Testimony of Juan Manuel Ortiz, International Association of Emergency Managers (July 29, 2021)
Summary
Testimony of Juan Manuel Ortiz, Director of the Office of Emergency Management & Homeland Security for the City of Austin, Texas, on behalf of the International Association of Emergency Managers, to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on July 29, 2021. Ortiz states that he is testifying on behalf of IAEM, which he describes as the premier professional organization for emergency management with more than 6,000 members worldwide. He states that IAEM was founded in 1952 as the U.S. Civil Defense Council. The testimony then turns to the organization's mission and its views for the hearing.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“Testimony of Juan Manuel Ortiz, International Association of Emergency Managers (July 29, 2021).”
Original at docs.house.gov. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/hhrg-117-pw00-wstate-ortizj-20210729-1e59dc9960d9-5c8786ab2d/
, SHA-256 1e59dc9960d9ba59b3687ee9715f06a02406025916339efb3fe2b825dec4dd9c.Full text
Testimony of Juan Manuel Ortiz
Director for the Office of Emergency Management & Homeland Security
City of Austin, Texas
On Behalf of the International Association of Emergency Managers
Committee of Transportation and Infrastructure
United States House of Representatives
July 29, 2021
Testimony of Juan Manuel Ortiz
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
July 29, 2021
Introduction
Chair Defazio, Ranking Member Graves, and members of the Committee, thank you for
the opportunity to testify at today’s hearing. My name is Juan Manuel Ortiz. I serve as the
Director for the City of Austin’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Management .
I am testifying today on behalf of the International Association of Emergency Managers
(IAEM). IAEM is the premier professional organization for emergency management, with more
than 6,000 members worldwide. The mission of IAEM is to advance our profession by promoting
the principles of emergency management; and, to serve our members by providing information,
networking, and development opportunities. We are a non-profit educational organization
dedicated to promoting the "Principles of Emergency Management" and representing those
professionals whose goals are saving lives and protecting property and the environment during
emergencies and disasters. IAEM was founded in 1952 as the U.S. Civil Defense Council, becoming
the National Coordinating Council of Emergency Managers (NCCEM) in 1985, and the
International Association of Emergency Managers in 1997. Today, IAEM continues to drive the
development of the profession of emergency management through its promotion of the
Principles of Emergency Management, Certified Emergency Manager (CEM) Program and IAEM
Scholarship Program. The Student Council now has chapters at universities around the world and
works to engage with future professionals as they choose their career paths.
The City of Austin is a home rule local government covering 271 square miles and serving
nearly 1 million residents and more than 30 million annual visitors each year. Austin is the heart
of one of our nation’s fastest growing (32.4% population growth over the past decade) and most
dynamic metropolitan areas, which is home to 2.2 million people. In addition to state
government, the University of Texas, and major regional health care institutions, we are the
1
Testimony of Juan Manuel Ortiz
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
July 29, 2021
proud home of the Army Futures Command and of numerous national and regional corporate
headquarters, including such well-known names as Apple, Dell, eBay, IBM, Oracle, NXP
Semiconductors, VRBO, Whole Foods, and Yeti. Austin annually hosts numerous events that draw
tens of millions of visitors, including major internationally known events such as South by
Southwest, the Formula 1 Aramco United States Grand Prix, and Austin City Limits, in addition to
countless other events that draw large crowds and visitors from around the nation and the world.
The City of Austin Homeland Security and Emergency Management Office is one of several
public agencies charged with keeping our city and metropolitan area safe. The 14 employees of
our Office plan and prepare for emergencies, educate the public about preparedness, develop
volunteers, manage grant funding to improve homeland security and public safety capabilities,
coordinate emergency response and recovery, support planned events, and work with public and
partner organizations to protect our whole community when it needs us the most. We were the
first local emergency management agency in Texas to earn full accreditation under the
Emergency Management Accreditation Program, placing us among the nation’s leading
emergency management agencies. That distinction is the result of our broad-based work and
our innovative programs, such as Disaster Ready Austin, a collaborative initiative to educate and
empower residents to be prepared for emergencies and disaster that provides households,
businesses, and schools with emergency planning and preparedness tools, and a recognition of
our comprehensive emergency management program.
We are a comprehensive emergency management operation. In addition to planning and
preparing for events that draw tens of millions of visitors and large crowds, our work addresses
all aspects of emergency management. Indeed, although large events constitute a sizable portion
of our workload, the top five hazards that Austin and Central Texas residents face and that keep
2
Testimony of Juan Manuel Ortiz
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
July 29, 2021
our staff perpetually busy are floods (Austin is in the heart of “flash flood alley”), wildfires, severe
weather, hazardous materials spills, and, especially over the past 18 months, a pandemic.
Our 2020 Annual Report provides a good snapshot of our work. Quoting from my opening
message in the report:
“2020 proved to be anything but a normal year, not only for emergency management, but
the Austin community with the challenges we faced. It was a year that brought struggles
for many but was also a year that saw Austinites and other communities come together
and lead the way in tackling a global pandemic.
On March 1, 2020, the Austin-Travis County Emergency Operations Center (A-TCEOC) was
activated in response to COVID-19. In truly historical times, emergency operations have
now been sustained well into 2021 – over a yearlong activation. The COVID-19 response
has brought together partners and organizations across the region to provide support and
care for individuals.
While COVID-19 was the headline for 2020, our staff has continually met additional
challenges head on as other events unfolded throughout the year – staff pursued training
and learning how to combat new emergencies that our community faces and handled
numerous severe weather events ranging from extreme heat to bitter cold. Additionally,
Austin became a shelter for many Hurricane Laura evacuees.
In 2019, we began redevelopment our emergency plans to ensure that our team maintains
both its focus and readiness posture to mitigate, respond to and recover from all-hazards
emergencies that affect our community, and that mission did not end with COVID-19.
These processes carried on well into 2020 as we adapted and modified plans to meet
growing challenges and is a process that will continue every year.
The lessons learned from 2020 will be invaluable to our vision of being a disaster-prepared
and resilient community and will shape the future of emergency management responses.
3
Testimony of Juan Manuel Ortiz
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
July 29, 2021
The partnerships forged during the trying year will ensure that we are more prepared than
ever.”1
In 2020, we added nearly 50 temporary staff to help us respond to COVID-19, created a
disaster reserve team to support response needs , logged 1.1 million response hours, sheltered
thousands of Gulf Coast residents displaced by category 4 Hurricane Laura, coordinated the
regional response to record breaking cold that crippled our state’s power grid, distributed 71,676
units of hand sanitizer, distributed nearly 12 million pieces of personal protective equipment,
housed 536 severely at-risk individuals in temporary protective shelter, housed more than 2,000
people in an isolation facility for COVID-19, established an alternate care site for COVID-19
patients, coordinated medical staffing to 31 area hospitals and launched a mobile phone
application to help residents be better prepared for disasters.
Of course, we do not do this on our own. In addition to our City of Austin and our regional
partners, our partnership with the Texas Division of Emergency Management (TDEM) and with
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) are critical to our efforts. We greatly
appreciate their partnership and their support as our work would not be possible without it.
As this Committee and Congress look at how the federal government can better support
local emergency management efforts, my testimony will aim to provide constructive guidance
with the aim of strengthening these partnerships and improving our ability to meet our core
mission.
Recent Laws: FACE Act of and Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018
1
http://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/HSEM/2020%20Annual%20Report_Web.pdf
4
Testimony of Juan Manuel Ortiz
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
July 29, 2021
I would be remiss if I did not begin with a recognition of what Congress has done in recent
years to improve the federal-state-local emergency management partnership. The Federal
Advance Contracts Enhancement Act (FACE Act/PL 116-272) and the Disaster Recovery Reform
Act of 2018 (PL 115-254) made important improvements to the federal-state-local emergency
management partnership. The full Transportation & Infrastructure Committee worked hard on
these laws, and we deeply appreciate those efforts.
Enacted in response to a 2018 General Accountability Office (GAO) report2, the FACE Act
makes several improvements to the advance contracts process whereby FEMA provides its state
and local partners with goods and services ahead of disasters so that they can be rapidly
deployed. The bill implements GAO’s recommendations to improve the advance contracts
process, including providing state and local partners with updated and full information about
available advance contracts, updating program guidance, and regular communication with
congressional oversight committees.
The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 made even more important improvements. It
made it more difficult for FEMA to recapture disaster assistance funds based on technicalities
and put a statute of limitations to recapture disaster assistance funds. There is no question that
FEMA should have full authority to recapture disaster assistance funds that were willfully or
carelessly misspent. However, FEMA all too often recaptures disaster assistance funds on the
pretext of small violations of arcane procedural rules and regulations, the complexity of which
are exacerbated by policy inconsistencies across regions and from year to year. That situation not
only creates an adversarial relationship between FEMA and its state and local partners, but it
2
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-19-93.pdf
5
Testimony of Juan Manuel Ortiz
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
July 29, 2021
leads to trepidation among state and local emergency managers and officials and a focus on
bureaucratic minutiae when state and local emergency managers and officials should be focused
on a bold and comprehensive disaster response effort. These provisions in the 2018 law went a
long way towards reducing that adversarial relationship and to allowing for a more robust state
and local response in the immediate aftermath of a disaster.
More importantly, Section 1234 of the 2018 law overhauled and bolstered FEMA’s pre-
disaster mitigation efforts, creating the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC)
and Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) programs. This may be the most important change
Congress has made to FEMA programs in a generation. For too many years, there was much
study, discussion, and debate about how our nation needed to shift from responding to disasters,
usually in an ad hoc and increasingly expensive manner, to creating more resilient communities
that are better protected from and prepared for disasters. BRIC and FMA put words into action,
providing a major increase in federal funding for pre-disaster mitigation and better focusing that
funding on local governments that implement local policies to make their communities more
resilient.
Austin has an excellent pre-disaster mitigation story I can share with the Committee. As I
mention above, a major challenge facing Austin and other central Texas communities is the ever-
present danger of flash floods. The combination of local topography, a rocky landscape, and
rainfall events that are often severe and localized lead to flash floods that can quickly turn quiet
streams into raging torrents with little or no warning. It is for good reason that Austin and Central
Texas have been dubbed “flash flood alley”.
The City of Austin has taken a proactive approach to this problem, establishing a
Watershed Protection Department charged with protecting lives, property, and the environment
6
Testimony of Juan Manuel Ortiz
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
July 29, 2021
by reducing the impact of flood, erosion, and water pollution. Where practicable, City policy
favors a “natural” approach to flood damage protection that focuses on removing households
and people from repetitive risk flood areas. Similarly, City policy promotes a “natural” approach
to watershed protection and stormwater management that uses green infrastructure and natural
elements to protect riparian areas and water quality.
For example, in the Onion Creek watershed in a low- and moderate-income neighborhood
in south Austin, the City has partnered with the Army Corps of Engineers and FEMA to buy out
and relocate more than 800 households from a severely flood-prone neighborhood of single-
family homes. After completion of those buyouts, the City and our federal partners restored the
flood plain and its riparian areas to their natural state and created a new park that provides an
array of recreational opportunities.
The City combines these “natural” approaches with traditional grey infrastructure in areas
where relocations are not practicable and natural, green infrastructure approaches are not
practicable or sufficient. For example, to address flooding along Waller Creek, which runs from
the University of Texas through the heart of downtown Austin before emptying into Lady Bird
Lake, the City constructed the Waller Creek Flood Control Tunnel3 in downtown Austin. For years,
severe flooding, erosion and water quality problems have beset Waller Creek. The Project
consists of a stormwater bypass tunnel that will address high
priority flooding, erosion, and water quality problems along lower Waller Creek. The mile-long
tunnel will safely convey floodwaters by capturing and redirecting floodwater, creating an
opportunity to restore the creek and revitalize the Waller Creek District. The Waller Creek Tunnel
3
http://www.austintexas.gov/department/waller-creek-tunnel
7
Testimony of Juan Manuel Ortiz
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
July 29, 2021
protects lives from the dangers of flash flooding, removed more than 28 acres of downtown from
the floodplain, protects 42 structures, 12 roadways and creates an environment suitable for
redevelopment in the heart of downtown Austin, a centrally located area that is well served by
existing infrastructure and provides easy and sustainable access (pedestrian, bicycle, and transit)
to jobs, education, services, and other opportunities.
However, the City has been unsuccessful in obtaining much-needed BRIC funding for
mitigation projects, despite the strong benefit cost analysis addressing an area that has been
impacted multiple times, and where power and water plants are cut off from access. We feel this
may be due in part because the State of Texas does not facilitate the adoption and enforcement
of the latest published editions of Building Codes (IBC/ IRC 2015/ 2018). However, this reduction
in points does not factor in the higher building standards at the local level, and this points system
denies funding opportunities for worthy mitigation projects.
Recent Austin Experience & How it Can Inform Efforts to Improve the Federal-State-Local
Partnership
As mentioned above, in 2020, HSEM added nearly 50 temporary staff to help us respond
to COVID-19, logged 1.1 million response hours, sheltered thousands of Gulf Coast residents
displaced by category 4 Hurricane Laura, coordinated the regional response to record breaking
cold that crippled our state’s power grid, distributed 71,676 units of hand sanitizer, distributed
nearly 12 million pieces of personal protective equipment, housed 536 severely at-risk individuals
in temporary protective shelter, housed more than 2,000 people in an isolation facility for COVID-
19, established an alternate care site for COVID-19 patients, and launched a mobile phone
application to help residents be better prepared for disasters.
8
Testimony of Juan Manuel Ortiz
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
July 29, 2021
Providing temporary protective shelter for the most vulnerable and at-risk residents of
Austin proved to be one of our most difficult and most expensive challenges. In the wake of an
early COVID-19 outbreak at our congregate shelter facility, the City acted, fearing that future
outbreaks among people experiencing homelessness would pose a risk to those people and to
the larger community, especially in terms of hospital capacity. Specifically, the City leased six
hotels to provide protective shelter and isolation facilities to provide non-congregate shelter for
people at high-risk of contracting COVID-19, including people experiencing homelessness.
The Austin-Travis County Interim Health Authority established the non-congregate
shelter program to provide quarantining and isolation to individuals exposed to, carrying, or at
high-risk for severe illness from COVID-19. The City’s actions were in accordance with FEMA
policy allowing reimbursement for non-congregate shelter and support services on a case-by-
case basis. In addition, the City closely consulted with FEMA Region VI and the State and hewed
closely to CDC guidance.
The COVID-19 pandemic represents the first time in U.S. history that every County, State
and Territory is under identical and concurrent major disaster declarations. This unprecedented
dynamic has FEMA regions making eligibility determination on similar issues, which has
unfortunately resulted in inconsistent and non-uniform application of policy across the different
regions. Public Assistance (PA) funding requests funnel through a series of reviews at the
regional, Consolidated Resource Center (CRC) and headquarter levels. Given the complexity in
program and policy, each region is given the latitude to apply certain discretionary
interpretations of eligibility. For COVID-19, this has resulted in certain FEMA Regions applying a
more flexible eligibility interpretation than others. For the City of Austin within FEMA Region VI,
this has resulted in an unfavorable situation where FEMA Region VI has indicated in writing that
9
Testimony of Juan Manuel Ortiz
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
July 29, 2021
certain significant non-congregate sheltering costs are ineligible for PA. Within FEMA Region IV
and Region III similar costs have been approved and obligated.
The City is incurring costs of approximately $3 million per month to lease six hotels to
provide these services: one Isolation Facility (ISOFAC) for individuals who have been exposed to
or tested positive for COVID-19 that do not require hospitalization but require quarantine or
isolation; and five facilities that provide temporary protective sheltering facilities
for asymptomatic, high-risk individuals who require emergency non-congregate sheltering as a
social distancing measure (PROLODGE).
FEMA has only approved the City’s non-congregate sheltering request for June, citing the
following concerns in response to requests for additional months:
1. Sheltering of individuals identified as homeless, “high-risk,” or “at-risk” because they do not
have secure housing arrangements would not be eligible for PA.
The City of Austin contends that its ProLodges are an effective public health measure that is
in alignment with FEMA, Center for Disease Control (CDC), and Local Health Authority
guidance. Consistent with CDC guidance, and based on the direction the Public Health
Authority for Austin-Travis County, the City identifies individuals over the age of 65;
individuals of all ages with certain underlying medical conditions; and individuals without the
ability to safely self-isolate, including those experiencing unsheltered homelessness, at
increased risk for severe illness from COVID-19 and constitutes the designation of “high-risk”
category. Providing temporary non-congregate sheltering to high-risk individuals is an
10
Testimony of Juan Manuel Ortiz
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
July 29, 2021
effective public health measure that mitigates the transmission of COVID-19 and reduces the
threat of inundating our area hospitals.
2. Individuals that have been identified as needing NCS must remain in the facility full-time.
Sheltering costs incurred for individuals leaving the facility periodically during the day or
night, and then returning, does not protect those individuals at the facility or the public at
large, and, therefore, would not be eligible for PA.
The City would like to clarify that at the at the IsoFacs, which are for individuals who have
been exposed to or tested positive for COVID-19 that require quarantine or isolation, guests
are not permitted to enter and leave at-will. At the ProLodges, which are a form of protective
sheltering for asymptomatic high-risk individuals who cannot otherwise effectively socially
distance, guests are encouraged to remain sequestered in their rooms and avoid other travel,
unless deemed essential. The City has taken efforts to incentivize guests to remain in their
rooms. However, as these individuals are not confirmed, or suspected carriers of COVID-19,
the City does not and cannot legally restrict their movement.
3. Sheltering of individuals that exceeds 14 calendar days will require justification upon
submission of request for reimbursement that identifies that the length of sheltering for
individuals is based on health guidance and is limited to what is needed to address the
immediate threat to public health and safety. CDC guidance recommends a 14-day isolation
or quarantine period for those that test positive or have been in contact with a person that
tested positive.
11
Testimony of Juan Manuel Ortiz
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
July 29, 2021
The City of Austin is in compliance with the CDC’s recommended 14-day maximum period for
isolation or quarantining at the IsoFacs. Historically, the average length of stay at the IsoFac
has been between 6 and 7 days. There is not a specified timeframe for a guest duration at the
ProLodges because there continues to be sustained virus transmission within the community
and the Local Health Authority has regularly reassessed and ordered protective non-
congregate shelters necessary to protect public health and safety. According to FEMA
guidance the length of non-congregate sheltering depends on the needs in each area and
should be in accordance with the guidance and direction from appropriate health officials.
Following this guidance, the ProLodges are a form of protective shelter – not a quarantine or
isolation site – meant to shelter high-risk individuals who are unable to social distance as a
precautionary measure and deemed appropriate by Austin public health officials. Further, the
City is providing case management for these individuals to find alternate housing solutions
through a myriad of programs to relocate them from the non-congregate shelters.
We greatly appreciated President Biden’s January 21 and February 2 Presidential
Memoranda instructing FEMA to provide 100 percent reimbursement for state and local
government emergency protective measures taken for the safe opening and operation of
schools, hospitals, shelters, and transit systems. We were especially pleased that the Memoranda
included 100 percent reimbursement for provision of non-congregate shelter, which has been a
critical component of local prevention and response efforts, helping to contain transmission of
COVID-19 among the most vulnerable and at-risk residents of our communities, helping contain
community spread and preserving critical health care capacity.
However, Austin is deeply concerned that FEMA has not consistently approved requests
for reimbursement for non-congregate shelter, putting many local governments at risk of having
12
Testimony of Juan Manuel Ortiz
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
July 29, 2021
to absorb significant costs. It is therefore critical that FEMA flexibly approve pandemic-related
non-congregate shelter reimbursement requests uniformly across all FEMA regions.
Cities, including Austin, established non-congregate shelter programs to specifically
prevent and respond to COVID-19. They are not permanent programs and they have not replaced
the homeless assistance efforts. They are a well thought out response to a temporary crisis that
addresses the stark, on-the-ground reality that failing to shelter high-risk and vulnerable
individuals during a pandemic poses a grave threat to public health and to healthcare capacity.
An adverse FEMA decision on reimbursement requests for non-congregate shelter
reimbursement pose a serious risk to public health and our budget. The City of Austin has spent
$40 million on non-congregate shelter. The City acted in good faith to protect public health and
to serve a very vulnerable population during this crisis. An adverse determination from FEMA
would leave the City liable for considerable costs at a time of uncertain budgets.
Supply Chain Management
Supply chain management is another subject that requires improvements to benefit the
partnership between federal, state and local governments. As Austin sought out supplies, such
as PPE, in response to COVID19, it became clear that adequate levels of critical supplies would
be a challenge, and the distribution of those supplies would be difficult as well.
The need for a national strategy for supply chain management during a pandemic quickly
became apparent as we found ourselves competing with our state and other cities for the same
limited supply of PPE. Further, these limited supplies lead to price increases and unequal
distribution patterns that were bad for our recovery efforts and ultimately bad for the taxpayer.
13
Testimony of Juan Manuel Ortiz
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
July 29, 2021
At the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, Austin needed to gather PPE quickly to provide
the necessary supplies for our frontline workers, workforce, and general residency. after Austin
was told by multiple of the nation’s largest suppliers that orders of PPE for the City of Austin were
not large enough, we found it necessary to partner with the City of Houston and the Texas
Medical Center in Houston to purchase a massive supply of masks in Florida that would help
accommodate our needs. After confirmation of the PPE purchase and as we were about to begin
obligation the funds for the purchase, we were told by the supplier that the Texas Department
of Emergency Management took possession of the supplies, before we could close the deal. In
this situation, we found ourselves competing not only against other cities attempting to mitigate
a disaster, but even our own state.
This is the consequence of inequitable distribution of necessary supplies and a lack of a
national strategy for supply chain management. Had there been a prioritization on the supply
chain and we had been able to seek out one specific source for our necessary supplies, our efforts
to provide PPE could have been much more effective and efficient.
With that said, the City of Austin appreciates that in the wake of Hurricane Katrina,
Congress enacted legislation to address supply chain issues, however, the COVID-19 pandemic
has illustrated that there is much room for improvement and that empowering and trusting local
partners could be an important part of the solution.
Resources
My final plea is likely one you hear from stakeholders on a wide array of issues, but it is
one I cannot leave out of my testimony. I recognize that I am addressing an authorizing
committee and that annual funding decisions are the domain of the Appropriations Committee,
but I must close my testimony with a discussion of funding.
14
Testimony of Juan Manuel Ortiz
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
July 29, 2021
If Congress and FEMA address the concerns raised above, it would significantly improve
the federal-state-local partnership and our ability to meet our joint emergency management
mission and serve our community. However, sometimes the best answer is also the simplest one.
If Congress really wants to bolster local emergency management, I urge you to increase funding
for core programs such as Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG), the Urban Area
Security Initiative (UASI), and the State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP).
Annual appropriations for the FEMA Disaster Assistance Account and emergency
supplemental appropriations bills enacted in response to disaster garner the most attention (and
money), but EMPG, UASI, and SHSGP are the foundation of local emergency management efforts.
Unfortunately, the sequester and budget austerity that followed the 2011 Budget Agreement did
not spare these core programs. Funding for these programs has not kept pace with population
growth, inflation, and, most importantly, need.
• Congress provided $350 million for EMPG in FY 2021, barely above its FY 2010
level of $340 million.
• Congress appropriated $615 million for UASI in FY 2021, well below its FY 2010
level of $887 million.
• Congress appropriated for $610 million for SHSGP, well below its FY 2010 level of
$950 million.
The EMPG program is the primary source of funding available to local communities to
support preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation. Local Emergency Management
Programs are understaffed most consisting of just one person and are struggling to keep up with
the new demand placed upon them with the pandemic and climate change. EMPG fund flows to
local communities through the state as a sub award. There are no requirements for state to
15
Testimony of Juan Manuel Ortiz
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
July 29, 2021
allocate funds to local communities and as a result, access to EMPG funding varies from state to
state. Even in my state which is one of the only to have a process to support local programs, we
have seen consistent reductions from 30 to 60 %. Enhancement to EMPG should also include
mandate on minimum pass through to local governments or a separate process.
On UASI, I know that committee members are fully aware of what it means to serve a
community at the margin of participation in the program at the current, reduced funding levels.
Austin falls on the wrong side of the participation margin each year. We have not participated in
UASI since Congress reduced funding for the program in FY 2011. Even communities, such as Las
Vegas and Orlando, that are fortunate to remain on the right side of that margin saw considerable
drops in their allocations and face annual uncertainty about whether they will receive federal
funds to sustain investments made with UASI funds.
I would be happy to outline the reasons why I think Austin should be a UASI participant.
Indeed, my testimony in many ways makes that argument. At the end of the day, every
community can do an excellent job of outlining the ways that they are vulnerable and how they
would benefit from participation in UASI. For metropolitan areas such as ours, which face real
threats and have real needs, the best answer lies not in tweaking the UASI threat risk assessment
but in Congress increasing funding for the program to ensure that many more Americans benefit
from UASI.
For Committee members who represent large metropolitan areas that face little to no
threat to their participation in the UASI program, I discourage you from pursuing or supporting
ill-advised attempts to limit participation in the UASI program to the largest metropolitan areas.
Such a policy would leave tens of millions of Americans more vulnerable. In addition, it would
16
Testimony of Juan Manuel Ortiz
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
July 29, 2021
significantly reduce support for the program in Congress, especially in the Senate, where the
needs of metropolitan areas already struggle for recognition.
The benefits of UASI are considerable. Communities that are fortunate to participate in
the program are better able to not only meet their equipment, training, and preparation needs,
but they benefit from the regional collaboration and cooperation that the UASI program
encourages. The UASI program benefits urban areas by assisting communities to develop
regional solutions, creating mission ready capabilities which can make our communities more
resilient. An Austin UASI award would allow our region to develop strategies to establish
capabilities like alternate care sites, mass care and sheltering, develop evacuation plans and
reception centers and regional resource staging strategies.
Conclusion
I am pleased that the Committee is looking at how Congress can improve the federal-
state-local emergency management partnership so that state and local emergency managers can
better prepare and protect our communities. I am happy to answer questions and to provide any
additional information that the Committee might find helpful as you work on this issue. Thank
you for the opportunity to testify.
17
File and source
- File
- hhrg-117-pw00-wstate-ortizj-20210729-1e59dc9960d9.pdf
- Size
- 276,117 bytes
- SHA-256
- 1e59dc9960d9ba59b3687ee9715f06a02406025916339efb3fe2b825dec4dd9c
- Original
- docs.house.gov