Red Tape Slowed Quake Recovery, Panel Told

Federal bureaucratic red tape, unclear guidelines and a lack of flexibility hampered the recovery efforts following the Northridge earthquake, federal, state and local officials told a congressional subcommittee meeting Friday.

While lauding the federal government’s speedy response and its $3.4 billion in emergency funding after the quake, Richard Andrews, head of the state’s Office of Emergency Services, and Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan urged the committee to increase federal flexibility in future disasters.

Among other suggestions, Riordan proposed that the federal government relax rules to allow private banks to restructure mortgage loans for disaster victims who can’t afford to make repairs and must continue making regular mortgage payments.

“I hope that [committee members] will go back and propose new laws and regulations to make government more flexible next time,” Riordan said after testifying before the panel.

The hearing, coming two years after the Northridge quake claimed 72 lives and caused $27 billion in damage, was called for by the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight in an effort to hear suggestions on reducing cost and speeding future disaster response.

Committee members expressed support for many of the proposals, saying lawmakers from other parts of the country are beginning to resent the amount of federal disaster aide given to California in recent years.

“The concept across the nation is that California is a natural-disaster theme park,” Rep. Michael Flanagan (R-Illinios) said.

While several state and local officials called for more federal flexibility, James Lee Witt, director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, said in some cases there was not enough guidelines from the federal government.

For instance, he said, FEMA does not have written guidelines to resolve confusion over when the federal government should begin to pay overtime to disaster workers who work long hours and how the government determines who is eligible for housing aid.

Witt also suggested the federal government consider providing incentives--and possibly penalties--to encourage disaster-prone regions to require mitigation measures, such as tough seismic building codes.

“This will save disaster dollars in the future,” he told the committee.

Witt proposed a “Predisaster Mitigation Trust Fund” that would provide money to states that increase mitigation efforts. He also suggested those states that fail to take such efforts be required to put up a larger share of disaster aid. Normally, FEMA offers 75% of disaster aid, with the state paying for the 25% balance. During the Northridge quake, FEMA provided a 90% share.

Responding to questions from the committee, Witt said FEMA’s efforts were somewhat hampered by fraud that siphoned up to 15% of federal aid, language barriers between federal workers and victims, and a decentralized system that made it difficult to gauge how much money was being spent.

“There were some problems,” he said.

But Witt added that he believes the recovery has not been delayed due to such problems.

Riordan commended Witt and other federal officials for their response to the quake but suggested several changes in the way the federal government allocates disaster aid.

He said federal emergency loans are designed for owners of single-family homes and include too many restrictions to help owners of some of the large apartment buildings severely damaged in the quake.

“Federal machinery is designed for rural single-family areas. There needs to be a federal response vehicle in urban areas,” he said.

Riordan suggested that the federal government provide disaster relief funds directly to local governments, which can set the guidelines for loans as circumstances dictate.

He also noted that when FEMA placed its assistance offices in Los Angeles, it brought with it many temporary workers. Riordan suggested that next time FEMA hire local workers.

The only fireworks during the hearing came when Andrews complained to the committee that federal officials had at times made too much of an effort to get publicity for their efforts.

“It is particularly important that federal emergency response efforts not be undertaken solely to showcase a presence for the media when no critical resource needs are present,” he said. Andrews later explained that FEMA publicly criticized OES after the quake, saying the state had failed to request tents for temporary housing even though the state was preparing to pitch such tents citywide.

Andrews added that he thought federal regulations were often inconsistent and arbitrary, and sometimes conflicted with local policy. He cited disputes between state and federal officials over the scope of repairs FEMA should pay for at schools and hospitals.

Andrews’ comments prompted a harsh response from Rep. Julian Dixon (D-Los Angeles), who said the federal government provided more than its share of funding and criticized the state for having to borrow $120 million from the city of Los Angeles to provide its share of the relief funding.

“For you to include those kinds of comments makes this rather volatile,” Dixon told Andrews.

In a prepared statement, Blenda Wilson, president of Cal State Northridge, told the committee that the federal response was quick and knowledgeable. But she said later that when FEMA and OES employees were replaced by contract workers and temporary employees, the “hierarchy appeared to us to become more rigid, more vertical and less able to make timely decisions.”

Wilson suggested that FEMA and OES keep some disaster officials on site throughout the recovery to ensure continuity.