For years, Oklahoma’s Emergency Fund has built up a mounting pile of unpaid bills, leaving local government agencies holding the bag – sometimes for millions of dollars. The emergency fund is used to pay one-eighth of certain government costs for dealing with disasters that have federal approval for assistance. The federal government picks up 75 percent of the cost.

But during recent tough economic years, which coincided with a lot of costly disasters, the Oklahoma Legislature didn’t appropriate enough money to pay off the state’s share. So local government agencies – including cities, towns, counties, public utilities and rural water districts – just had to wait for their reimbursements.

After prodding by Gov. Mary Fallin, the Legislature approved a $34.1 million supplemental appropriation earlier this year, which was enough to pay off all the bills, some of which went all the way back to 2007.

But Bixby City Manager Doug Enevoldsen says the Legislature should be doing more. The state should be thinking ahead because another disaster will occur sooner or later.

“Logic suggests and experience suggests that there’s going to be additional disasters in the future, and wouldn’t it be prudent to prepare for that in advance by beginning to provide for some additional dollars?” said Enevoldsen, who previously worked as a legislative budget aide and a top official in the Office of State Finance.

“I’ve seen it too many times, and my heart goes out to these communities that are suffering these disasters. I feel that there’s got to be a better way,” he said. “It creates immense fiscal stress on a community that’s already under duress.”

His suggestion: either a dedicated state funding source for the emergency fund or a routine annual appropriation to keep the fund liquid. For about $4 million a year, he figures the state can build up a sufficient balance to fund its share of disaster costs.

“The governor this year and the Legislature have shown tremendous leadership in coming together and making that appropriation to catch up,” Enevoldsen said. “The next step is to be proactive in appropriating dollars.”

State Director of Emergency Management Albert Ashwood said that since 1953, only Texas and California have had more presidentially declared disasters than Oklahoma. Since 2007, no state has had as many as Oklahoma. Ashwood said appropriating money to the emergency fund before disasters occur is “absolutely good thinking.” It would allow the state to pay its share of recovery costs as fast as the federal government determines what they are, he said.

The last time the state was current with its share of emergency costs was Jan. 1, 2007, he said. Federal law determines what costs can be reimbursed and restricts payments to only those emergencies with the greatest impact. The recent tornado that struck Woodward, for example, was not sufficiently massive to trigger funding.

In approved disasters, the federal government picks up 75 percent of the approved costs. By decades-long tradition, Oklahoma splits the remaining costs with the local government that incurred the loss – 12.5 percent each.

The smaller the community, the more severe the financial stress of a disaster can be, said Collinsville City Manager Pam Polk. In the 2007 ice storm, the city of 6,000 was essentially blacked out for weeks, she said. The municipal electrical utility’s three-man repair crew wasn’t up to the enormous task, so the city contracted repair work at a huge cost, she said. For a city with an annual budget of about $3.5 million and a utility authority budget of $7 million, it was an enormous financial stress, she said.

“We struggle with the budget and the finances,” she said. “We did not have the money.”

Collinsville borrowed money from a bank to pay off the ice storm recovery. The city got its federal reimbursement of more than $1 million but had to wait another 18 months for the state to come through with its share. She said Enevoldsen’s idea “definitely makes sense,” and adds that she hopes Collinsville never ends up in such dire straits again.

“I hope it never happens on my watch again, anybody’s watch really,” she said.

 ——–

The Oklahoma Department of Emergency Management is awaiting a $34.1 million supplemental appropriation to pay the state’s share of emergency responses that date back to 2007.

Here’s a sample of some of the biggest total pending bills, shown by the date they were declared disasters:

Feb. 7, 2007 (oldest pending claims): Two winter storms, $4.6 million

Aug. 24, 2007: Severe storms, tornados and flooding, $1 million

Dec. 18, 2007: Severe winter storm, $4 million

May 9, 2008: Severe storms, tornados and flooding, $1.7 million

March 5, 2010: Severe winter storm, $19 million

June 6, 2011: Storms, tornados, winds and flooding, $1.2 million

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has awarded $1.8 million to the state of Texas for construction of a community safe room in El Maton, Texas in Matagorda County that will double as a multipurpose center and high school gymnasium. FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) will pay 75 percent of the $2.4 million project.

The concrete, dome structure, which will be built on the Tidehaven Independent School District campus, will be 20,000 square feet with nearly 16,000 square feet of interior space. The community safe room will provide protection from hurricanes and tornadoes for the people of Matagorda County, including those with special and medical needs.

The federal share of the funds for the project come from the agency’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). HMGP provides grants to states, and tribal and local governments to implement long-term hazard mitigation measures that reduce the loss of life and property due to natural disasters and to enable mitigation measures to be implemented during the immediate recovery from a disaster.

We knew that heavy rain fell overnight in Fort Bend county. What we didn’t know is this could turn out to be the heaviest rain ever recorded this year by a volunteer weather observer. The National Weather Service conducts hundreds of training sessions for community volunteers to help fill the gaps where weather data is missing, especially in rural areas of the nation. The network of volunteers is called CoCoRaHS which stands for community collaborative rain, hail and snow network.

Early Saturday morning one of these community observers near Richmond recorded over 11″ of rain in his rain gauge making this the heaviest rainfall total ever recorded this year in the United States. The rain slacked off to about 6″ at Hobby, which is still a respectable 24hr rainfall total. The good news is that Sunday will be completely dry and even less humid with a mild 60 degree start and with highs reaching the 80s just in time for a Mother’s Day back yard BBQs. 

As Hurricane Ike neared the Texas coast in 2008, hundreds of hospital patients and nursing home residents were in harm’s way, facing a difficult escape from the storm’s path. That’s when the C-130s of the 136th Air- lift Wing, based in Fort Worth, Texas, went into action. That year, for the first time in U.S. history, C-130s were used to help move patients to safety ahead of a storm’s arrival. In all, between Hurricanes Ike and Gustav, also in 2008, 800 people were airlifted to safety.

The same planes were among the first to arrive following Hurricane Katrina in 2005, bringing much-needed supplies and National Guard troops to areas devastated by the storm. If a plan being put in place by the U.S. Air Force is allowed to go into effect, that sort of mutual assistance among our Gulf Coast states could be a thing of the past.

Under the USAFForceStructureChanges, issued in February, eight National Guard C-130s currently based in Fort Worth would be relocated to Montana, far from a Gulf Coast – and its population of millions – extremely vulnerable to hurricanes, tornadoes and floods. We don’t have any opposition to basing Air National Guard assets in Montana, but that shouldn’t come at the expense of the safety of the residents of the Gulf states.

As long as these assets are based in Texas, they are available with a simple phone call between governors, ready to fly across the state or into other states under Emergency Management Assistance Compacts.

Put simply, the sort of assistance the Air National Guard C-130s currently can provide within hours would take days, or longer, to arrive at a time when every minute could mean the difference between life and death.

Just a quick look at the numbers tells the tale of the value of these assets to Gulf Coast states. Since 2005, the 136th Airlift Wing’s C-130s have:

*Flown 423 storm response sorties in coastal states.

*Logged 567 hours of flight time.

*Transported 3,143 passengers.

*Delivered 939 tons of emergency supplies.

What can’t be qualified so easily is the suffering eased by a warm blanket, the comfort given by a hot meal and the unparalleled joy of a family reunited. That’s what this airlift wing has meant to the residents of the Gulf states, and to relocate these assets 1,000 miles inland – to an area that faces few of the types of threats we do – makes little practical sense and even less financial sense.

Estimates of the costs of the move, including new training for ground personnel and the construction of new facilities, have been set as high as $75 million or more. That’s a huge waste of taxpayer money at a time of historic national debt. What’s worse, for a two-year transitional period while people are trained and facilities are built, these valuable assets essentially will be deleted from our national inventory. As Gulf Coast governors, we know firsthand how much damage can be done in two years.

We also have to give consideration to our first responders, who will be losing a valuable and important link in their supply chain, making their job of saving lives that much harder and more hazardous.

Since the Air Force plan was introduced in February, governors and their adjutant generals have attempted tirelessly to negotiate a compromise with senior leadership at the Defense Department to mitigate the drastic and unjustified cuts to the Air National Guard. In fact, in a letter dated March 5, we raised this issue with President Obama directly, hoping he would personally instruct the Air Force to alter its course. Unfortunately, the needs of the Gulf Coast states have fallen on deaf ears, as we still have received no response.

Last month, the Defense Department offered what it considered a compromise, with vague promises of reduced staff cuts and the nonspecific deployment of 24 C-130s currently slated for decommission because of age and safety concerns. We’ve rejected this offer, and the Air Force has conceded that its proposal fell far short of what our states need.

We are continuing to call upon Congress to reverse this decision and keep these indispensable assets where they’re needed most – manned and supported by experienced personnel and operated by people who know and understand the specific challenges of dealing with emergencies along the Gulf Coast.

Anything less than that is a horrible mistake that needlessly places many lives in danger.

From documents scrawled on legal pads to those stored in boxes, a recent investigation into nursing home emergency plans found them severely lacking. The on-site inquiry at 24 nursing homes uncovered a plethora of missing and substandard plans that would leave residents without food, transportation, and medicine during a disaster.

The investigation, conducted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General, was part of a larger study that followed up on a 2006 examination of emergency planning and preparedness training in nursing homes. The study found that, despite guidelines and regulations, nursing homes are still sadly ill-prepared to take care of patients during disaster.
“We identified many of the same gaps in nursing home preparedness and response that we found in our 2006 report,” wrote authors in the latest report, released last week. “Emergency plans lacked relevant information…nursing homes faced challenges with unreliable transportation contracts, lack of collaboration with local emergency management, and residents who developed health problems.”

Even more disturbing is the fact that the 24 facilities visited were culled from 210 organizations that had already experienced flood, hurricane, or wildfire between 2007 and 2010, according to an Associated Press article.

“Of the 24 emergency plans, 23 did not describe how to handle a resident’s illness or death during an evacuation,” the article stated. “Also, 15 had no information about specific medical needs of patients, such as feeding tubes and breathing equipment. Seven plans were silent on how to identify residents in an evacuation [and] 15 made no provision for including medication lists.

“None of the nursing homes met a government recommendation for a seven-day supply of drinking water if residents had to shelter in place and their regular source of water was unsafe or unavailable. Twenty-two had no backup plans to replace staff members unable to report for work during a disaster.”

Investigators also found that transportation contracts were often not honored during disasters and only covered patients—not food, supplies, and medical equipment—when they were, according to the 2012 report.

Regulations require all nursing homes have to have a disaster plan, but many elements of that plan are optional. In fact, 92 percent of the 16,000 nursing home facilities met the letter of federal requirements for emergency planning and 72 percent met training requirements, according to the Associated Press.

Report authors recommended that those regulations be strengthened to include specific plan and training requirements, guidance be given on compliance, and nursing homes compelled to use existing planning checklists.

Other concerns are related to the changes that might be made to popular grant programs that are now run in a more independent manner.  In the case of Fort Bend County, we have received funding from grant programs such as the Urban Area Security Initiative, State Homeland Security Program, and the Emergency Management Performance Grant program.  The funds received from these grant programs have assisted the County in building greater capacities to handle disaster response.

Other questions are being raised about the parts of the plan that give all the funding to state governments for distribution, instead of providing it directly to local recipients, like Fort Bend County.  The primary concern is whether local governments will actually be part of the grant management process envisioned by the National Preparedness Grant Program.

As Margetta writes:

Months after the Obama administration unveiled its proposal to roll 16 grant programs overseen by the Federal Emergency Management Agency into a single pool, lawmakers and local emergency-response officials are saying they still don’t know enough about the plan to overcome their initial, negative reactions.

The Obama budget request would provide the consolidated “National Preparedness Grant Program” with $1.5 billion in fiscal 2013, $424 million more than the 16 programs received in fiscal 2012, when several of them were zeroed out. Still, the proposal has come under fire from stakeholders worried that their favorite grant programs will suffer under the change, as well as lawmakers and officials who don’t like other parts of the administration’s plan, such as giving all funding to states to distribute, instead of providing it directly to local recipients.

Florida Republican Gus Bilirakis, chairman of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response and Communications, said during a hearing last week that the administration needs to provide more specifics about how the consolidated system would work.

“I must say that I find it particularly troubling that . . . it’s been more than two months after the president’s budget was released and . . . the subcommittee still has not received sufficient detail on this proposal,” he said.

Ranking Democrat Laura Richardson of California said the administration did not conduct necessary briefings with grant recipients before putting forward its proposal.

Hui-Shan L. Walker, emergency management coordinator for Hampton, Va., and U.S. president of the International Association of Emergency Managers, said local officials agree homeland grant dollars should be spent transparently and effectively. However, she expressed concern about the president’s plan, calling it “a vision with very few details on how the process would work and what the impacts would be.”

The consolidated grant pool plan would require all funded projects to be based on capability gaps identified by the federal Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA) guide. Walker called the approach “state centric” and said the administration has not clearly explained how local government officials would have meaningful participation in the THIRA process.

She and other witnesses expressed particular concern about the administration’s plan to include the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI), worth $532 million in fiscal 2012, in the grant pool. Judson Freed, director of emergency management and homeland security for Ramsey County, Minn., who appeared on behalf of the National Association of Counties, said the plan would ramp up conflicts between state and local governments, damaging a decade’s worth of work in building relationships.

While a new block grant program “may be a worthwhile concept and certainly deserves consideration, it must not be implemented at the cost of dismantling what has already been built and consigning local risk to a minor role,” he said.

One vote of confidence for FEMA’s plan came from Jim Davis, executive director of the Colorado Department of Public Safety and vice chairman of the Homeland Security Advisors Council at the National Governors Association. In a time of tight budgets, he said, grant funding should be centralized, and the states would be the best entities for distributing it and monitoring its use. “I can say that the one thing that we are very appreciative of is FEMA’s recognition that the state has a role in the coordination of grant funding for the state,” he said.

The National Association of County Officials (NACo) has adopted a Resolution opposing the restructuring of grants as recommended by the federal government.  NACo opposes the change in the 2012 Emergency Management Performance Grant Program (EMPG) guidance expanding eligible subgrantees for the grant program, and urges Congress to require the Secretary to return to the intent of the EMPG funding and ensure that the funding is passed to local governments.

NACo opposes the assignment of final authority of the Adopted FY2013 National Preparedness Grant Program (NPGP) block grant to the state administrator. NACo requests that Congress require the Secretary to ensure that commissions consisting of county Emergency Managers and other county Public Safety agents be established in each state to vet requests for funding and ensure that the overall needs of the local communities are met, and that the State Administrator not become the final decision maker. Further, the NPGP must include the requirement to pass through no less than 80% of the funds to the Counties directly.

NACo opposes the inclusion of the Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) funding in the NPG block grant. NACo requests that Congress fully fund the UASI program and assure that no less than 80% of funds are passed through to the large urban areas. Further, NACo requests that Congress fully considers the risk of disaster to such areas and not limit the UASI program to the specific terrorism risk of certain large cities.

The Galveston City Council discussed the possibility of urging the Legislature to change the law and give cities the choice of who makes decisions during a disaster, such as a hurricane.  The Daily News has contended the city manager, rather than the mayor, should have emergency powers. Some council members agree.

It’s the same issue voters are facing with No. 3 on the proposed charter amendments.  The question is whether cities that really believe in the council-manager form of government have the right to stick to that form of government — even after they’ve been hit by a hurricane.

The idea behind the council-manager form of government is to put the city’s policy in the hands of elected officials while putting operational management into the hands of professional managers. Day in, day out, a manager with professional experience runs the day-to-day operations of the city. The manager has the power to hire and fire. The council has the power to hire and fire the manager but is forbidden from interfering with normal operations or from giving directions to any of the employees who report to the manager.

The problem with Galveston’s charter is that it specifies that’s the way things work — except in a disaster. The emergency powers provision does away with all that at the precise moment when professional management is needed most. The emergency powers provision embedded in both Galveston’s existing charter and in state law has been tried and found wanting.

After a disaster, operations of all city departments are strained. It’s when you need professional, rather than political, management the most. The council ought to adopt the proposed resolution. The legislature ought to amend a bad law.

As you can see from the map to the left, the Seaway pipeline crosses across Fort Bend County. The Seaway system includes a 500-mile Freeport, Texas to Cushing, Oklahoma pipeline and a terminal and distribution crude oil network originating in Texas City, Texas that serves all of the refineries in the Greater Houston area.  Seaway Crude Pipeline Company LLC (Seaway) is a 50/50 joint venture between Enterprise Products Partners L.P. which serves as operator and Enbridge Inc., which purchased its ownership interest from ConocoPhillips on November 16, 2011.

Enterprise and Enbridge are in the process of reversing Seaway, allowing it to transport crude oil from the bottlenecked Cushing, Oklahoma hub to the vast refinery complex along the Gulf Coast near Houston. In reversed service the line is expected to have an initial capacity of 150,000 barrels per day (BPD) by second quarter 2012. Following pump station additions and modifications, anticipated to be completed by early 2013, the capacity of the reversed Seaway Pipeline will increase to approximately 400,000 BPD of crude oil, assuming a mix of light and heavy grades.  The photo below shows field crews installing a new piece of pipe for the pipeline at a valve site in Fort Bend County.

Though the Seaway pipeline is a big project, it is only one of many pipelines that criss-cross Fort Bend County.  In fact, over 1600 miles of pipelines are located in the County.  Of course, that is not very much when you consider that over two million miles of pipelines can be found in the United States.  That is enough to circle the earth about 100 times. However, even though there are pipelines almost everywhere, most people do not know that such a large network even exists.

The US Department of Transportation notes that most hazardous liquid and gas pipelines are buried underground. To ensure your safety and avoid damaging underground lines, you must call your state one-call center before digging. Call Before you Dig!  Most hazardous liquid and gas transmission  pipelines are located underground in rights-of-way (ROW). A ROW consists of consecutive property easements acquired by, or granted to, the pipeline company. The ROW provides sufficient space to perform pipeline maintenance and inspections, as well as a clear zone where encroachments can be monitored and prevented. ROW Briefing.

To find out if a transmission pipeline is located near you, you can visit the National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS) and search by your county or zip code.  Pipeline operators are required to post brightly-colored markers along their ROW to indicate the presence of – but not necessarily the exact location of – their underground pipelines. Markers come in a variety of shapes and sizes. They contain information about the nearby pipeline as well as emergency contact information for the company that operates it. Pipeline Markers Briefing

Gas distribution systems consist of distribution main lines and service lines. Distribution main lines are generally installed in underground utility easements alongside streets and highways. Distribution service lines run from the distribution main line into homes or businesses. Distribution main and service lines are not generally indicated by above-ground markers. To ensure safety and avoid damaging underground lines, anyone planning to dig or excavate is required by law to contact their state One-Call center 48 to 72 hours before digging.

Emergency responders across the County are aware of the pipelines.  Our fire departments receive relevant information from the pipeline operators that work in our area.  In December 2010, a Fort Bend County Pipeline Explosion Exercise was developed and held to test the County Emergency Operations Center’s capabilities to respond to a pipeline explosion in an unincorporated section of the County.   During the exercise, the participants successfully achieved pre-identified objectives related to tracking resources, developing an Incident Action Plan, managing information within and external to the Emergency Operations Center, and gaining situational awareness during such an incident.

There is a tremendous amount of information about pipelines available on the Internet. However, if you have specific questions about pipelines in Fort Bend County, please do not hesitate to contact the Fort Bend County Office of Emergency Management and we will try to assist you.

Texas Engineering Extension Service (TEEX) officials recently selected Billy Parker (pictured) as director of Texas Task Force 1, an urban search and rescue team that responds to emergencies throughout the state. Parker, a 30-year employee of TEEX, has served as interim director of the task force following the resignation of Bob McKee, the former director who is the subject of an ongoing investigation of a complaint regarding his management of the group. A state agency within the Texas A&M University System, TEEX receives state funding for 10 percent of its budget and generates more funding by offering training programs throughout the world and with contracts with numerous businesses and organizations.

Congress has recognized the challenge of coordinating and sharing geospatial data from the local, county, and state level with the national level, and vice versa, but “challenges to coordinating how geospatial data are acquired and used — collecting duplicative data sets, for example — at the local, state and federal levels, in collaboration with the private sector, are not yet resolved,” concluded a new Congressional Research Service (CRS) report.

Geospatial data can be vitally important to first responders and emergency managers, for example, during times of crisis – including a catastrophic terrorist attack or major natural disaster.

The report, Issues and Challenges for Federal Geospatial Information, written by Peter Folger, a CRS specialist in energy and natural resources policy, stated that, “The cost to the federal government of gathering and coordinating geospatial information has … been an ongoing concern. As much as 80 percent of government information has a geospatial component, according to various sources,” and “the federal government’s role has changed from being a primary provider of authoritative geospatial information to coordinating and managing geospatial data and facilitating partnerships.”

While “Congress explored issues of cost, duplication of effort and coordination of geospatial information in hearings” during the 108th Congress, Folger noted that lawmakers still face considerable challenges with regard to coordinating how geospatial data are acquired and used by local, state and federal entities in collaboration with the private sector.

The report stated that “two bills introduced in the 112th  Congress, HR 1620 and HR 4322, would address aspects of duplication and coordination of geospatial information.”

Folger wrote, “The federal government has recognized the need to organize and coordinate the collection and management of geospatial data since at least 1990, when the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) revised Circular A-16 to establish the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) and to promote the coordinated use, sharing and dissemination of geospatial data nationwide. OMB Circular A-16 also called for development of a national digital spatial information resource to enable the sharing and transfer of spatial data between users and producers, linked by criteria and standards.”

The report elaborated that 1994 Executive Order 12906 strengthened and enhanced Circular A-16 and specified that FGDC shall coordinate development of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI). On Nov. 10, 2010, OMB issued supplemental guidance to Circular A-16 that labeled geospatial data as a “capital asset,” and referred to its acquisition and management in terms analogous to financial assets to be managed as a National Geospatial Data Asset Portfolio.

“It will likely take some time and several budget cycles,” the report said, “to track whether agencies are adhering to the ‘portfolio-centric model’ of geospatial data management outlined in the supplemental guidance.”

Folger concluded that “Congress may consider how a national GIS or geospatial infrastructure would be conceived, perhaps drawing on proposals for these national efforts” described in his report, “and how they would be similar to or differ from current efforts. Congress may also examine its oversight role in the implementation of OMB Circular A-16, particularly in how federal agencies are coordinating their programs that have geospatial components. In 2004, GAO acknowledged that the federal government, through the FGDC and Geospatial One-Stop project, had taken actions to coordinate the government’s geospatial investments, but that those efforts had not been fully successful in eliminating redundancies among agencies. As a result, federal agencies were acquiring and maintaining potentially duplicative data sets and systems.”

“Since then,” Folger continued, “it is not clear whether federal agencies are successfully coordinating among themselves and measurably eliminating unnecessary duplication of effort.”

“Were Congress to take a more active oversight role overseeing the federal geospatial enterprise,” Folger noted, “it could evaluate whether specific recommendations from nonfederal stakeholders have been addressed. For example, the National Geospatial Advisory Committee recommended that OMB and FGDC strengthen their enforcement of Circular A-16 and Executive Order 12906.”

“However,” the report found, ”enforcement alone may not be sufficient to meet the current challenges of management, coordination and data sharing. The issuance of supplemental guidance to Circular A-16 by OMB in November 2010 may instigate new activity among and between agencies, which could spill over into better coordination with the state and local governments and the private sector. It will likely take some time, and several budget cycles, to track whether agencies are adhering to the ‘portfolio-centric model’ of geospatial data management outlined in the supplemental guidance. It may also take time to evaluate whether the ‘portfolio-centric model’ is the best available model for managing the federal geospatial assets.”