Considerations for a Catastrophic Declaration: Issues and Analysis

Congressional research reportJul 6, 2015

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Considerations for a Catastrophic Declaration:

Issues and Analysis

name redacted

Analyst in American National Government

name redacted

Analyst in Emergency Management Policy

July 6, 2015

Congressional Research Service

7-....

www.crs.gov

R41884

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 management assistance grants in response to incidents that overwhelm

the resources of state and local governments. Once a major disaster 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 management assistance grants provide assistance to state

and localities to manage fires that threaten to cause major disasters.

In the aftermath of especially large or damaging incidents discussion can develop considering

whether the Stafford Act should be amended to include a fourth category, generally called a

“catastrophic declaration.” If approved, catastrophic declarations could be invoked for highprofile, 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 Grants ......................................................................................... 3

Emergency Declarations ............................................................................................................ 3

Major Disaster Declarations ...................................................................................................... 3

Proposed Catastrophic Declaration .................................................................................................. 4

Potential Uses and Benefits of a Catastrophic Declaration ............................................................. 5

Prior to an Incident .................................................................................................................... 6

During an Incident ..................................................................................................................... 6

After an Incident ........................................................................................................................ 8

Analysis of Congressional Action After the Incident ...................................................................... 9

Analysis of Catastrophic Events Past and Future .......................................................................... 10

Previous Incidents with Extraordinary Damages .................................................................... 13

Previous Incidents by VSL and Damage Costs ....................................................................... 15

Disasters Past and Future......................................................................................................... 16

Summary of Analysis and Policy Implications........................................................................ 20

Caveats and Methodology ....................................................................................................... 21

Summary of Potential Implications ............................................................................................... 22

Potential Benefits of a Catastrophic Declaration ..................................................................... 22

Potential Drawbacks of a Catastrophic Declaration ................................................................ 22

Further Considerations................................................................................................................... 23

Potential Alternatives to a Catastrophic Declaration ............................................................... 25

Figures

Figure 1. Selected Examples of Previous Large-Scale Disasters by Damage Estimate ................ 14

Figure 2. Selected Examples of Previous Large-Scale Disasters by Combined VSL and

Damage Estimates ...................................................................................................................... 16

Figure 3. Selected Examples of Previous and Potential Large-Scale Disasters by Damage

Estimate ...................................................................................................................................... 18

Figure 4. Selected Examples of Previous Large-Scale Disasters by Combined VSL and

Damage Estimates ...................................................................................................................... 20

Tables

Table 1. Emergency Supplemental Funding for Large Disasters ................................................... 10

Table 2. Selected Examples of Previous and Potential Catastrophic Incidents ............................. 12

Table 3. Selected Examples of Previous Large-Scale Disasters by Damage Estimate .................. 13

Table 4. Selected Examples of Previous Large-Scale Disasters by Combined VSL and

Damage Estimates ...................................................................................................................... 15

Congressional Research Service

Considerations for a Catastrophic Declaration: Issues and Analysis

Table 5. Selected Examples of Previous and Potential Large-Scale Disasters by Damage

Estimate ...................................................................................................................................... 17

Table 6. Selected Examples of Previous and Potential Large-Scale Disasters by

Combined VSL and Damage Estimates ...................................................................................... 19

Table 7. Appropriations for the Disaster Relief Fund .................................................................... 24

Appendixes

Appendix. Sources ......................................................................................................................... 28

Contacts

Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 31

Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 31

Congressional Research Service

Considerations for a Catastrophic Declaration: Issues and Analysis

Introduction

Large-scale disasters that cause extensive damage (such as Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy) or loss

of life (such as the 9/11 terror attacks) often spur discussions concerning whether the existing

federal framework for responding and recovering from disasters can adequately meet the needs

brought on by such events. For example, after Hurricane Katrina, numerous studies issued by

policy experts, congressional committees, the White House, federal offices of Inspector General,

and the Government Accountability Office (GAO), among others, concluded that the government

response to the hurricane was subject to a variety of deficiencies that occurred at all levels of

government.1

Deficiencies in disaster response and recovery include questionable leadership decisions and

capabilities, organizational failures, overwhelmed preparedness and communication systems, and

inadequate statutory authorities. Another issue identified after large-scale incidents is that federal

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 that has been 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.

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).

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.

Frances Townsend, The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons Learned, The White House, Washington

DC, February 23, 2006, p. 52, at http://library.stmarytx.edu/acadlib/edocs/katrinawh.pdf.

P.L. 93-288, 42 U.S.C. 5721 et seq.

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

Considerations for a Catastrophic Declaration: Issues and Analysis

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

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 Grants (FMAG), (2) emergency

declarations, and (3) major disaster declarations.

For further analysis on the Stafford Act see CRS Report R43784, FEMA’s Disaster Declaration Process: A Primer,

by (name redacted).

For more information on emergency and disaster declarations see CRS Report R43784, FEMA’s Disaster Declaration

Process: A Primer, by (name redacted).

For example, the Red Cross. In some cases FEMA will assign services from other federal agencies. These are called

“Mission Assignments.”

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.

Congressional Research Service

Considerations for a Catastrophic Declaration: Issues and Analysis

Fire Management Assistance Grants

While the President has the sole authority to issue an emergency or major disaster declaration, the

determination to issue a FMAG declaration can be rendered either by the President or FEMA.10 A

FMAG declaration authorizes various forms of federal assistance, such as equipment, 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

44 C.F.R. 204.24. For more information on FMAGs see CRS Report R43738, Fire Management Assistance Grants:

Frequently Asked Questions, coordinated by (name redacted).

P.L. 93-288, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 5187(a).

P.L. 93-288, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 5122(1).

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

(name redacted).

Examples of pre-event declarations include emergency declarations prior to Hurricanes Sandy, Katrina, Rita, and

Gustav making landfall.

P.L. 93-288, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 5122(2).

Congressional Research Service

Considerations for a Catastrophic Declaration: Issues and Analysis

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

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 “megadisaster” 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.

Mitchell L. Moss and Charles Shellhamer, The Stafford Act and Priorities for Reform, The Center for Catastrophe

Preparedness & Response, New York University, p. 14.

P.L. 109-295, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007. 120 STAT. 1395-1463.

6 U.S.C. 701(4).

The NRF is the national strategy for how the whole community can save lives, protect property and the environment,

and meet basic human needs after a disaster. The Catastrophic Incident Annex is a companion document providing an

overarching strategy for implementing and coordinating an accelerated, proactive national response to a catastrophic

incident, such as a very destructive earthquake. See Department of Homeland Security, National Response Framework,

Second Edition, May 2013, at http://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/32230.

Congressional Research Service

Considerations for a Catastrophic Declaration: Issues and Analysis

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.

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.

44 C.F.R. 206.35(d).

Congressional Research Service

Considerations for a Catastrophic Declaration: Issues and Analysis

Prior to an Incident

The Catastrophic Incident Annex of the NRF states that 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

assistance requirements, and deploying teams and resources to maximize the speed and

effectiveness of the anticipated federal response. It should be noted, however, that catastrophic

incidents are often no-notice events. Thus, pre-positioning resources may not be possible.

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.22 If Congress chose to create a catastrophic declaration, it might elect to amend Section

401 or 402 of the Stafford Act 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 response assets and surge capacity forces.23

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 national 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 further guided by supporting documents known as annexes: Emergency Support

Functions (ESF) Annexes and Incident Annexes.24

ESFs group federal agencies by their authorities, resources, and functions related to a particular

incident. For example, federal agencies that have capabilities to support the response to an oil

spill are listed in ESF #10 - Oil and Hazardous Materials. The ESFs have designated coordinating

and supporting federal agencies responsible for supporting the incident response along each

functional mission.

Similar to an ESF, Incident Annexes identify agencies by their authorities, resources, and

functions to support the response a particular incident. Incident Annexes also designate

coordinating and cooperating agencies. For example, federal agencies with capabilities to respond

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Catastrophic Incident Annex, Washington DC, November 2008, p. 2, at

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nrf/nrf_CatastrophicIncidentAnnex.pdf.

P.L. 93-288, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 5191(b).

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.” For more on deployable federal assets, see CRS Report

R43560, Deployable Federal Assets Supporting Domestic Disaster Response Operations: Summary and

Considerations for Congress, coordinated by (name redacted).

There are 14 ESFs and seven Incident Annexes. See https://www.fema.gov/national-preparedness-resource-library.

Congressional Research Service

Considerations for a Catastrophic Declaration: Issues and Analysis

to a biological attack are provided in the Biological Incident Annex. Response efforts initiated as

planned in ESF and Incident Annexes are executed through various operational plans. One key

tenet of the NRF is that the framework is “scalable, flexible, and adaptable operational

capabilities” to respond to all types of hazards, including ones that are catastrophic.25

In terms of catastrophic incidents, the NRF contains a Catastrophic Incident Annex which

provides a strategy for coordinating an accelerated national response to large-scale events. A

catastrophic incident is defined in the Catastrophic Incident Annex as

any natural or manmade incident, including terrorism, that results in extraordinary levels of

mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the population, infrastructure,

environment, economy, national morale, and/or government functions. A catastrophic

incident could result in sustained nationwide impacts over a prolonged period of time; almost

immediately exceeds resources normally available to State, tribal, local, and private-sector

authorities in the impacted area; and significantly interrupts governmental operations and

emergency services to such an extent that national security could be threatened. These

factors drive the urgency for coordinated national planning to ensure accelerated Federal

and/or national assistance.26

According to the Catastrophic Incident Annex, in a catastrophic event, states and localities may

not be able to initially establish or maintain a command structure for incident response. In such

cases, the federal government might take the lead and coordinate response activities until local,

tribal, and/or state authorities are capable of establishing their incident command structure.27

The development of the Catastrophic Incident Annex can be traced back to the National Response

Plan (NRP)—the predecessor to the NRF. The NRP contained guidelines for the implementation

of an “Incident of National Significance.” According to the NRP, the DHS Secretary could

designate an Incident of National Significance if the event met the criteria of paragraph 4 of

Homeland Security Presidential Directive-5 (HSPD-5).28 Generally, an Incident of National

Significance would be designated if a no-notice incident occurred in which the need for federal

assistance was “obvious, overwhelming, and immediate, and cannot wait for absolute situational

clarity.”29 The Incident National Significance designation could be used, presumably, to

implement the Catastrophic Incident Annex.

Department of Homeland Security, National Response Framework: Second Edition, May 2013, p. 5, See

http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1914-25045-1246/

final_national_response_framework_20130501.pdf.

Ibid, p. 1.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Catastrophic Incident Annex, Washington DC, November 2008, p. 3, at

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nrf/nrf_CatastrophicIncidentAnnex.pdf.

The criteria are (1) a federal department or agency acting under its own authority has requested the assistance of the

Secretary; (2) the resources of State and local authorities are overwhelmed and federal assistance has been requested by

the appropriate state and local authorities; (3) more than one federal department or agency has become substantially

involved in responding to the incident; or (4) the Secretary has been directed to assume responsibility for managing the

incident by the President. See Executive Office of the President, Homeland Security Presidential Directive-5:

Management of Domestic Incidents, February 28, 2003, at https://www.dhs.gov/publication/homeland-securitypresidential-directive-5.

Department of Homeland Security, Catastrophic Incident Supplement to the National Response Plan, Final Draft,

April 2005, p. 9.

Congressional Research Service

Considerations for a Catastrophic Declaration: Issues and Analysis

The Incident of National Significance designation was eliminated due to confusion during the

Hurricane Katrina response—primarily because the designation established a different leadership

structure than was commonly used for “routine” disasters.30 Despite the elimination, the

Catastrophic Incident Annex has been retained in the NRF. It is unclear, however, what criteria is

used by the Secretary to put the Catastrophic Incident Annex into effect.

Some might argue that the Catastrophic Incident Annex could be useful for a catastrophic incident

but that the Annex needs a triggering mechanism or clearly defined criteria to make the Annex

operational. They may further argue that a catastrophic declaration would be an appropriate

triggering mechanism. However, unlike the Incident of National Significance designation, the

response to a catastrophic incident could be developed in a manner that reduces or eliminates

confusion.

Proponents might therefore argue that a catastrophic declaration could be used to trigger the

streamlined response activities established in the Catastrophic Incident Annex. Similarly, they

may argue that that in addition to triggering the Catastrophic Incident Annex, a catastrophic

declaration could be used to streamline response procedures by removing barriers that might slow

response times or take steps that would provide flexibility to operational plans by promoting

autonomous decisionmaking. The declaration could also be used to trigger a chain of command

structure consisting of higher levels of leadership and rank to address the catastrophe.

Opponents of a catastrophic measure may argue that the scalability of the NRF (and its annexes)

makes it capable of responding to a catastrophic event without a unique declaration. They may

further 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. They may

further argue that using a different command structure would duplicate the problems associated

with the Incident of National Significance as well as create additional layers of bureaucracy that

impede or hinder the response.

After an Incident

A catastrophic declaration could be used to automatically alter aspects of recovery policies 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,

U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Hurricane Katrina: A Nation

Still Unprepared, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., January 1, 2006, S.Rept. 109-322 (Washington: GPO, 2006), p. 556. See also

Department of Homeland Security, What’s New in the National Response Framework, January 22, 2008, p. 2,

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nrf/whatsnew.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

Considerations for a Catastrophic Declaration: Issues and Analysis

restoration, and replacement of damaged facilities “shall be not less than 75%.”31

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.32

•

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 frontend funding to states and localities to cover initial efforts;33 (2) make straighttime force34 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;35 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.

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).

P.L. 93-288, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 5170b, Sec. 5172, and Sec. 5173.

For additional information on the cost-share issue see CRS Report R41101, FEMA Disaster Cost-Shares: Evolution

and Analysis, by (name redacted).

Such an approach was added for the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) in the Sandy Recovery and

Improvement Act which authorized 25% of funding to be advanced. See P.L. 113-2, 127 Stat. 43 and new Section 404

(e) of the Stafford Act.

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.

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

Considerations for a Catastrophic Declaration: Issues and Analysis

Table 1. Emergency Supplemental Funding for Large Disasters

Event

Date of Declaration

Date of Enacted Appropriation

Days

Hurricane Sandy

October 30, 2012

January 29, 2013

Hurricane Katrina

August 29, 2005

September 2, 2005

Hurricane Isabel

September 18, 2003

September 30, 2003

9/11 Terrorist Attacks

September 11, 2001

September 18, 2001

Nisqually Earthquake

March 1, 2001

July 24, 2001

114

Hurricane Floyd

September 16, 1999

October 20, 1999

Northridge Earthquake

January 17, 1994

February 12, 1994

Midwest Floods

June 11, 1993

August 12, 1993

Hurricane Andrew

August 23, 1992

September 23, 1992

Hurricane Hugo

September 20, 1989

September, 29, 1989

Source: CRS Report R40708, Disaster Relief Funding and Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief, by (name

redacted) and (name redacted).

Note: Table 1 reflects the number of days it took to enact the first supplemental appropriation after the

declaration was issued. Some incidents (such as Hurricane Katrina) received more than one supplemental

appropriation for disaster relief.

It could be argued that Congress has acted expeditiously. While on average, Congress has passed

supplemental appropriations for disaster assistance within 38.9 days of the disaster declaration,

supplemental funding has been provided in less than a week after an incident (for example,

Hurricane Katrina and 9/11 received funding in three days and seven days respectively).

Furthermore, in cases where it took Congress 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 longer time elapsed for Hurricane Sandy could

partly be attributed to a relatively large balance in the Disaster Relief Fund at the time of the

incident rather than a reluctance to fund disaster assistance.

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

FEMA the discretion to use various forms of federal help or to supplement state help to achieve

disaster response and recovery goals.36

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

42 U.S.C. 5170a and 5170b.

Congressional Research Service

Considerations for a Catastrophic Declaration: Issues and Analysis

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).37

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.38 VSL helps compare incidents with

many fatalities and little or no damage (such as the Chicago Heat Wave of 1995 and the

Galveston Hurricane in 1900) to incidents that caused significant damages, but had few, or no,

fatalities (such as the Hurricane Ike in 2008).

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.39 It should be noted that the data used for this analysis are

subject to variations and limitations (see “Caveats and Methodology”).

The 1919 Influenza Pandemic is included in Table 2 but is not included the analysis because the incident skews the

results.

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 (name redacted).

For example, in terms of damages alone, Hurricane Katrina in 2005 was the costliest disaster in the United States

($125.6 billion). Thus, to determine the 90th percentile the following formula was used: $125.6 billion x 0.50 =63

billion. The formula for the 40th percentile was: $125.6 x 0.40 = $50 billion, and so on.

Congressional Research Service

Table 2. Selected Examples of Previous and Potential Catastrophic Incidents

(2013 dollars)

Disaster

Fatalities

1871 Chicago Fire

Value of Statistical Life

(VSL)

766

4,825,800,000

1900 Galveston Hurricane

8,000

1906 San Francisco Earthquake

3,000

1927 Great Mississippi Flood

Damage Estimate

Combined VSL and

Damage Estimate

3,300,000,000

8,125,800,000

50,400,000,000

767,802,561

51,167,802,561

18,900,000,000

8,041,030,300

26,941,030,300

423

2,664,900,000

16,111,999,184

18,776,899,184

1964 Alaska Earthquake/Tsunami

131

825,300,000

2,339,367,518

3,224,667,518

1965 Hurricane Betsy

472,500,000

8,116,487,897

8,588,987,897

1969 Hurricane Camille

256

1,612,800,000

7,128,330,373

8,741,130,373

1974 Xenia (Easter) Tornado Outbreak

330

2,079,000,000

967,747,813

3,046,747,813

1980 Mount St. Helens

428,400,000

2,961,950,805

3,390,350,805

1989 Hurricane Hugo

132,300,000

11,625,078,174

11,757,378,174

1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake

396,900,000

13,285,803,627

13,682,703,627

1992 Hurricane Andrew

163,800,000

40,034,561,229

40,198,361,229

1994 Northridge Earthquake

378,000,000

25,273,283,481

25,651,283,481

2001 September 11th Terrorist Attacks

2,973

18,729,900,000

27,312,998,349

46,042,898,349

2005 Hurricane Katrina

1,200

7,560,000,000

125,621,550,591

133,181,550,591

2008 Hurricane Ike

126,000,000

31,724,144,071

31,850,144,071

2012 Hurricane Sandy

117

737,100,000

50,754,969,419

51,492,069,419

ARkStorma

1,000

6,000,000,000

400,000,000,000

406,000,000,000

New Madrid Earthquakeb

85,000

510,000,000,000

120,000,000,000

630,000,000,000

Southern San Andreas Fault Earthquakeb

1,800

10,800,000,000

200,000,000,000

210,800,000,000

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.

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.

Denotes a hypothetical earthquake that could occur (see Appendix).

CRS-12

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 50th percentile ($63 billion or more in damages) of

incidents are catastrophic, then only Hurricane Katrina would qualify as a catastrophic incident. If

the 40th percentile ($50 billion or more in damages) of incidents are catastrophic, only Hurricane

Katrina and Hurricane Sandy would qualify as catastrophic incidents. These would remain

constant until the 30th percentile ($38 billion or more in damages), which would then include

Hurricane Andrew. The remaining incidents fall below the 30th percentile.

Table 3. Selected Examples of Previous Large-Scale Disasters by Damage Estimate

(2013 dollars)

Disaster

2005 Hurricane Katrina

Damage Estimate

Rank

125,621,500,591

↑ 50th Percentile (≥ $63 billion) ↑

2012 Hurricane Sandy

50,754,969,419

↑ 40th Percentile (≥ $50 billion) ↑

1992 Hurricane Andrew

40,034,561,229

↑ 30th Percentile (≥ $38 billion) ↑

2008 Hurricane Ike

31,724,144,071

2001 Terrorist Attacks

27,312,998,349

1994 Northridge Earthquake

25,273,283,481

1927 Great Mississippi Flood

16,111,999,184

1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake

13,285,803,627

1989 Hurricane Hugo

11,625,078,174

1965 Hurricane Betsy

8,116,487,897

1906 San Francisco Earthquake

8,041,030,300

1969 Hurricane Camille

7,128,330,373

1871 Chicago Fire

3,300,000,000

1980 Mount St. Helens

2,961,950,805

1964 Alaska Eathquake/Tsunami

2,339,367,518

1974 Xenia (Easter) Tornado Outbreak

967,747,813

1900 Galveston Hurricane

767,802,561

Source: Data derived from supplemental appropriations and government studies and reports. See Appendix.

sources for a full list of the sources used for this table.

Methodology: $125.6 billion x 0.5 = $63 billion. $125.6 billion x 0.4 = $50 billion. $125.6 billion x 0.3 = $38

billion.

Figure 1 presents the same data in chronological order. Again, assuming catastrophic incidents

are the most expensive events, then it could be concluded that most expensive disasters in

Congressional Research Service

Considerations for a Catastrophic Declaration: Issues and Analysis

American history have occurred in recent times. Six of the costliest incidents occurred since

1992, and two of the costliest occurred within the last decade.

Figure 1. Selected Examples of Previous Large-Scale Disasters by Damage Estimate

(2013 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

assessing the need for the new declaration because it fails to address the response and recovery

issues previously discussed in this report.

Congressional Research Service

Considerations for a Catastrophic Declaration: Issues and Analysis

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. With the exception of the 1900 Galveston Hurricane and the September 11th

terrorist attacks, combining VSL and damage cost estimates does not significantly alter the

rankings.

Table 4. Selected Examples of Previous Large-Scale Disasters by Combined VSL and

Damage Estimates

(2013 dollars)

Disaster

2005 Hurricane Katrina

Combined VSL and

Damage Estimate

133,181,550,591

Rank

↑ 50th Percentile (≥ $67 Billion) ↑

2012 Hurricane Sandy

51,492,069,419

1900 Galveston Hurricane

51,167,802,561

2001 September 11th Terrorist Attacks

46,042,898,349

1992 Hurricane Andrew

40,198,361,229

↑ 30th Percentile (≥ $40 Billion) ↑

2008 Hurricane Ike

31,850,144,071

1906 San Francisco Earthquake

26,941,030,300

↑ 20th Percentile (≥ $26 Billion) ↑

1994 Northridge Earthquake

25,651,283,481

1927 Great Mississippi Flood

18,776,899,184

1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake

13,682,703,627

1989 Hurricane Hugo

11,757,378,174

1969 Hurricane Camille

8,741,130,373

1965 Hurricane Betsy

8,588,987,897

1871 Chicago Fire

8,125,800,000

1980 Mount St. Helens

3,390,350,805

1964 Alaska Earthquake/Tsunami

3,224,667,518

1974 Xenia (Easter) Tornado Outbreak

3,046,747,813

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.

Methodology: $133 billion x 0.50 = $67 billion, $133 billion x 0.30 = $40 billion, and $133 billion x 0.20 = $26

billion. Some figures have been rounded.

Congressional Research Service

Considerations for a Catastrophic Declaration: Issues and Analysis

Figure 2. Selected Examples of Previous Large-Scale Disasters by Combined VSL

and Damage Estimates

(2013 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.

Assuming that catastrophic incidents are incidents with the highest combined VSL and damage

costs, then the following conclusions could be drawn: If the 50th percentile ($67 billion or more)

of incidents are catastrophic, then only Hurricane Katrina would qualify as a catastrophic

incident. If the 30th percentile is used ($40 billion or more), Hurricane Sandy in 2012, the 1900

Galveston Hurricane, the September 11th terrorist attacks, and Hurricane Andrew in 1992 would

then also qualify as catastrophic. Hurricane Ike and the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake and Fire

would be deemed catastrophic if the 20th percentile were used ($26 billion or more) for the

determination.

Disasters Past and Future

When the analysis is extended to capture all of the incidents in Table 2,40 the inclusion of

potential disasters changes the order of percentile rankings. However, the number of incidents

meeting certain catastrophic thresholds remains low.

Excluding the 1919 Influenza Pandemic as an outlier.

Congressional Research Service

Considerations for a Catastrophic Declaration: Issues and Analysis

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 50th percentile ($206 billion or

more) of incidents are catastrophic, then only two hypothetical incidents, the “ARkStorm” and

South San Andreas Earthquake, would qualify as a catastrophic incident. If the threshold were

lowered to the 30th percentile ($124 billion or more), Hurricane Katrina would also qualify as

catastrophic. With a threshold at the 20th percentile ($83 billion or more) or higher, then the

hypothetical New Madrid Earthquake would also be considered catastrophic. Table 5 and Figure

3 provide the rankings based on damage if the hypothetical incidents are included. Notably, with

the exception of Hurricane Katrina, all three hypothetical incidents are projected to produce more

damage than the historical incidents discussed in this report.

Table 5. Selected Examples of Previous and Potential Large-Scale Disasters by

Damage Estimate

2013 Dollars

Disaster

Damage Estimate

Rank

ARKStorm Scenario

413,146,635,550

South San Andreas Earthquake

214,933,225,415

↑ 50th Percentile (≥ $206 billion) ↑

2005 Hurricane Katrina

125,621,550,591

↑ 30th Percentile (≥ $124 billion) ↑

New Madrid Earthquake

106, 220,000,000

↑ 20th Percentile (≥ $83 billion) ↑

2012 Hurricane Sandy

50,754,969,419

1992 Hurricane Andrew

40,034,561,229

2008 Hurricane Ike

31,724,144,071

2001 Terrorist Attacks

27,312,998,349

1994 Northridge Earthquake

25,273,283,481

1927 Great Mississippi Flood

16,111,999,184

1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake

13,285,803,627

1989 Hurricane Hugo

11,625,078,174

1965 Hurricane Betsy

8,116,487,897

1906 San Francisco Earthquake

8,041,030,300

1969 Hurricane Camille

7,128,330,373

1871 Chicago Fire

3,300,000,000

1980 Mount St. Helens

2,961,950,805

1964 Alaska Eathquake/Tsunami

2,339,367,518

1974 Xenia (Easter) Tornado Outbreak

967,747,813

1900 Galveston Hurricane

767,802,561

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.

Congressional Research Service

Considerations for a Catastrophic Declaration: Issues and Analysis

Methodology: $413 billion x 0.50 = $206 billion, $413 billion x 0.30 = $206 billion, and $413 billion x 0.20 =

$83 billion. Some figures have been rounded.

Figure 3. Selected Examples of Previous and Potential Large-Scale Disasters by

Damage Estimate

(2013 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.

Notes: See the methodological description in Table 5. Potential future events are in red.

When the VSL estimated are combined with the damage totals presented above, the following

conclusions could be drawn: If the 50th percentile ($321 billion or more) of incidents are

catastrophic, then only the New Madrid Earthquake scenario and “ARKStorm” would qualify as a

catastrophic incident, just as they were for the projections that only included damage estimates.

Using the 30th percentile ($193 billion or more), the South San Andreas Earthquake would be

considered catastrophic. Only if the threshold were lowered to the 20th percentile ($128 billion or

more) would a previous incident be included, Hurricane Katrina. All of the remaining incidents

fall under the 10th percentile range ($64 billion or more).41

The 1919 Influenza Pandemic is included in Table 2 but is not included in the analyses because the incident skewed

the results.

Congressional Research Service

Considerations for a Catastrophic Declaration: Issues and Analysis

Table 6. Selected Examples of Previous and Potential Large-Scale Disasters by

Combined VSL and Damage Estimates

(2013 dollars)

Disaster

Damage Estimate

Rank

New Madrid Earthquake

641,720,000,000

ARKStorm Scenario

413,146,635,550

↑ 50th Percentile (≥ $321 billion) ↑

South San Andreas Earthquake

226,273,225,415

↑ 30th Percentile (≥ $193 billion) ↑

2005 Hurricane Katrina

133,181,550,591

↑ 20th Percentile (≥ $128 billion) ↑

2012 Hurricane Sandy

51,492,069,419

1900 Galveston Hurricane

51,167,802,561

2001 September 11th Terrorist Attacks

46,042,898,349

1992 Hurricane Andrew

40,198,361,229

2008 Hurricane Ike

31,850,144,071

1906 San Francisco Earthquake

26,941,030,300

1994 Northridge Earthquake

25,651,283,481

1927 Great Mississippi Flood

18,776,899,184

1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake

13,682,703,627

1989 Hurricane Hugo

11,757,378,174

1969 Hurricane Camille

8,741,130,373

1965 Hurricane Betsy

8,588,987,897

1871 Chicago Fire

8,125,800,000

1980 Mount St. Helens

3,390,350,805

1964 Alaska Earthquake/Tsunami

3,224,667,518

1974 Xenia (Easter) Tornado Outbreak

3,046,747,813

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: $642 billion x 0.50 = $321 billion, $642 billion x 0.30 = $193 billion, and $642 billion x 0.20 =

$128 billion. Some figures have been rounded.

Congressional Research Service

Considerations for a Catastrophic Declaration: Issues and Analysis

Figure 4. Selected Examples of Previous Large-Scale Disasters by Combined VSL

and Damage Estimates

(2013 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.

Notes: See the methodological description in Table 6. Potential future events are in red.

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. In

terms of damage estimates alone, only one incident exceeds the 90th percentile benchmark, and

only two would qualify if the 80th percentile is used as a benchmark (the 1871 Chicago Fire and

Hurricane Katrina). In addition, these events are separated by over 130 years.

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 two incidents in the last 100 years meets the 90th percentile

threshold—and these incidents are over 100 years apart from each other. Additionally, the

threshold would have to be adjusted to the 30th percentile to include more than two incidents.

Critics of the additional type of 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, 8 of the top 17 incidents have

Congressional Research Service

Considerations for a Catastrophic Declaration: Issues and Analysis

occurred within the last 30 years. However, in terms of combined VSL and damage estimate

costs, two of the top four incidents have occurred within the last 10 years. To some, this may be

taken as an 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.42 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. Since there were no documents published by FEMA in the Federal Register that

included a VSL, the calculations in this report are based on a VSL of 6.3 million developed by

Customs and Border Protection and used by other components within the Department of

Homeland Security (DHS) during 2014.43

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.

Transportation Security Administration, “Aircraft Repair Station Security,” 79 Federal Register 2119, January 13,

2014. This rule states that “TSA uses a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Value of Statistical Life (VSL) estimate

of $6.3 million to represent the amount an individual is willing to pay to achieve a small reduction in mortality risk.”

More information on this final rule can be found at https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/01/13/2014-00415/

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Considerations for a Catastrophic Declaration: Issues and Analysis

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.

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 costshare provisions included with the declaration, and

•

increased federal involvement and responsibility for incident response.

(...continued)

aircraft-repair-station-security.

Congressional Research Service

Considerations for a Catastrophic Declaration: Issues and Analysis

Further Considerations

In addition to the points previously made in this report, upon review of potential policies

regarding the use of a catastrophic declaration for large-scale incidents, policymakers may

contemplate the following considerations related to catastrophic incidents:

•

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 lead to a

similar type of declaration “creep” for large-scale incidents.

•

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 presumably be

subject to the same limitation—unless the amendment requires some form of measurable

criteria that would be applied to make determinations.

•

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.

•

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.

•

On August 2, 2011, the President signed into law the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA,

P.L. 112-25), which included a number of budget-controlling mechanisms. As part of the

legislation, caps were placed on discretionary spending beginning in FY2012.44 If these

caps are exceeded, an automatic rescission—known as sequestration—takes place across

most discretionary budget accounts to reduce the effective level of spending to the level

of the cap. Additionally, special accommodations were made in the BCA to address the

unpredictable nature of disaster assistance while attempting to impose discipline on the

amount spent by the federal government on disasters. The BCA created an allowable

adjustment specifically to cover disaster relief (defined as the costs of major disasters

For more information on the BCA and disaster relief see CRS Report R42352, An Examination of Federal Disaster

Relief Under the Budget Control Act, by (name redacted), (name redacted), and (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Considerations for a Catastrophic Declaration: Issues and Analysis

under the Stafford Act), separate from emergency appropriations. One notable aspect of

the BCA is that it appears to have encouraged larger appropriations for the DRF.

Table 7. Appropriations for the Disaster Relief Fund

FY2006-FY2015 In millions of dollars (nominal dollars)

Fiscal Year

Appropriation

2006

$1,770

2007

$1,487

2008

$1,324

2009

$1,278

2010

$1,600

2011

$2,645

2012

$7,100

2013

$7,007

2014

$6,220

2015

$7,033

Source: CRS Report R43537, FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund: Overview and Selected Issues, by (name red

acted).

Notes: Table 7 does not include transfers, rescissions, or supplemental appropriations for the

DRF. Bolded text refers to appropriations after the enactment of the BCA.

In the case of hurricane Sandy, the increased appropriation size to the DRF helped fund the

immediate needs caused by an incident without an immediate supplemental appropriation. The

larger balance may have also provided Congress with more time to contemplate and target

assistance needs. Some may therefore question whether a catastrophic declaration is needed to

expedite funding packages.

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.

The reports issued on the federal response to Hurricane Sandy have generally been favorable. For

example, according to the DHS Inspector General, FEMA’s response to the damages caused by

hurricane Sandy in New York was “effective and efficient.”45 After reading such reports, some

may conclude that the federal response to large-scale incidents such as multistate hurricanes has

improved since Hurricane Katrina. They may therefore question the need for catastrophic

declarations and a more efficient and streamlined response processes.

Natural disasters on a truly catastrophic scale, such as the San Francisco earthquake, the fire of

1906, and Hurricane Katrina, are infrequent, and might be called “100-year events.” If used for

Department of Homeland Security: Office of Inspector General, FEMA’s Initial Response in New York to Hurricane

Sandy, OIG- 13-124, September 26, 2013, p. 2, http://www.recovery.gov/Sandy/Documents/

FEMA%20NY%20Initial%20Response%20to%20Sandy.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

Considerations for a Catastrophic Declaration: Issues and Analysis

such events, the catastrophic 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.

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 ten

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.46 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.47

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).48

•

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%).49 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

42 U.S.C. 5189d.

P.L. 109-295, 120 Stat. 1448.

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.

P.L. 109-295, 120 Stat. 1455.

Congressional Research Service

Considerations for a Catastrophic Declaration: Issues and Analysis

process. While FEMA considers this “a priority of the Agency” it has not yet

determined a timeframe for publication of the proposed rule.50

•

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.51 Reports by FEMA indicate that this was a

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.”52 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.”53

Similarly, following Hurricane Sandy in 2012, Congress enacted the Hurricane Sandy Recovery

and Improvement Act (SRIA). This legislation made several changes to the Stafford Act that

could arguably influence the federal government’s ability to respond to catastrophic events in the

years to come. Some of those changes include:

•

Alternative Procedures for Public Assistance. As with the Disaster Mitigation

Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-290), SRIA provided FEMA the authority to administer the

PA program based on cost estimates, thus hopefully accelerating the repairs of

public infrastructure. These procedures could also speed up debris removal and

the repairs of private non-profit facilities that perform a public function.54

•

The authority to provide child care services to the families of disaster

victims. This category is now considered an eligible expense under the “Other

Needs Assistance (ONA)” grants which are a part of Section 408, the Individuals

and Households Program (IHP).55 The ONA grants are cost-shared with the state.

The IHP program is generally the disaster housing provided but also includes

limited ONA grants for clothing, furniture, and other uninsured needs following a

disaster.

•

Advance Funding in the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP).56 The

HMGP program is the principal post-disaster source for mitigation funds to

reduce future hazards. The program is cost-share on a 75% federal/25% state and

local basis. Because the amount of funds allotted to the program is determined by

a percentage of total disaster spending, the program has usually lagged behind

Email to the author from Ted Litty, Senior Policy Advisor, Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency

Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security, May 18, 2011.

P.L. 109-295, 120 Stat. 1454.

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.

Email to the author from Ted Litty, Senior Policy Advisor, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Management

Agency, Department of Homeland Security, May 18, 2011.

P.L. 113-2, Division B, Section 1102.

P.L. 113-2, Division B, Section 1108(a).

P.L. 113-2, Division B, Section 1104.

Congressional Research Service

Considerations for a Catastrophic Declaration: Issues and Analysis

other elements of the recovery process. In order to step up the process, SRIA

authorized FEMA to advance up to 25% of the estimated HMGP award.

•

Joint Environmental and Historical Reviews. In an action related to expedited

processes for both Public Assistance and Mitigation programs previously

discussed, SRIA directs the creation of a joint process for environmental and

historical reviews.57 Such a joint process is intended to expedite the

administration of disaster recovery projects.

Taken together, these changes to the Stafford Act have 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.

P.L. 113-2, Division B, Section 1106.

Congressional Research Service

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

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/aboutepa/history/topics/lovecanal/01.html.

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

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.

2008 Hurricane Sandy

Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Deaths

Associated with Hurricane Sandy—October-November 2012, May 24, 2013, http://www.cdc.gov/

mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6220a1.htm.

ARkStorm Scenario

United States Geological Survey, Overview Of The ARkStorm Scenario, Open File Report 20101312, 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.

Congressional Research Service

Considerations for a Catastrophic Declaration: Issues and Analysis

Author Contact Information

(name redacted)

Analyst in American National Government

#redacted#@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

(name redacted)

Analyst in Emergency Management Policy

#redacted#@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

Acknowledgments

Daniel Richardson, Research Assistant, Government and Finance Division, assisted with compiling data for

this report.

Congressional Research Service

EveryCRSReport.com

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the

Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on

issues that may come before Congress.

EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The

reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to

the public.

Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts

who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made

any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.

CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in

the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without

permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a

third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or

otherwise use copyrighted material.

Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public

understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in

connection with CRS' institutional role.

EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.