However, research suggests that, for a number of reasons, state and local governments may be reluctant to take actions to mitigate natural hazards. The reasons include local sensitivity to such measures as building code enforcement and land-use planning, conflict between hazard mitigation and development goals, the lack of an understanding of mitigation and political support, and the perception that mitigation is costly and involves solutions that are overly technical and complex. FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Efforts

FEMA provides state and local governments with hazard mitigation grants and training in support of the agency’s endeavors to instill a community-based approach to implementing disaster mitigation efforts. FEMA also attempts to reduce flood losses through buying-out flood-prone properties throughout the country and converting the properties to open spaces. FEMA’s September 1997 strategic plan, entitled “Partnership for a Safer Future,” states that the agency is concentrating its activities on reducing disaster costs through mitigation because “no other approach is as effective over the long term.” One of the strategic plan’s three goals is to “protect lives and prevent the loss of property from all hazards.” The strategic objectives under this goal are to reduce, by fiscal year 2007, (1) the risk of loss of life and injury from hazards by 10 percent and (2) the risk of property loss and economic disruption from hazards by 15 percent. FEMA expects that these strategic goals and objectives will be reflected in its future performance partnership agreements with the states. However, on the basis of our past work, we believe that a number of issues are pertinent to the Congress’ consideration of the cost-effective use of federal dollars for hazard mitigation. As noted above, our work has identified a variety of approaches with potential for increasing mitigation. These include regulatory and financial incentives proposed by FEMA, the National Research Council, and the National Performance Review. These or other proposals would require analysis to determine their relative costs and effectiveness. Among existing programs, it is uncertain that, collectively, federal funds are effectively targeted to projects where the risk of loss is greatest. First, it is often difficult to determine the cost-effectiveness of specific actions because of limited data concerning risks. Second, federal hazard mitigation funds are provided through a number of different programs and agencies—some limited to particular hazards. Finally, it is important to note that the extent to which mitigation projects will result in federal dollar savings is uncertain; savings depend upon the actual incidence of future disaster events and the extent to which the federal government would bear the resulting losses.
Why GAO Did This Study

GAO discussed the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) disaster mitigation efforts, focusing on: (1) the reasons why disaster mitigation efforts are not always undertaken by state and local governments and individuals; (2) FEMA's efforts to encourage mitigation; and (3) issues that GAO believes are pertinent to ensuring the cost-effective use of federal dollars for hazard mitigation.

What GAO Found

GAO noted that: (1) hazard mitigation is primarily the responsibility of state and local governments, and individuals; however, mitigation actions are not always taken; (2) the reasons for this include local sensitivity to such measures as: (a) building code enforcement and land use planning; (b) conflict between mitigation and developmental goals; and (c) individuals' perceptions that the possibility of a disaster's occurrence is low; (3) FEMA's hazard mitigation efforts include grants and training for state and local governments, funding for mitigating damage to public facilities and purchasing and converting flood-prone properties to open space, federal flood insurance, and programs targeted at reducing the loss of life and property from earthquakes and fires; (4) in recent years, FEMA has taken a strategic approach to mitigation by publishing a 15-year national mitigation strategy and establishing 5-year mitigation objectives in its strategic plan pursuant to the Government Performance and Results Act; (5) FEMA expects to reflect its strategic goal and objectives in future performance partnership agreements with states; (6) GAO's work has identified several issues pertinent to ensuring the cost-effective use of federal dollars for hazard mitigation; (7) studies have shown a variety of approaches with the potential for increasing the level of mitigation, including regulatory and financial incentives proposed by FEMA, the National Research Council, and the National Performance Review; however, these and other proposals require analysis to determine their relative costs and benefits; (8) under existing approaches, it is uncertain that, collectively, federal funds are effectively targeted to projects where the risk of loss is greatest because: (a) limitations on data needed to estimate risks often make it difficult to determine the cost-effectiveness of specific actions; and (b) federal hazard mitigation funds are provided through a number of different programs and agencies--some limited to particular hazards; and (9) the extent to which cost-effective mitigation projects will result in federal dollar savings is uncertain, depending upon the actual incidence of future disaster events and the extent to which the federal government would bear the resulting losses.