Anniston Star
November 13, 2002

Preparedness role changes pondered

By Jason Landers
Star Staff Writer

The Army and Federal Emergency Management Agency are proposing weighty role changes in their oversight of the nation's Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program.

FEMA's responsibilities in preparing communities for the unlikely event of a chemical-weapons disaster would diminish significantly, according to a draft proposal obtained by The Anniston Star.

The Army stores chemical weapons at eight sites in the continental United States, including
Anniston. All of those sites participate in the preparedness program.

Representatives from the states will get their first official peek of the draft agreement during a special meeting Thursday in Washington, though a flood of copies have leaked through unofficial channels.

Most notable in the draft agreement between FEMA and the Army is a section that strips FEMA of its duties in doling out federal money to states and local governments for preparedness programs. The proposal relegates the agency to an advisory function in funding matters, shifting fiscal oversight to the Army.

Under the proposal, FEMA retains the lead in assisting state and local governments with developing emergency preparedness plans.

Reaction among chemical stockpile emergency preparedness officials is mixed, with some claiming the new deal "stinks" and others, particularly those here in Alabama, praising it as long overdue.

Calhoun County officials jumped through more hoops than a show dog in the center ring of a bureaucratic circus before FEMA released millions of federal dollars that the Army had promised last fall. Money to purchase equipment for emergency responders still hasn't arrived.

County Emergency Management Agency Director Mike Burney points an accusatory finger at FEMA for the delay.

"I think they (FEMA) need to be out of the funding scheme altogether," Burney said, hailing the proposed change as an improvement. "That's what's cost us - the delay, the bureaucracy, the red tape of the funding mechanisms and the number of agencies involved."

Lee Helms, director of the state EMA, echoed Burney's call for the change.

"It's a decision that FEMA and the Army need to make," Helms said. The current shared funding duties create unnecessary duplication, he said.

"If two state agencies were trying to manage the same program, then I think we would have the same problem," Helms said.

By having the Army in control of funding, money should arrive faster, Helms said.

Not everyone shares that view.

"We are not pleased," said David Holm, deputy CSEPP director of the Colorado Office of Emergency Management.

Colorado has had nothing but good experiences working with FEMA, Holm said. The Army, unlike FEMA, lacks the funding mechanisms or practice to deliver money directly to states and local governments, he said.

"The Army doesn't deal in a routine basis with grants," Holm said. "The Army, by its own repeated admissions, does not do that, does not know how to do that."

Holm will board a plane today on a flight to the meeting in Washington, where he will make his state's opposition known. But time is working against him.

A timeline is attached to the draft agreement. It gives the states a week to submit comments about the draft.

FEMA officials would not comment on the proposal until after the states have viewed it. Army officials were unavailable for comment.

The proposed deal falls short of what FEMA Director Joe Allbaugh asked for in May as he testified before a Senate panel. He told senators he wanted FEMA completely removed from CSEPP.

A month later, at a national CSEPP meeting in Lexington, Ky., Army and FEMA officials indicated there was a move to reduce FEMA's role in the program. This proposed agreement is the first time such a move has been put in writing.

The Army and FEMA tentatively are scheduled to formalize an agreement, with input from the states, Nov. 24.