Under the Emergency Management Assistance Compact, which was revised after 9/11, the Federal Government and FEMA are not allowed to interfere with local operations unless they are authorized by state and local leaders.I agree that obtaining Federal Assistance depends on a state asking for it (See Stafford Act, 42 USC; and the regulations that flow from it, i.e. FEMA rules at 44 CFR), but the author is saying the Emergency Management Assistance Compact is what governs this relationship. It does not.
EMAC, the Emergency Management Assistance Compact, is a congressionally ratified organization that provides form and structure to interstate mutual aid. Through EMAC, a disaster impacted state can request and receive assistance from other member states quickly and efficiently, resolving two key issues upfront: liability and reimbursement.
Here is another, the author says "By Tuesday, August 30, the federal relief effort began shipping food, water and medical supplies toward Louisiana for use in New Orleans," yet it is evident from news accounts that relief supplies were prepositioned INSIDE Louisiana before Katrina made landfall.
Here is one that is indefinite ...
The Department of Defense sent search and rescue experts, doctors, nurses and support personnel. FEMA was there to help as much as they could but local and state officials would not allow them to participate because Governor Blanco still had not given her permission.
The phrase "would not allow them to participate" is indefinite. Participate in what, exactly? FEMA was working, obtaing damage assessments, order repositioning of supplies, starting the process of coordinating outside resources, etc.
I do know that the Red Cross and other FEMA-driven agencies were denied permission to enter NOLA, by state and local authorities, because the thugs were active and because Blanco figured starving the people would encourage them to leave. The author should have been more specific here.
Anyway, the article simply paints a grossly inaccurate picture of the way Blanco mismanaged the situation. It fails to separate asking for $$ from ceding control of a rescue and relief effort. It asserts that KBB 2005-23 is somehow the device that "turned a switch" between FEMA/federal inaction and action. In the first place, there is no single "switch" of that nature. The governor's requests for assistance must be precise. And in the scond place, as noted above, KBB 2005-23 has absolutely nothing to do with the relationship between LA and federal assistance.
Like I said, there are some facts in the article, but as a whole, it needs to be taken with a pound of salt.
Thank you. I asked you to refute, and you stepped up to do so.