec-

ommended when possible and the PHA must inform the residents of any funding

received by the PHA.

The Bush administration set up the Disaster Housing Assistance Program

(DHAP) as a solution to provide long-term rental housing assistance to those fami-

lies affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Families receiving rental assistance

from FEMA were transferred to the DHAP where local public housing authorities

administered the program. Through the DHAP, HUD oversaw the administration of

rental vouchers for approximately 45,000 families.49 Although no additional funding



has been put into the DHAP, the program set up the model for the transition of long-

term rental assistance to be transitioned from FEMA to HUD should future disasters

require this type of long-term administration. (For further discussion on the use of

vouchers post-disaster, see chapter 14.)

F. Small Business and USDA Loans

Business owners may receive low-interest loans from the Small Business Adminis-

tration (SBA) and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) after a disaster. These

loans may be used to replace real estate, business property, machinery and equip-

ment, and other inventory damaged or destroyed as a result of a disaster. SBA loans

can be used for both economic injury to meet financial obligations and physical

damage assistance to replace property and inventory. The loans can be in amounts

up to $2 million. These loans can also be made available to nonprofit organizations

impacted by a disaster.50 (For further discussion of small business redevelopment

post-disaster, see chapters 8 and 9.)

The USDA offers assistance for agriculture related disasters, such as drought

and emergencies affecting crop production. The USDA provides assistance to farm-

ers and other businesses affected by these disaster conditions. This assistance can

be through emergency loans, moving water to livestock, emergency haying, and

other measures that provide assistance and response to these conditions. The USDA,

through the Farm Service Agency, also administers programs that address crop loss,

livestock loss, and damaged farm loss.51

G. U.S. Department of Commerce Disaster Relief Opportunity Funds

The U.S. Department of Commerce, through the Economic Development Admin-

istration (EDA), provides long-term disaster recovery grants to communities via a

competitive application process. In fiscal year 2012, Congress appropriated $200

million in Disaster Relief Opportunity Funds for the EDA to allocate to local com-

munities across three categories: strategic planning and technical assistance; infra-

structure design and development; and capital to leverage additional funds.52 In its

request for applications, the EDA notes that applicants must make a direct connec-

tion between the funds and community resiliency, describing resiliency as follows

within the context of economic development:

Disaster resiliency is broadly defined as a community’s or region’s ability

to reduce the probability of system failure and other negative consequences

resulting from a disaster or incident. Disaster resiliency also focuses on

reducing the time a community needs to recover from a disaster. Within

the context of economic development, disaster resiliency should include


Chapter One14

methods and measures to mitigate the potential for future economic injury,

promote a faster “up-time” for economic anchors (e.g. key businesses and/

or industries), and enable a stronger capacity to troubleshoot vulnerabilities

within the regional economy.

There exists a need to deepen the capacity of communities to be disas-

ter resilient and absorb the “shock” of disasters and incidents. Enhancing

community resiliency becomes a multi-dimensional effort emphasizing

engagement and support from all aspects of the community, including from

economic development practitioners. Some examples include efforts to

broaden the industrial base with diversification initiatives, enhance business

retention and expansion programs to further strengthen existing high-growth

businesses, and comprehensive planning efforts that involve extensive

engagement from the community to define and implement a collective vision

for recovery in response to disasters and incidents.53

To be eligible, applicants have to be located in an area that received a major presi-

dential disaster designation during the time specified in the notice of funding avail-

ability.54 Eligible recipients include states or political subdivisions of states; public

or private nonprofit organizations or associations; district organizations (e.g., eco-

nomic development districts, regional planning commissions); institutions of higher

education; and Indian tribes or consortium of tribes.55

Examples of post-disaster economic recovery projects funded in part through

these EDA funds range from direct small business assistance to infrastructure

improvements. For example, following the 2007 tornadoes, Greensburg, Kansas,

decided to rebuild as a model of green and sustainable development, and the city

sought and received EDA funding. (For a case study of Greensburg’s redevelop-

ment, see chapter 5.) The $2.35 million grant was used specifically to finance

“the construction of basic infrastructure in their central business district to serve

a USDA Rural Development-supported business incubator project. This incubator

provides much needed space at affordable rent for businesses wishing to re-locate

downtown.”56 Other examples of EDA’s Disaster Relief Opportunity grants include

upgrading railroads following floods, supporting a university to help vulnerable

businesses recover from natural and human-made disasters, creating a revolving

loan fund to provide low-cost capital to businesses rebuilding in a disaster-damaged

area, and many other types of local economic resiliency projects.57

H. U.S. Department of Labor National Emergency Grants

Another critical federal funding source designated to support communities’ eco-

nomic recovery post-disaster is the U.S. Department of Labor’s National Emergency

Grant (NEG) program, which was authorized as part of the Workforce Investment

Act of 1998.58 The grants provide supplemental funding to quickly reemploy or

train individuals following unexpected events that lead to significant job loss. (For

a discussion on the use of the National Emergency Grants to support workforce



redevelopment in Mississippi following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, see chap-

ter 17.) NEG funds can be sought when a community’s needs exceed the funding

already available through the Workforce Investment Act.59

Eligible applicants are generally state workforce agencies, local workforce

investment boards, or Indian and Native American tribes.60 Following a disaster,

the NEG program can be used to “provide temporary employment, humanitarian

services, and retraining for workers affected by natural disasters and other cata-

strophic events.”61 In its most recent assessment of the NEG program (in 2006),

the U.S. Government Accountability Office noted that while post-disaster grants

were on average awarded significantly faster than other NEG funds, state and local

government recipients reported that consistent guidance across local Department of

Labor regional offices and information about best practices would aid in the efficient

deployment of the funds.62

I. Agricultural Disaster Assistance Act

The Agricultural Disaster Assistance Act was passed in early August 2012 to provide

funding to farmers who have experienced higher than normal deaths of livestock due

to extreme weather. These funds also cover losses to farm-raised fish, honeybees,

and tree production due to adverse weather.63 According to the summaries provided

to Congress, this bill was introduced to address the extreme drought being experi-

enced by more than 65 percent of the country. This act, which will cost approxi-

mately $383 million, reauthorized previous livestock disaster legislation that had

expired in 2011.64

Recent Developments in Federal Government Support of Tribal Governments’ Disaster Recovery EffortsDorcas R. Gilmore and Diane M. Standaert

Tribal governments are sovereign nations and, as such, govern and manage the safety

and security of their land, resources, and citizens. Tribal government borders often cross

multiple local jurisdictions within any given state and, in some circumstances, cross state

boundaries, which can create unique challenges in planning for and responding to disas-

ters. Examples of disasters on tribal lands were highlighted by the Associated Press:

At Santa Clara Pueblo [in northern New Mexico], two-thirds of the tribe’s forests

have been charred by wildfires that have started outside the reservation’s boundar-

ies over the last 14 years. The most recent one has left the tribe with the threat of

flooding for the past two summers.

In Montana, floodwaters from the Little Bighorn River and other waterways dev-

astated parts of the Crow Indian Nation in 2011, swamping homes, businesses and

churches.

continued


Chapter One16

Recent Developments in Federal Government Support of Tribal Governments’ Disaster Recovery Efforts (continued)

A Havasupai village at the bottom of the Grand Canyon—accessible only by foot,

mule or helicopter—was flooded in 2010, forcing the evacuation of tourists and

causing more than $1.6 million in damages. That marked the first disaster declara-

tion in Arizona for which a sovereign tribal nation was the sole applicant.65

Although tribal governments are recognized as sovereign nations, until recently, tribal gov-

ernments were more akin to local governments than sovereign states within the construct

of federal disaster relief and recovery. Prior to the passage of legislation following Super-

storm Sandy, federally recognized tribal governments were not permitted to make a direct

request for a major disaster or emergency declaration from the president under the Stafford

Act. Instead, they were resigned to making a request through the state or states in which

the tribal communities were located. The previous law was considered not only in contra-

diction to tribes’ sovereignty, but also failed to account for whether the tribes—not just the

states—had adequate resources to respond to and recover from the unique and dispropor-

tionate impact that disasters had on their communities.66

Tribal governments had been pushing for a change in these rules for more than a decade,

seeking the ability to directly access federal relief.67 By 2012, FEMA, the American Red

Cross, and the Obama administration all publicly declared their support for a legislative

change to the Stafford Act that would authorize a tribal government to make a request

directly to the president for a federal emergency or disaster declaration.68

On January 29, 2013, Congress made this important change as part of the federal Sandy

Recovery Improvement Act of 2013 to provide more than $50 billion in supplemental

aid.69 The legislation also included a provision amending the Stafford Act granting feder-

ally recognized tribal governments a direct route to request federal relief aid.70 Specifi-

cally, it provides tribal governments the option of either applying directly to the president

for post-disaster aid or through the governor of the state in which they are located.

Applauding the amendment, FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate noted, “This amendment

to the Stafford Act follows on the President’s commitments to Indian Country, strength-

ens the government to government relationship between FEMA and federally recognized

Tribes, and will enhance the way FEMA supports Tribal communities before, during, and

after disasters.”71

Tribal government leaders heralded the long-sought change.72 Former governor of the

Santa Clara Pueblo Walter Dasheno stated, “We should not be treated as third world coun-

tries. . . . We should be there at the table, sitting across from the president, addressing our

needs and concerns. I think we’ve been on the back burner for a number of years.”73 The

Santa Clara Pueblo bore the brunt of the destruction caused by the 2011 Las Conchas

wildfires in New Mexico, which, as noted, destroyed the majority of the community’s

woodlands and increased the susceptibility to floods. Robert Holden, deputy director of

the National Congress of American Indians, highlighted the importance of the amendment

in eliminating delays in emergency response. He stated further, “It was the frustration over

the years in terms of the interaction and the process and how tribal lands and citizens have

been shortchanged and left stranded by natural and technical disasters. . . . It’s just unfair




and inequitable, and we’re just trying to right what should be righted.”74 Finally, Navajo

Nation President Ben Shelly reaffirmed these sentiments:

The Navajo Nation has had a distinct government since before the United States

gained its independence from a colonial power. The United States is committed by

law and treaty to the self-governance of the Navajo Nation, and working with us on

a government-to-government basis. The passage of this bill is a welcoming sign of

the blossoming recognition nationally of the sovereignty of the Navajo Nation as a

co-equal government within the United States.75

The need for allowing federally recognized tribal governments to directly access federal

aid, rather than depend upon state governors, is exemplified by the following incidents:

1. Cheyenne River Indian Reservation

The 2009 and 2010 ice storms in South Dakota had a devastating impact on the Cheyenne

River Indian Reservations and other native communities. Then-governor Mike Rounds

sought on February 24, 2010 and received on March 10, 2010 a presidential declaration

of a major disaster for impacted counties, including portions of the reservations located

in those counties.76 This declaration provided $23 million in “Public Assistance requested

by the Governor available to State and eligible local governments and certain private non-

profit organizations on a cost-sharing basis for emergency work and the repair or replace-

ment of facilities damaged by the severe winter storm” in 29 enumerated counties “and

those portions of the Cheyenne River Indian Reservation, Sisseton-Wahpeton Indian Res-

ervation, and Standing Rock Indian Reservation that lie within these counties. This decla-

ration also made Hazard Mitigation Grant Program assistance requested by the Governor

available for hazard mitigation measures in all counties and Tribal Reservations within the

State of South Dakota.”77

When the governor’s office issued its press release announcing the presidential declaration

of disaster, it failed to state that the reservations were included in this declaration cover-

age, creating confusion, criticism, and delay.78 This omission compounded already existing

criticisms that the governor acted too slowly in seeking the presidential declaration.79

2. Quinault Nation

The experience of the Quinault Nation following a severe storm in 2007 in Washington state

underscores the importance of the 2013 amendment to the Stafford Act. According to Fawn

Sharp, president of the Quinault Nation, “The Quinault Reservation experienced an eight-

day power and water outage. Because we didn’t have authority to declare a natural disaster,

services on our reservation were offered inconsistently. Citizens in Queets, which is in Jef-

ferson County, were treated differently than our citizens in Taholah and Amanda Park, in

Grays Harbor County. One was declared a disaster, but not the other.”80 The new law will

permit tribes to bypass such obstacles entirely by providing a direct application process.

The streamlined process, which seeks to address the complications described above, is

now moving into implementation stage. As of February 2013, rulemaking and guidance for

continued


Chapter One18


implementing these changes are under way, as FEMA notes: “Fully implementing this historic provision will require consultation with Tribes and other stakeholders, particularly

as FEMA develops the administrative and programmatic requirements and procedures

necessary to execute the law. FEMA will provide interim guidance in the coming weeks

explaining how and when Tribal governments may seek declarations, while more compre-

hensive consultations and administrative procedures are undertaken.”81

While this change is a monumental step in providing a more equitable disaster response

system, other challenges to tribal and federal government coordination persist. For exam-

ple, in January 2013, the same month in which Congress recognized tribal sovereignty

for federal disaster aid purposes, a report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office

revealed the disparate service received by tribes as part of FEMA’s National Flood Insur-

ance Program (NFIP).82 NFIP, created by Congress in 1968 and managed by FEMA, pro-

vides federally backed flood insurance protection for property owners. As noted in Indian Country Today, “Flooding, the most common, destructive natural hazard in the U.S.,

causes catastrophic harm to tribal lands too, some of which flood repeatedly.”83

Summarizing its findings, the GAO reports:

First, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has not placed a high

priority on mapping rural areas, including many Indian lands, for flood risk, and

most tribal lands remain unmapped. Without flood hazard maps, tribal communi-

ties may be unaware of their flood risk, even in high-risk areas. Partly for this rea-

son, the risk of flooding is perceived as relatively low on many tribal lands. Further,

tribes may lack the resources and administrative capacity needed to administer

NFIP requirements, and NFIP premiums are often too high for low-income tribal

members. Finally, unique tribal issues can make participation difficult. For exam-

ple, some Indian tribes do not have reservations over which they can enact and

enforce the land use ordinances that are required for NFIP participation. Instead,

many have lands that were allotted to individuals rather than to a tribal entity, limit-

ing the tribes’ jurisdiction.84

The report concludes with recommendations concurred with by both FEMA and Tribal

representatives, such as the FEMA Administrator examining ways to make mapping of

tribal lands in flood-prone areas a higher priority.

Holden, of the National Congress of American Indians, underscores the importance of

continued vigilance in improving tribal government and federal government coordination

post-disaster: “There are just numerous instances where not only property but lives have

been lost and there has been economic disruption. . . . It’s throughout Indian Country.

Disasters aren’t restricted to certain areas.”85 Improved coordination among governmental

jurisdictions is important for any community, and these developments related to Native

American tribes’ access to resources and direct access are a promising next step, but more

remains to be done.



IV. Funding Incentives and Public Support

In addition to the funding programs created by the federal government to respond to

disaster relief, the government has sought to create responses that provide opportu-

nity for rebuilding businesses. These responses have come in the form of tax incen-

tives that are intended to provide immediate relief and create opportunities for jobs.

These tax incentives also assist with the rebuilding and expansion of the businesses

in the impacted areas and thus provide economic opportunities. These incentives

include tax relief, deductions, bonds, and even the opportunity for receiving a refund

of taxes paid in earlier years. Unfortunately, because the incentives are benefits that

a business owner may or may not choose to utilize, there is no way of tracking the

number of businesses that have taken advantage of these incentives.

A. GO Zone Credits

The Gulf Opportunity Zone Act of 2005 was signed into law on December 21, 2005,

by President George Bush.86 The Gulf Opportunity Zone, or GO Zone, was spe-

cifically designated in the act by those areas impacted by Hurricane Katrina and

provided certain tax incentives for people and businesses in the GO Zone.87 The

incentives set forth in the GO Zone Act have been some of the most substantial

incentives set out by Congress. This was a result of Hurricane Katrina’s devastating

destruction in the Gulf Coast region and the amount of money needed for recovery

and rebuilding of the area. The areas affected by Hurricanes Wilma and Rita were

also addressed in the act and designated as the Wilma GO Zone and Rita GO Zone.88

The act also set out the incentives specific to those other areas. Overall, the incen-

tives included an extra allocation of low-income housing tax credits to the GO Zone

states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, an extra allocation of New Market

Tax Credits, 89 a basis boost for credits, and certain bonus depreciation extensions.90

The act initially provided extra allocations of low-income housing tax credits

to those GO Zone states for a period of three years. This extra allocation of $18 per

capita was intended to be utilized only in the GO Zone region and required the states

to allocate the GO Zone credits before its annual allocation of credits. Any credits

that states were unable to award were lost without an extension of carryover.91 Ini-

tially, developments utilizing the credits had to be placed in service by the end of

2008, but later legislation extended this date to the end of 2011 for GO Zone coun-

ties and parishes located in Louisiana and Mississippi due to the extensive damage

sustained in these states.92 (For further discussion on the fair housing implications of

the GO Zone, see chapter 15.)

B. GO Zone Bonds

The GO Zone Bonds provided for the issuance of tax-exempt, private activity bonds

for the acquisition, construction and rehabilitation of residential and commercial


Chapter One20

real estate, and public utility property located in the GO Zone. These bonds were

not subject to the state’s private activity bond cap, which allowed the states to issue

bonds as needed for the rebuilding of communities and businesses. The GO Zone

Bonds, which were tailored after the Liberty Bonds, were intended to encourage

business development by providing low-interest capital to businesses and stimulate

investment in the affected areas. Unlike the Liberty Bonds, which were targeted for

specific areas and authorized between state and local entities, the criteria for issu-

ance of the GO Zone Bonds was more broad.93 (For further discussion on the Liberty

Bonds and tax incentives, see chapter 7.)

C. Bonus Depreciation

The act also provided for a bonus depreciation deduction, which is a tax incentive that

allows an additional depreciation for qualified property.94 This depreciation bonus

accelerated the normal depreciation by allowing a bonus depreciation of 50 percent

of the cost in the first year the property is placed in service. This type of tax incen-

tive is beneficial to small businesses because it allows them to write off most or all

of the property or equipment needed to reestablish the business after the disaster or

emergency. By taking advantage of these tax incentives, small businesses can enjoy

this write-off more quickly rather than having to wait over a several-year period. A

property was only allowed to take advantage of either the tax-exempt bonds or the

bonus depreciation, but not both.

D. Other Incentives

The GO Zone Act also provided for incentives directed toward business owners, com-

mercial activity, and reinvestment. The act authorized an additional $1 billion of New

Market Tax Credits for the years 2005–07. The New Market Tax Credits were intended

for substantial commercial investments to community development entities serving

in the areas affected by the hurricanes. The employee-retention credit provided that

an employer could receive a credit of 40 percent of an eligible employee’s wages.

The amount of qualified wages could not exceed $6,000 per employee. Employers

were eligible for this credit if they owned a business prior to the hurricanes and the

business was rendered inoperable as a result of the hurricanes. Employers were also

eligible for a work tax credit if they hired an eligible employee who was displaced

during the storm. Business owners were also provided a tax credit for debris cleanup

and demolition by allowing employers to expense up to 50 percent of the costs.95

E. Public Support—Charitable Contributions and Volunteerism

The American Red Cross, which was founded in 1881, is a nonprofit humanitarian

organization whose purpose is “to carry out a system of national and international

relief in time of peace, and to apply that system in mitigating the suffering caused



by pestilence, famine, fire, floods, and other great national calamities, and to devise

and carry out measures for preventing those calamities.”96 It was chartered by Con-

gress under Title 36 to recognize an official relationship, but it is not a governmental

entity.97 Attending to people affected by disasters and emergencies is a critical area

addressed by the Red Cross, as well as responding to the needs of military families.

Because it is an entity that people are familiar with, people give in great amounts

to the Red Cross to respond to disasters and emergencies both in the United States

and abroad.

After the 9/11 attacks, there was an outpouring of public support to numerous

existing and newly created charitable organizations to respond to the emergency.

The funds were raised by approximately 111 organizations with 40 of those organi-

zations raising and distributing more than $2.2 billion.98 These funds were raised to

address certain needs and fill gaps of needs that were unmet through governmental

and other funding sources. Superstorm Sandy has experienced a similar outpouring

of public support that is helping to fill the needs that have gone unmet from govern-

mental support. The Red Cross reported that it has deployed more than 9,000 volun-

teers to the affected areas and spent more than $110 million for emergency relief.99

People affected by disasters and emergencies in the United States and around

the world have received incredible public support. This support comes in the form of

charitable donations, volunteerism, and other methods of responding to disasters and

emergencies. In the United States, we have seen generous examples of widespread

public response to disasters and emergencies following 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, the

Joplin tornadoes, and Superstorm Sandy. People unwilling to wait for governmental

response and feeling the need to provide more personal assistance have flocked to

these areas to provide personal assistance with response, recovery, and rebuilding

efforts. (See generally chapter 6.)

V. The Good and the Bad: What Makes a Successful Program

As the number of declared disasters escalates, the amount of money appropriated

by the federal government will continue to also increase unless different criteria for

assistance is set. Although many of the disaster programs are already set out by fed-

eral and state legislation, an increasing number of programs and legislative appro-

priations are created in response to particular disasters. This increase of appropriated

funds and agency resources requires more efficiency in responding, processing, and

distributing the funding and resources necessary to effectively respond to the disas-

ters. It requires us to take a closer look at what makes a successful program.

A. Implementing Lessons Learned

Many of the programs have been criticized because of slow response and delays of

funding. After each disaster Congress and the responding agencies have continued


Chapter One22

to assess the effectiveness of the response and promptness of distributing the fund-

ing. This is done through Congressional hearings, agency reviews, and public

assessments. Over the years, these assessments have identified the need for less

complex regulatory requirements and more coordinated approaches to the disasters

and emergencies. Federal and state agencies must continue to learn from these les-

sons and revamp programs in an effort to become more coordinated, streamlined,

and responsive. The lessons learned are of no use if the lessons are not implemented

and programs revamped in preparation for the next disaster or emergency. However,

as the numbers of declared disasters increases, it is imperative for the government

to assess best practices in order to more effectively identify and distribute disaster

funding.

B. Effective Distribution of Funding

Federal and state governments must consider distributing funding in a way that

allows families, individuals, and businesses to more effectively address immediate

needs. This may require less restrictive criteria for distribution of funding, as well

as providing the funding on an audit basis rather than a reimbursement basis. Per-

sons impacted by disasters and emergencies are often displaced and don’t have the

resources to replace and repair and then request the funds, especially low-income

individuals and small-business owners who have even more limited resources.100

Post-disaster funding must be distributed in a manner that is more sensible of the

circumstances of the recipient.

C. Use Funding to Address Long-Range Goals

Funding must be used to rebuild communities with long-range goals. If the funding

only allows families and individuals to rebuild to pre-disaster requirements rather

than building better, the funding has not been utilized to its full capacity or to address

more long-range goals.101

D. Leverage Government Funds by Stimulating Private Investment

Funding must be utilized in a manner that stimulates additional private investment

in communities. This can be done through leveraging funding in a way that serves

as a catalyst for private companies, foundations, and others to also invest along with

governmental funding. Examples of this type of private investment were seen in

New York after 9/11 and New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina and should continue

to be encouraged in other communities.



E. Eliminate Regulatory Barriers

Individuals, families, and businesses that are impacted and displaced continue to seek

and even expect more efficiency when working with governmental agencies. They

seek the ability to access funding more expediently and without many of the tradi-

tional governmental requirements such as a requiring a permanent address or public

notice prior to applying for funding. Legislation must be created that addresses these

issues and eliminates barriers created to prevent those affected individuals, families,

and businesses from receiving prompt assistance.

F. One-Stop Resource Centers

Other permanent changes are needed to address effective distribution of post-disaster

funds. The creation of one-stop resource centers provides more efficiency and pre-

vents recipients from having to go to different agencies to have all of their disaster

needs met or even having to try to identify which agencies can assist them in meet-

ing their needs.

G. Provide Pre-Disaster Information

In addition to efficient and coordinated distribution of funding, federal and state

agencies will also have to find ways to more effectively respond to the needs of those

who have been affected by creating pre-disaster steps and information that will assist

with post-disaster response and distribution of funds.102

H. Eliminate the Political Response

More and more, the response to disasters and the subsequent funding has become a

part of political maneuvering that has slowed responses and funding distribution in

impacted communities. Congress must find a way to objectively respond to disasters

without politicizing the process to the point of delay. This may require that Congress

create a formula based upon the initial declaration process to determine how much

funding will be allocated for any presidentially declared disaster.

VI. Conclusion

Newspapers across the country continue to be filled with human-interest stories

relaying both the positive and negative reactions to federal and state responses fol-

lowing disasters and emergencies. It is through these stories that we learn of the

real lives that are touched through the applied use of disaster funds. And it will be

through these lenses that we are able to more effectively determine the success of

post-disaster funding programs.


Chapter One24

1. General Federal

Funding

2. Essential Assistance

3. Hazard Mitigation

4. Public Assistance

5. CDBG

6. HOME

7. 108

8. Capital Funding-PHA Only

9. Small Business USDA

10. Commerce Disaster Relief

Opportunity Funds

11. National Emergency Grants

12. Agricultural Disaster Assistance

AppendixChart of Eligible Activities and Funding Source

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Acquisition X X X X X

Rehabilitation X X X X X X X X

Road Repair X X X X

Housing X X X

Demolition X X X X X

Debris Removal X X X

Public Facilities X X X X X X X

Individual

Assistance

X X

Business

Assistance

X X X X X X

Evacuation X X

Recovery X X X X X

Food/Medicine X X X X

Employment/

Training

X X X

Infrastructure X X X X

Relocation X

Notes 1. As used in this chapter, “disaster” and “emergency” have the meanings set forth in 42 U.S.C.

§ 5122(1) (2012) and 42 U.S.C. § 5122(2) (2012). 2. Matthew Bandyk, Why Natural Disasters Are More Expensive—But Less Deadly, US News and

World Rep., Mar. 24, 2010. 3. About, FEMA, http://www.fema.gov/about/history.shtm (last updated Oct. 15, 2012). 4. 15 U.S.C. § 14. 5. 42 U.S.C. § 5143(b)(3). 6. 42 U.S.C. § 5190.



7. About, supra note 3. 8. 44 Fed. Reg. 19,367, 3 C.F.R., 1979 Comp., p. 376. 9. According to the FEMA disaster database, a major disaster was declared in 11 states (New York,

New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Ohio) and the District of Columbia for Superstorm Sandy.

10. Title VI of Pub. L. No. 109-295 (H.R. 5441) (2006). 11. Although every state has an office of emergency management or homeland security, these offices

primarily handle disaster and emergency preparedness, disaster information, and coordination with federal resources.

12. State Homeland Security and Emergency Services, U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., http://www.dhs.gov/files/resources/editorial_0306.shtm (last visited Mar. 27, 2013).

13. Veronica Rose, OLR Research Report, 2007-R-0643, State Disaster Funding (2007). 14. Fla. Stat. § 215.555 (1993). 15. How States Budget and Plan for Emergencies: Hearing Before the Task Force on Budget Process,

105th Cong. (1998). 16. Francis X. McCarthy, Cong. Research Serv., RL34146, FEMA’s Disaster Declaration

Process: A Primer. 17. Disaster Declaration Fact Sheet, FEMA (May 2011), http://www.fema.gov/pdf/media/factsheets

/dad_disaster_declaration.pdf. 18. Program Details, FEMA, http://www.fema.gov/fire-management-assistance-grants-program

-details (last updated June 15, 2012). 19. 42 U.S.C. § 5170. 20. 44 C.F.R. § 206.33. 21. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, Opportunities to Improve

FEMA’s Public Assistance Preliminary Damage Assessment Process (May 2012), http://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/2012/OIG_12-79_May12.pdf.

22. 44 C.F.R. § 206.33(d). 23. Francis McCarthy, Cong. Research Serv., RL34146, FEMA’s Disaster Declaration

Process: A Primer 12, available at http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34146_20100318.pdf. 24. Id. 25. 42 U.S.C. § 5193. 26. Francis X. McCarthy, Cong. Research Serv., RL34146, FEMA’s Disaster Declaration

Process: A Primer. 27. Disaster Declarations by Year, FEMA, http://www.fema.gov/disasters/grid/year (last visited

Mar. 27, 2013). 28. 42 U.S.C. § 5121. 29. Id. 30. Pub. L. No. 93-288, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 5121–5207. 31. 42 U.S.C. § 5170a. 32. 42 U.S.C. § 5170b. 33. 42 U.S.C. § 5170c. 34. Public Assistance: Local, State, Tribal and Non-Profit, FEMA, http://www.fema.gov/public

-assistance-local-state-tribal-and-non-profit (last updated Jan. 7, 2013). 35. 42 U.S.C. §§ 5170–87. 36. Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-77. 37. At the time of publication, legislation providing additional funding in an amount projected to

total $60 billion had been introduced but had not yet been passed by Congress. 38. CDBG Disaster Recovery Assistance, U.S. Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev., http://portal.hud

.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/comm_planning/communitydevelopment/programs/drsi (last visited Mar. 27, 2013).

39. Robert Olshansky & Laurie Johnson, Improving Post-Disaster Recovery: Initial Thoughts for a New Administration, (Nov. 17, 2008), http://www.disasterrecoveryresources.net/OlshanskyJohnson_RecoveryPolicyPaper_111708.pdf.

40. 24 C.F.R. pt. 570. 41. HUD CPD, Economic Development Toolkit 18–23 (April 2010), available at http://www

.hud.gov/offices/cpd/economicdevelopment/toolkit/edt_manual.pdf. 42. 24 C.F.R. § 570.208 43. 42 U.S.C. § 5321.


Chapter One26

44. 42 U.S.C. § 12750. 45. Id. 46. 24 C.F.R. pt. 570. 47. FY 2011 Act, Pub. L. No. 111-117. 48. Comprehensive Grant Handbook (7485.3G). 49. Disaster Housing Assistance Program, U.S. Dep’t of Hous. & Dev., http://www.hud.gov/news

/dhap.cfm. 50. 13 C.F.R. pt. 123. 51. 7 C.F.R. § 1945. 52. U.S. Economic Development Administration, Disaster Recovery Overview, http://www.eda.gov

/disasterrecovery.htm. 53. U.S. Economic Development Administration, Announcement of Federal Funding Opportunity:

FY 2012 Disaster Relief Opportunity, http://www.eda.gov/pdf/FY2012_Disaster_Relief_Opportunity_FFO_FINAL.pdf.

54. Id. 55. U.S. Economic Development Administration, Disaster Recovery Overview, http://www.eda.gov

/disasterrecovery.htm. 56. U.S. Economic Development Administration, EDA Disaster Recovery Webinar, in Partnership

with the National Association of Regional Councils, at slide 9 (Aug. 2, 2012), http://narc.org/wp-content/uploads/EDA-Disaster-FFO-NARC-briefing_FINAL.pdf.

57. Id. at slide 10. 58. 29 U.S.C. § 2918, et seq. 59. 29 U.S.C. § 2918(a)(3). 60. Eligible applicants are defined in 29 U.S.C § 2918(c)(1)(a) and 29 U.S.C § 2911(c). 61. U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, National Emergency Grants: Labor Has Improved Its Grant

Award Timeliness and Data Collection, but Further Steps Can Improve Process, at 12 (Sept. 2006), http://www.gao.gov/assets/260/251274.pdf.

62. Id. 63. Agricultural Disaster Assistance Act of 2012, H.R. 6233, 112th Cong. (2012). 64. Id. 65. Susan Montoya Bryan, New Law Allows American Indian Tribes to Seek Direct Federal Aid

After Natural Disasters, Star Tribune, Jan. 31, 2013, available at http://www.startribune.com/nation/189269351.html?refer=y.

66. Rob Capriccioso, President Obama Signs Law Putting Tribes on Equal Footing as States for Federal Emergency Aid, Indian Country Today, Jan. 31, 2013, http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/01/31/president-obama-signs-law-putting-tribes-equal-footing-states-federal-emergency-aid.

67. Bryan, supra note 65. 68. Id.; see also Rob Capriccioso, FEMA Supporting Specific Legislation on Making Tribes Equal to

States, Indian Country Today, June 15, 2012, http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/article/fema-supporting-specific-legislation-on-making-tribes-equal-to-states-118481.

69. H.R. 219 113th Cong. (P.L. 113-2) (2013). The language included in the Sandy relief package bill came from legislation that had been pending at least since 2011, H.R. 2903, sponsored by Rep. Nick Rahall, D-West Virginia, and S. 2283, sponsored by Sen. Jon Tester, D-Montana.

70. H.R. 219, 113th Cong., § 1110 (amending the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 5121–5207)).

71. Press Release, FEMA, Statement by FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate on Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013 (Jan. 30, 2013), http://www.fema.gov/news-release/2013/01/30/statement-fema-administrator-craig-fugate-sandy-recovery-improvement-act.

72. See generally Tribes Applaud Sandy Recovery Improvement Act, Indian Country Today, Feb. 4, 2013, http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/02/04/tribes-applaud-sandy-recovery-improvement-act-147453.

73. Bryan, supra note 65. 74. Bryan, supra note 65. 75. Tribes Applaud Sandy Recovery Improvement Act, supra note 72. 76. FEMA, South Dakota Severe Winter Storm—FEMA-1887-DR, Declared March 10, 2010, http://

www.fema.gov/pdf/news/pda/1887.pdf. 77. Id.



78. Governor Rounds Office Announces Presidential Disaster Declaration Approved for South Dakota Reservations, North Dakota Native News (Mar. 10, 2010), http://ndnnews.com/2010/03/governor-rounds-office-annouces-presidential-disaster-declaration-approved-for-south-dakota-reservations/.

79. Id. 80. Tribes Applaud Sandy Recovery Improvement Act, supra note 72. 81. Press Release, supra note 71. 82. U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, Flood Insurance: Participation of Indian Tribes in

Federal and Private Programs (2013), available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/651160.pdf. 83. Terri Hansen, Limited FEMA Mapping on Indian Reservations Increases Flood Risk, Lessens

Federal Flood Insurance, Indian Country Today, Jan. 22, 2013, http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/01/22/limited-fema-mapping-indian-reservations-increases-flood-risk-lessens-federal-flood.

84. U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, supra note 45. 85. Bryan, supra note 65. 86. Gulf Opportunity Zone Act of 2005, H.R. 4440, 109th Cong. (Dec. 22, 2005). 87. Hurricane Katrina, which hit landfall on August 29, 2005, was a Category 3 hurricane that pri-

marily affected the Gulf states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. 88. Hurricane Wilma was a hurricane that primarily affected southern Florida, and Hurricane Rita

primarily affected southeast Texas. Like Hurricane Katrina, both hurricanes hit landfall during the 2005 hurricane season.

89. Gulf Opportunity Zone Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-135, § 1400N, 119 Stat. 2577 (2005). 90. Id. at § 105. 91. The IRS allows a carryover allocation for any project not placed in service during the year of the

credit reservation. The GO Zone did not provide for an extension of carryover beyond the date that was set forth in the legislation.

92. Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010 (H.R. 4853), 111th Cong. (Dec. 17, 2010).

93. U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAP-08-913, Gulf Opportunity Zone Tax Incen-tives (2008).

94. Gulf Opportunity Zone Act of 2005 (H.R. 4440), 109th Cong. (Dec. 22, 2005). 95. Id. 96. 36 U.S.C. § 300102(4) (2006). 97. Id. 98. Found. Ctr., 9/11 Relief and Regranting Funds: A Summary Report on Funds Raised

and Assistance Provided (2004). 99. Am. Red Cross, Superstorm Sandy: One Month Update (Dec. 3, 2012).100. Robert Olshansky & Laurie Johnson, Improving Post-Disaster Recovery: Initial

Thoughts for a New Administration, (Nov. 17, 2008), available at http://www.disasterrecoveryresources.net/OlshanskyJohnson_RecoveryPolicyPaper_111708.pdf.

101. Amy Liu, Federal Post-Disaster Recovery: A Review of Federal Programs (May 2010).102. Id.


federal funding and financing programs...

Documents