Replies

Sure - although I should have said "coordination" rather than "control," I guess - although in practice there may not be much distinction:

National Response Plan notes from DHS.

The idea of the "Incident of National Significance" designation was to consolidate coordination of the many responding agencies, because normal interagency coordination and communication is too slow for large-scale incidents. It is not necessary for the state to request this designation, but they can.

My primary point, though, is that this designation does not signal the beginning of Federal support, it only changes the organizational structure of it (and is supposed to streamline the ability of the folks on the ground to obtain more resources, if needed.)

Under the NRP, first responders quite explicitly still are supposed to respond immediately and/or pre-stage, as they did.

In the case of Katrina, the situation quite dramatically changed sometime late Monday night (we think), and this became clear to everybody by Tuesday, when the "Incident" was formally declared.

Cboldt: I'm not sure that Incident of National Significance results in consolidation of command and control in the Fed apparatus. Would like to see a cite for that.

Sure - although I should have said "coordination" rather than "control," I guess - although in practice there may not be much distinction:

I take the terms to be synonymous, for the most part - although in practice of course they aren't.

And there very well may be some point where "control" is supposed to pass from state to fed - but it is absolutely necessary that those players agree to "make the transition" at some point. And a smooth transition is very hard to pull off. If you've worked in business, you know what sorts of crap goes down when a responsibiluty and authority is transferred from one person or department to another.

I've read most of the National Response Plan, with discussion at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1477440/posts?page=786#786 and following. Since then, I've read most of the rules that FEMA operates under. Here is a pair of rules that I just plain can't reconcile cleanly ...

TITLE 44--EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AND ASSISTANCE
CHAPTER I--FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
PART 206_FEDERAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE FOR DISASTERS DECLARED ON OR AFTER NOVEMBER 23, 1988
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/44cfr206_04.html
Subpart B_The Declaration Process
Sec. 206.42 Responsibilities of coordinating officers.
(b) The SCO [State Coordinating Officer - Mr. Art Jones] coordinates State and local disaster assistance efforts with those of the Federal Government working closely with the FCO. The SCO is the principal point of contact regarding coordination of State and local disaster relief activities, and implementation of the State emergency plan. The functions, responsibilities, and authorities of the SCO are set forth in the State emergency plan. It is the responsibility of the SCO to ensure that all affected local jurisdictions are informed of the declaration, the types of assistance authorized, and the areas eligible to receive such assistance.
Subpart C_Emergency Assistance
Sec. 206.64 Coordination of assistance.
After an emergency declaration by the President, all Federal agencies, voluntary organizations, and State and local governments providing assistance shall operate under the coordination of the Federal Coordinating Officer. [William Lokey named to handle Lousiana, by Michael D. Brown]

I can't figure out, from those apparantly contradictory assignments of responsibility, who is supposed to be "in charge of what." The Declaration of Emergency came before the storm, but the rules are arranged as though events will always be "event, declaration, response." The rules provide no help as far as how to accomplish a smooth (yet temporatry) transfer or authority and responsibility.

I think it's a symptom of overplanning and too much government, and you watch, we'll be getting more of both.

FWIW, I think this impacts only the relationship between federal agencies. I haven't found a single reference that describes how this designation impacts the relationship between FEMA and the state, and lots of references as to how this designation cuts inter-federal red tape to the benefit of FEMA itself.

Anyway, it's up to the government players to figure out how they will cooperate, and it's up to the voters to say, "Enough already, just give up on it, stop overpromising. Let us take care of ourselves."

And yes, there are a number of us dorks out here ;-)