**Testimony**

**Eric Holdeman, Director, King County Office of Emergency Management**

**to**

**Senate Committee: Government Operations and Elections**

**January 11, 2005**

Good morning, I am Eric Holdeman, Director for the King County Office of
Emergency Management and a Past President of the Washington State
Emergency Management Association (WSEMA).

I am here to provide testimony on the status of Emergency Management
here in Washington State. I would like to highlight three specific
subjects:

-   Local Program Status and the impact of Homeland Security

-   Adequate funding for emergency management, highlighting the need for
    vastly improved public education efforts and warning systems.

-   Taking a regional approach to protecting our communities

Like politics, all disasters are local. It is at the county and city
levels of government that the full brunt of disasters is felt. If we
expect our state to be prepared for anything that might come, then the
first line of defense is not the state, but local jurisdictions.

This fact was acknowledged in a study of local emergency management
programs that was completed in 2004. The report is titled "A Study of
Emergency Management at the Local Program Level." It was commissioned by
the Washington State Emergency Management Council and it is the most
in-depth assessment of emergency management ever conducted here in
Washington State. I will be referring to several findings and
recommendations from that study during my testimony.

[Local Emergency Management Programs]{.underline}: The influx of Federal
Homeland Security (HLS) funding is dramatically changing the face of
emergency management. These grant funds come with specific deliverables.
While the Department of Homeland Security espouses an "All-hazards"
approach to disaster preparedness, the grant funds coming down to state
and local jurisdictions are specifically for Chemical, Biological,
Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive (CBRNE) counter terrorism planning,
training, exercises and equipment. For the last six months of 2004 my
emergency management staff has been spending 65% of their program time
[on HLS grant administration]{.underline}. The time we spend on other
hazard preparations has shrunk from a high of over 73% several years ago
to 30%. The report on local programs states, "The large number of
funding sources, the continuing inadequacy of available funding, and the
administrative cost of grant management, compromises local programs'
ability to maintain adequate disaster preparedness." As noted again in
the study of emergency management programs I referenced earlier, quote,
"A lack of dedicated support resources available at the state level
contributes to lower levels of overall preparedness, specifically
inadequate capability levels in mitigation and planning, and
insufficient training and exercises, regional collaboration, and local
outreach." I would also add public education to the list of program
areas lacking support.

Secondly I would like to call your attention to the issue of disaster
[public education]{.underline} efforts here in this state. The finding
from the study of emergency management on this topic states, "Limited
local public education programs have resulted in a public largely
unaware of their responsibility when a disaster occurs." Perhaps the
most telling comment I can provide you concerning our efforts on public
education is that the State's Biennial Budget for All-hazards Public
Education is less than \$30,000 (.005 cents per citizen). Why is that?
If you look at the State Emergency Management Division's budget you will
see that it is primarily a federally funded State agency. Only a small
fraction of its budget comes from the State's general fund. This
necessitates that the federal and other program specific funding
received by that agency be spent on their program specific hazards. This
translates into an approach that puts natural and technological hazards
like earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis and hazardous materials releases
(note the recent train accident that killed eight people in the
Carolinas), on the bottom of the funding totem pole. I have great
respect for the program managers at State EMD who are in essence trying
to "make bricks without straw."

[As for warning systems]{.underline}, Washington State has been a
pioneer in integrating the Emergency Alert System (EAS) with the
National Weather Service's warning system using All-hazard Tone Alert
Radios. These devices are what I believe is the 21^st^ Century's version
of the air raid siren. In King County we have put in place one of these
radios in every county facility, and in every school in unincorporated
King County. Much more can be done to ensure that the people of
Washington State can be warned and directed how to protect themselves.
\[Demonstration of the Tone Alert Radio and play of the Tone Alert PSA\]

[Taking A Regional Approach]{.underline}: Emergency management grew out
of the Civil Defense era of WWII and the Cold War. It has evolved into a
profession that is being called upon to be prepared for any human or
naturally caused disaster. From flooding to drought, earthquakes,
tsunamis, and volcanic eruptions---and now Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Washington State Emergency Management has been recognized for the
regional approach that has been taken for the administration of HLS
funding. There are nine regions in the state being used to administer
HLS grant funds. In King County which is Region 6 we have made
significant progress on regional issues. We have a Regional Disaster
Response Plan, a Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan, and a state-of-the-art
Regional Communications and Emergency Coordination Center. Our approach
has been multi-disciplinary and multi-jurisdictional with significant
time and resources committed to having processes in place to ensure
regional input and participation. All of this work is being done on a
voluntary basis by participating organizations. Another recommendation
from the study of local government programs was, "Realign existing fire
and law mobilization regions, and emergency medical services, health and
the new administrative emergency management planning regions." Doing so
will bring about an even better platform for regional coordination.

A state-wide regional approach requires more than a system for
administering HLS Grants. The true work of disaster preparedness is
found in coordinated regional planning, training and exercising. A
regional approach for the State of Washington begs the establishment of
a statewide mutual aid agreement between counties (something that has
been called for by the Department of Homeland Security). The
administrative regions need to be translated into regions that are
prepared to respond collectively to any emergency. Other state models,
most notably California, have instituted such systems.

In conclusion, we have a tradition here in the United States and
elsewhere in the world of only addressing issues concerning disaster
preparedness and mitigation [after]{.underline} we have experienced some
calamity. The most recent being the Indian Ocean Tsunami event. Is there
any doubt that a Tsunami Warning System would have saved tens of
thousands of lives? Or, that a warning system will be put in place for
the future, now that over 150,000 lives have been lost? Yesterday
President Bush received a briefing on Tsunami Warning Systems.

History is replete with other examples. In California they legislatively
put in place a Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) that
formally established a regional approach following the Oakland Hills
Fire disaster. And, in Florida following the 1995 Hurricane Andrew the
legislature passed a funding mechanism to improve state and local
emergency management's preparedness.

I would like to highlight one final summary finding from the study.
"Disparities in the organization, staffing and funding of local programs
have led to a patchwork of weak emergency management programs that
compromise effective disaster response." Let me be very clear in my
message to you. This is not due to a lack of dedicated emergency
management program managers within the Washington State EMD. The issue
is a lack of State \[and local\] funding.

I believe your best course of action is to investigate further what the
recommendations are from this study and what your role as legislators
might be in remedying this situation. Personally, I believe that the
development of a comprehensive statewide regional approach that works in
concert with the new National Incident Management System (NIMS) and the
National Response Plan (NRP) would yield both short and long term
benefits to the state and its citizens. An examination of the California
SEMS legislation would be a good starting point.

The question before you today is, will you wait for a catastrophic
disaster, or will you take action now to protect the people, property,
and the environment of Washington before disaster strikes?

Thank you for this opportunity to appear before you. Please don't
hesitate to contact me if I can be of assistance to you in the future.
I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have at this time.