Federal Quake Aid

The Times’ July 19 story about federal assistance for Northridge earthquake damages misstates the application approval rates of the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). Of the 250,350 Northridge applications SBA received through June 26, 1995, SBA reached a decision to approve or decline in 223,235 cases, with 123,560 approvals (an overall approval rate of 55.3%). The approval rates for homeowner/renter, business physical loss and small business economic injury applications were 56.4%, 61.6% and 24.9%, respectively.

The correct approval rates reflect our mission. As a key provider of federal disaster assistance to homeowners, renters, businesses of all sizes and private, nonprofit organizations, we take more risks and offer more generous terms than private lenders could. Our purpose is to make recovery affordable for as many disaster victims as possible. We also take very seriously our responsibility to the taxpayers to make prudent decisions and lend funds which can be repaid.

ALFRED E. JUDD, Area Director

U.S. Small Business Administration

*

* Federal law creates three types of disaster assistance programs: one helps individuals and small businesses; a second, the infrastructure program, supports rebuilding damaged public facilities; and a third, the hazard mitigation grant program, is to be used to reduce risk from future disasters.

According to federal regulations, if damaged facilities do not meet current state and local codes--or even more restrictive codes adopted prior to the time a project is approved for funding--the infrastructure program covers the costs. Regulations state that damaged facilities can be repaired to a standard above what existed before the disaster. It is not true, as your article contends, that the purpose of the hazard mitigation grant program is to “pay for the rebuilding of some structures to make them even stronger than they were before.” In fact, federal regulations restrict the use of hazard mitigation grant funds in repairing damaged facilities.

FEMA alleges that the state inappropriately established new standards in an effort to garner more federal dollars. This is absolutely not true. Current FEMA interpretation of federal regulations asks local and state government in California to take a major step backwards in safety by ignoring long-standing code provisions that require changes to a facility whenever specified levels of repairs or alterations are made. FEMA is attempting to rewrite federal law and regulations by arguing that disaster assistance programs only require them to return facilities to their pre-disaster condition.

RICHARD ANDREWS, Director

Governor’s Office of Emergency Services

Sacramento