2004
– Lessons Learned
by Michael H. Reynolds, Fire Chief
Experience with the well blowout in March and the flood in April of 2004 testifies to the resilience and community spirit of the citizens of Eddy County, NM. Without cooperation and understanding of residents in the immediately affected areas, the Carlsbad Fire Department, the Carlsbad Police Department, the Eddy County Sheriff’s Office, and the New Mexico State Police could not have managed these incidents as safely as we did. The disruption of our lives, the expenses incurred, and the inconveniences experienced by Carlsbad and Eddy County residents during these incidents is less important than the fact that there were no injuries or fatalities. We must admit that the planning and preparedness of the emergency responders were critical factors in the safe resolution of these incidents.
A disaster drill conducted in August 2003 brought to light
some important issues. These same issues surfaced during the very real
incidents in March and April. These two incidents in
This is an issue and a concern that I have had for many years. It is not only a local issue. It is the reason that the federal government has developed, released and mandated all emergency responders to adhere to what they call the National Incident Management System (NIMS). All emergency first responders (fire, law enforcement, and emergency medical services) are trained in some form of incident command. The problem is that when all these agencies, and other entities, are involved in a large scale incident, there is a tendency to resist the integration, unification and coordination of all activities and responsibilities.
Adherence to and certification of NIMS training is now required for any agency to obtain federal funds through the Department of Homeland Security. This may give us the opportunity to refine and define emergency planning and preparedness from the top down. It enables us to make very clear to each agency and entity exactly what their roles and responsibilities are in a unified command structure. Future funding depends upon participation in and acceptance of the National Incident Management System.
Emergency planning and preparedness has become the
buzz-phrase nationwide since
As devastating and disruptive as the incidents in March and
April were to the citizens of
Planning without public input is flawed planning. The Redefining Readiness study by R. D. Lasker in 2004 revealed that public input in the planning process will yield public cooperation and increased public safety during a serious incident.
We did not anticipate 100% cooperation of all residents with the evacuation and protective action directions that we gave in March and April of 2004, and of course, human nature being what it is, we did not get it. However, the percentage of residents who were noncompliant with our directives, or at least resisted our directives for evacuation and other protective actions was minimal. In fact the numbers are negligible when compared with the results of the Redefining Readiness study sponsored by the New York Academy of Medicine (Lasker, 2004). However, what would your response have been had we directed you to receive immunizations, or to remain at your place of employment while your family remained in a different location, or your children were kept at their school during a disease outbreak, or during a chemical or radiological release?
This research project focused upon the public’s reaction to and compliance with protective action directives that might be issued by emergency management and response agencies. The researchers discovered that the plans that have been developed at all levels, national, state, and local,
. . . are based upon
assumptions about what people would be concerned about and how they would
behave. If planners’ assumptions about the public are wrong – as they have been
in the past – the plans being developed will not work as expected, and a large
number of people who should be protected will be unnecessarily harmed. (Lasker, 2004, p. i)
The study discovered that one
reason for the public’s reluctance to follow directions is that they have
conflicting concerns and worries about what the best course of action would be.
For example, if a directive was issued for all citizens to shelter in place
(remain where they are, inside whatever building they are in),
one third of them would not cooperate in order to take care of their families.
It is interesting to note that three fourths of these people said that they
would stay where they were if they were assured that their families were being
cared for (Lasker, 2004).
The bottom line of this study is
that our efforts at emergency planning and preparedness must include the public
that we are supposed to protect. In other words, the citizens of
In order for this to happen, your priorities, concerns and issues in the event of a widespread disease, a chemical or radiological incident, or any disaster, man made or natural must be addressed during the planning. “The stakes are too high to continue the status quo.” (Lasker, 2004, p. ix)
The question before us now is, How can we involve you in emergency planning and
preparedness? The Redefining Readiness
study intends to support this type of planning process in several locations
nationwide. I doubt that Eddy County, New Mexico has been designated as one of
the locations, therefore my opinion is that we must
take these steps ourselves. I invite your feedback to these thoughts in print,
in e-mail, or in person at the Carlsbad Fire Department. I strongly urge you to
access and read Redefining Readiness:
Terrorism Planning Through the Eyes of the Public.
It can be downloaded from the Center for the Advancement of Collaborative
Strategies in Health web site: http://www.cacsh.org/eptpp.html.
Reference
Lasker, R. D. (2004). Redefining readiness: Terrorism planning
through the eyes of the public.
Michael H. Reynolds, Fire Chief
409 S. Halagueno
505-887-0924