of the Stafford Act (FEMA 1997). HMGP funding is subject to competition: FEMA provides a
certain amount of money after a declared disaster. Communities then have to compete with
each other to obtain (part of) the grant (FEMA 2001). As seen in chapter 2, disaster relief is not
ideal because it tends to subsidize risk. Because of this, FEMA has slowly begun to expand the
coverage of the Stafford Act and the NFIP to pre-disaster mitigation measures. It is now
possible for local governments to obtain funding for implementation of local hazard mitigation
projects and plans. FEMA can provide funding up to 75% of the mitigation costs. Funding by
these programs, however, is still only possible for projects in areas that recently experienced a
declared disaster (Godschalk 1999, FEMA 1997). The National Earthquake Hazard Reduction
Program, NEHRP, can provide funding for structural mitigation in earthquake risk areas.
Similar to the NFIP and the HMGP, funding by NEHRP is only possible if the locality has
been struck by large earthquake losses in the past.
Structural mitigation projects are expensive. Unfortunately, even with the grant programs by
FEMA there is often not enough money available to realize these constructions. According to
Beatley & Berke (1992) the NEHRP is funded below the level required to be effective.
Research by Briechle (1999) indicates that two-thirds of local governments do not have access
to sufficient funds for structural mitigation projects. They either do not comply with the
conditions for funding set by FEMA, or FEMA funding is not sufficient, or they do not know
that FEMA funding is available (Briechle 1999). FEMA itself states that “the funds available
for pre-disaster mitigation projects need to be greatly increased” and indicates that Congress
should therefore allocate more money to FEMA (FEMA 1997, p. 9).
Non-structural mitigation efforts
Structural mitigation is not always ideal. It is expensive and, more important, facilitates
development in high-risk areas while those risks are, although somewhat decreased, still
present (Burby e.a. 1999). Often it is more effective to reduce natural hazard risks through non-
structural mitigation such as enhanced land use planning. This notion grew in US government
and FEMA after the Midwest floods of 1994. Since then, FEMA has launched several
programs concerning non-structural mitigation (Godschalk e.a. 1999). In 2000, FEMA
introduced the Federal Hazard Mitigation Act, FHMA. This act requires local governments to
prepare natural hazard mitigation plans. Unfortunately, the act does not set any strong
conditions to the contents of those plans and does not enforce a link between the natural hazard
mitigation plan and other local plans such as the general plan, or the inclusion of mitigation in
17