The New York Times
Nobember 2, 2003
Section 4, Page 1

Disaster Aid: The Mix of Mercy and Politics
By DAVID E. ROSENBAUM


PRESIDENT BUSH'S declaration last week that the wildfires in Southern California were a "major disaster" was the 50th such declaration he has issued this year.

That is more than one disaster a week, double the average annual figure in the 1980's. At the rate he is going, Mr. Bush's total for the year could approach the record of 75 disasters declared by President Clinton in 1996, his re-election year.

When a president declares a region a disaster zone, like the four counties in California hit by fires, millions, even in a few cases billions, of federal dollars become available overnight. The residents can be eligible for assistance ranging from unemployment benefits to temporary housing to low-interest loans, and the communities receive grants to cover expenses like debris removal, repairs to damaged buildings and emergency public services.

No one seriously believes there are more floods, fires and pestilence than there used to be. What has happened, in the view of students of the subject, is that presidents have discovered the political utility of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's disaster program.

Without question, the fires last week left a terrible trail of devastation, destroying more than 3,100 houses and other structures. But in a comprehensive analysis of disaster declarations over the years, two economists, Thomas A. Garrett of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis and Russell S. Sobel of West Virginia University, found this year that "nearly half of all disaster relief is motivated politically rather than by need."

They used as the takeoff point for their paper this quotation from Congressional testimony in 1996 by James Lee Witt, then the director of the emergency management agency: "Disasters are very political events."

Mr. Witt declined to be interviewed for this article. Several other politicians and officials said they agreed with Mr. Witt's description, but they said it only after being promised their names would not be used.

"It's so awkward to talk about," said Representative Earl Blumenauer, Democrat of Oregon. "You don't want to appear mean-spirited."

The reluctance of politicians to speak out leaves criticism of the disaster programs primarily to an odd alliance of free-market conservative economists and avid environmentalists.

Even the most ardent libertarians do not hold that the federal government should offer no help when communities are devastated -- by a big earthquake, say, or a powerful storm.

"There are national emergencies in which there is clearly a legitimate role for the government," said John Frydenlund, a senior fellow at Citizens Against Government Waste, a conservative research and lobbying organization. "But what's happening in agriculture, for instance, is that some part of the country has a little too much or too little rain, and there is pressure to declare a disaster area."

When assistance is too freely available, Mr. Frydenlund and some other economists say, it can result in more harm than good.

They hold that private disaster insurance is more expensive and less widely available than it should be because federal relief programs reduce the demand for private coverage. They also argue that the programs induce risky behavior, allowing Californians whose homes are destroyed by fire, for instance, to rebuild on fire-prone hillsides.

Other economists are more concerned about what they see as the inequity in requiring struggling taxpayers in, say, North Dakota, to pay taxes to cover the expenses every time a hurricane strikes affluent taxpayers in South Florida. In many parts of the country, statistics show, the farther people live from the coastline, where the property is most vulnerable to storms and flooding, the less well off the people are likely to be.

The case against the relief programs that environmentalists make is that natural disasters are part of the normal ecological cycle.

Federal flood insurance, to take one example, has often resulted in people building or rebuilding on high-risk flood plains that are "some of the richest and most important ecological areas in the country," said David Conrad, a water resources specialist at the National Wildlife Federation.

But these arguments carry little weight with the politicians. Rarely does any lawmaker take issue with offering money to regions where disasters have occurred. One reason, some suggest, is that the day may come when their states or districts will be seeking relief.

The disaster relief law is vague on how it should be applied, so presidents have great latitude. The General Accounting Office, the auditing arm of Congress, has recommended more specific guidelines and standards for years, but Congress has never seen fit to enact them.

Mr. Clinton was a master at showing compassion and spreading the wealth. Time and again at countless fires, floods and blizzards, he showed up to hug victims and offer the government's largess. The television correspondent Brit Hume once called him "almost the national chaplain to those in distress."

Mr. Bush has picked up where his predecessor left off. People are likely to remember the California fires and Hurricane Isabel for years to come. But how many remember even now the ice storm that struck South Carolina last January, the winter storm in upstate New York in April or the heavy rains in New Hampshire and Vermont in July, all belonging to the president's list of 50?

Still, even the president's staunchest political opponents in Congress are not complaining. To the bill providing $87 billion for military operations and reconstruction in Iraq, Congressional negotiators last week added $500 million for "disaster relief activities associated with recently declared disasters, such as Hurricane Isabel and the California wildfires."

The words "such as" were added at the end of the negotiations to appease lawmakers whose states and districts were not affected by the fires or the storm, but perhaps had some other emergency.

URL: http://www.nytimes.com

GRAPHIC: Map/Photos: CONSTRUCTION, DESTRUCTION -- The relentless pace of development in California is evident in these aerial photographs of the Scripps Ranch area of San Diego. From top left, 1974, 1990 and earlier this year. The area is now one of the sites devastated by fire (bottom). For an analysis of the state's growth, see page 12. (Top three photos by Map and Imagery Laboratory, Library, U.C.S.B. Above, Michael J. Pusnik Jr./United States Navy) Map of California highlighting the locations of the Miramar Reservoir, Pomerado Road and Meadowdale Lane. Graph: "Dire Declarations"The federal government declared the California fires a "major disaster" last week, the 50th such designation so far this year. Graph tracks the number of major disasters declared by the federal government, 1976-2003. * To date, including the California fires (Source by Federal Emergency Management Agency)(pg. 12)