Comment Submitted by David Halstead, Florida Division of Emergency Management

Document ID: FEMA-2010-0024-0005
Document Type: Public Submission
Agency: Federal Emergency Management Agency
Received Date: July 13 2010, at 12:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Date Posted: July 14 2010, at 12:00 AM Eastern Standard Time
Comment Start Date: June 15 2010, at 12:00 AM Eastern Standard Time
Comment Due Date: July 15 2010, at 11:59 PM Eastern Standard Time
Tracking Number: 80b190f9
View Document:  View as format xml

View Comment

The Florida Division of Emergency Management notes that this proposed recovery policy (RP9524.10) seeks to define the term "damage" as it is commonly used in the implementation of the Stafford Act and specifically defines this term as a "visible and adverse alteration of the pre-disaster design of a facility that directly and imminently compromises it fuctionality and can be verified by a visual inspection." This definition of the word "damage" appears too restrictive and thus the Division responds negatively to this proposed recovery policy. The recovery policy fact sheet indicates that the definition provided therein has historically been utilized by FEMA to define the term "damage" and that the definition has also been accepted by the courts as a reasonable review. The opinions expressed within the recovery policy notwithstanding, the Division respectfully respons that such a strict (and visually-based) definition effectively serves to remove categories of heretofore eligible and reimbursable costs from the realm of cost that are currently treated favorably under the Stafford Act. Specifically, the definition provided in the recovery policy would remove consideration of damage (in the conventional sense of the word) based on the following causes: 1. Structural fatigue of load-bearing members due to stresses that fall just below fracture levels. 2. Microbial contamination of systems due to contact with untreated water or effluent, and 3. Other such stresses due to a disaster that are manifested either in non-visual form, or which may not become acutely visible until after the time-limit for reporting damage. In conclusion, the Division sees no need for FEMA to adopt a constraining view on what constitutes "damage" in regard to the Stafford Act. One of the principle points of the Stafford Act is the fluidity contained in the Act''s language which allows the Act to allow an adequate recovery strategy for a wide list of potential disasters.

Related Comments

   
Total: 2
Comment Submitted by Wendy Smith-Reeve, Arizona Division of Emergency Mgmt- 2nd Comment
Public Submission    Posted: 07/12/2010     ID: FEMA-2010-0024-0004

Jul 15,2010 11:59 PM ET
Comment Submitted by David Halstead, Florida Division of Emergency Management
Public Submission    Posted: 07/14/2010     ID: FEMA-2010-0024-0005

Jul 15,2010 11:59 PM ET