EMERGENCY SERVICES COMMITTEE

The Emergency Services Committee was assigned two studies. House Concurrent Resolution No. 3053 directed a study of the state's emergency management system, the impact of federal emergency reorganization on the state's emergency operations plan, and the emergency management preparedness of state agencies and local governments. House Concurrent Resolution No. 3054 directed a study of the state's public health unit infrastructure and the ability of the public health units to respond to public health issues, including disease and other physical health, environmental, and disaster-related issues.

The Legislative Council also assigned the committee the responsibility, under North Dakota Century Code (NDCC) Section 57-40.6-11, to receive the annual report from State Radio on the operation of and any recommended changes in the emergency 911 telephone system standards and guidelines and, under Section 57-40.6-12, to receive a report from the Public Safety Answering Points Coordinating Committee on city and county fees on telephone exchange access service and wireless service.

Committee members were Representatives Todd Porter (Chairman), William R. Devlin, Keith Kempenich, James Kerzman, Joe Kroeber, Andrew Maragos, Bob Martinson, Jon O. Nelson, Mary K. Nester, Clara Sue Price, and Gerald Uglem and Senators Robert S. Erbele, Ralph L. Kilzer, Tim Mathern, and Michael Polovitz. Representative Dale C. Severson was a member of the committee until his death on November 4, 2003, and Representative Janet Wentz was a member of the committee until her death on September 15, 2003.

The committee submitted this report to the Legislative Council at the biennial meeting of the Council in November 2004. The Council accepted the report for submission to the 59th Legislative Assembly.

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STUDY

Background

The terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C., in September 2001 and the anthrax releases in October 2001 raised numerous questions regarding our country's ability to respond to disasters and public health emergencies. Closer to home, the derailment of a train and the release of anhydrous ammonia in Minot in January 2002 brought to light the need to evaluate the ability of local governments and the state to respond to emergency situations.

The Council on Foreign Relations, a nonpartisan national think tank, established an independent task force to evaluate the preparedness and adequacy of funding for emergency responders in the United States. The report of the task force, which was issued in June 2003, concluded that the United States is better able to respond to an emergency such as a terrorist attack than it was in 2001, but continues to be ill-prepared to handle a catastrophic attack. Among other things, the report suggested that fire departments generally have had enough radios to equip one-half of the firefighters on a shift and enough breathing apparatuses to equip one-third of the firefighters on a shift. The report also indicated that police departments have not had protective gear to safely secure a site following a weapons of mass destruction attack, and public health laboratories frequently lack basic equipment and expertise to adequately respond to a chemical or biological attack.

The report of the Council on Foreign Relations concluded that the country will inadequately fund critical emergency responder needs based upon the current levels. The report suggested that additional funds are needed for the following purposes:

• To extend the E-911 system nationally.
• To enhance urban search and rescue capabilities of major cities and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to address building collapses.
• To foster interoperable communications systems for emergency responders.
• To enhance public health preparedness by strengthening laboratories, disease tracking, and communications and by training public health professionals for biological, chemical, and radiological events.
• To strengthen emergency operations centers for local public safety coordination.
• To provide protective gear to firefighters.
• To enhance capacity of emergency medical technicians and paramedics to respond to mass casualty events.
• To develop surge capacity in hospitals and help prepare hospitals for a weapons of mass destruction attack.
• To enhance emergency agricultural and veterinary capabilities to respond to a national food supply attack.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

After the September 2001 terrorist attacks, Congress passed the Homeland Security Act, which consolidated 22 federal domestic agencies under the Department of Homeland Security. The first priority of the department is to protect the nation against further terrorist attacks. In addition to providing a better-coordinated defense of the homeland, the department is responsible for protecting the rights of American citizens and enhancing public services, such as natural disaster assistance and citizenship services, by dedicating offices to those missions.

The Department of Homeland Security consists of four major directorates--border and transportation security, emergency preparedness and response, science and technology, and information analysis and infrastructure protection. In addition, the Secret Service and the Coast Guard will be located in the Department of Homeland Security and will report directly to the Secretary of Homeland Security. The border and transportation security directorate is responsible for major border security and transportation operations. The emergency preparedness and response directorate, which includes the Federal Emergency Management Agency, oversees domestic disaster preparedness training and coordinates government disaster response. The purpose of the science and technology directorate is to utilize scientific and technological advantages when securing the homeland. The information analysis and infrastructure protection directorate is responsible for analyzing intelligence and information from other agencies involving threats to homeland security and evaluating vulnerabilities in the nation's infrastructure.

North Dakota Emergency Management

Constitutional Authority of the Legislative Assembly

Article XI, Section 7, of the Constitution of North Dakota sets forth the powers of the Legislative Assembly in the event of an emergency. That section provides:

The legislative assembly, in order to ensure continuity of state and local governmental operations in periods of emergency resulting from disasters caused by enemy attack, shall have the power and immediate duty (1) to provide for prompt and temporary succession to the powers and duties of public offices, of whatever nature and whether filled by election or appointment, the incumbents of which may become unavailable for carrying on the powers and duties of such offices, and (2) to adopt such other measures as may be necessary and proper for ensuring the continuity of governmental operations including, but not limited to, waiver of constitutional restrictions upon the place of transaction of governmental business, upon the calling of sessions of the legislative assembly, length of sessions, quorum and voting requirements, subjects of legislation and appropriation bill requirements, upon eligibility of legislators to hold other offices, residence requirements for legislators, and upon expenditures, loans or donations of public moneys. In the exercise of the powers hereby conferred the legislative assembly shall in all respects conform to the requirements of this constitution except to the extent that in the judgment of the legislative assembly so to do would be impracticable or would admit of undue delay.

North Dakota Disaster Act

North Dakota Century Code Chapter 37-17.1, the "North Dakota Disaster Act," addresses emergency management.

To minimize or avert the adverse effects of a disaster or emergency, the Governor may issue executive orders and proclamations that have the effect of law. If the Governor determines a disaster has occurred or a state of emergency exists, the Governor may declare a disaster or emergency by executive order or by proclamation. The executive order or proclamation must indicate the nature of the disaster or emergency, the area or areas threatened, the conditions that have brought it about, or make possible termination of the state of disaster or emergency. An executive order or proclamation must be disseminated promptly by means calculated to bring its contents to the attention of the general public, unless the circumstances attendant upon the disaster or emergency prevent or impede such dissemination, and it must be promptly filed with the Division of Emergency Management, the Secretary of State, and the county or city auditor of the jurisdictions affected. The state of disaster or emergency continues until the Governor determines that the threat of an emergency has passed or the disaster has been dealt with to the extent that emergency conditions no longer exist. The Legislative Assembly by concurrent resolution may terminate a state of disaster or emergency at any time.

The declaration of a disaster or emergency activates the state and applicable local operational plans and authorizes the deployment and use of any forces to which the plan or plans apply and for use or distribution of supplies, equipment, and materials and facilities assembled, stockpiled, or arranged for a disaster or emergency. During the continuance of any state of disaster or emergency declared by the Governor, the Governor is commander-in-chief of the emergency management organization and of all other forces available for emergency duty.

The Governor may:

1. Suspend the provisions of any regulatory statute prescribing the procedures for conduct of state business, or the orders, rules, or regulations, of any state agency, if strict compliance with the provisions of any statute, order, rule, or regulation would in any way prevent, hinder, or delay necessary action in managing a disaster or emergency.
2. Utilize all available resources of the state government as reasonably necessary to manage the disaster or emergency and of each political subdivision of the state.
3. Transfer the direction, personnel, or functions of state departments and agencies or units thereof for the purpose of performing or facilitating emergency management activities.
4. Subject to any applicable requirements for compensation, commandeer or utilize any private property if the Governor finds this necessary to manage the disaster or emergency.
5. Direct and compel the evacuation of all or part of the population from any stricken or threatened area within the state if the Governor deems this action necessary for the preservation of life or other disaster or emergency mitigation, response, or recovery.
6. Prescribe routes, modes of transportation, and destinations in connection with an evacuation.
7. Control ingress and egress in a designated disaster or emergency area, the movement of persons within the area, and the occupancy of premises in the area.
8. Suspend or limit the sale, dispensing, or transportation of alcoholic beverages, firearms, explosives, and combustibles.
9. Make provision for the availability and use of temporary emergency housing.
10. Make provisions for the control, allocation, and the use of quotas for critical shortages of fuel or other life- and property-sustaining commodities.
11. Designate members of the Highway Patrol, North Dakota National Guard, or others trained in law enforcement, as peace officers.

The Division of Emergency Management is a part of the Adjutant General's office. The director of the division is appointed by the Adjutant General. The Division of Emergency Management is required to prepare and maintain a state disaster plan and to assist in the development and revision of local disaster or emergency operations plans. In addition, the division is required to:

1. Coordinate the procurement and prepositioning of supplies, materials, and equipment for disaster or emergency operations.
2. Provide guidance and standards for local disaster or emergency operations plans.
3. Periodically review local disaster or emergency operations plans.
4. Coordinate state or state and federal assistance to local emergency management organizations.
5. Establish and operate or assist local emergency management organizations to establish and operate training programs and programs for emergency public information.
6. Make surveys of industries, resources, and facilities within the state, both public and private, as are necessary to carry out the purposes of NDCC Chapter 37-17.1.
7. Plan and make arrangements for the availability and use of any private facilities, services, and property and, if necessary and if in fact used, coordinate payment for that use under terms and conditions agreed upon.
8. Establish access to a register of persons with types of training and skills important in mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery.
9. Establish access to a register of equipment and facilities available for use in a disaster or emergency.
10. Prepare, for issuance by the Governor, executive orders, proclamations, and guidance as necessary or appropriate in managing a disaster or emergency.
11. Coordinate with the federal government and any public or private agency or entity in achieving any purpose of NDCC Chapter 37-17.1 and in implementing programs for disaster mitigation, preparation, response, and recovery.
12. Be the state search and rescue coordinating agency, establish access to a register of search and rescue equipment and personnel in the state, and plan for its effective utilization in carrying out the search for and rescue of persons when no violation of criminal laws exists.
13. Do other things necessary, incidental, or appropriate for the implementation of NDCC Chapter 37-17.1.

Each county is required to maintain an emergency management organization to serve the county and each city is required to either maintain an emergency management organization or participate in the countywide emergency management organization. Each local emergency management organization is required to prepare and maintain a local disaster or emergency operations plan.

The principal executive officer of a city or county may declare a local disaster or emergency, which may not be continued or renewed for a period in excess of seven days except by or with the consent of the governing board of the city or county. The effect of a declaration of a local disaster or emergency is to activate the response and recovery aspects of local disaster or emergency operations plans and to authorize the furnishing of aid and assistance.

The Division of Emergency Management is required to determine what means exist for rapid and efficient communications in times of a disaster or emergency. The division is also directed to encourage and assist counties and cities to conclude suitable arrangements for furnishing mutual aid in emergency management and encourage and assist political subdivisions to enter mutual aid agreements with other public and private agencies for reciprocal aid and assistance in responding to and recovering from actual and potential disasters and emergencies.

Testimony and Committee Considerations

The committee received extensive testimony regarding the organization, structure, responsibilities, and operation of the Division of Emergency Management. Since the terrorist attacks in September 2001, the Division of Emergency Management changed the focus of the emergency management infrastructure to enhance homeland security efforts. The division worked to form partnerships with state agencies, political subdivisions, and private entities to raise security awareness and improve the ability to mitigate and to respond to emergencies. In addition, the division prepared a state homeland security strategic plan which addresses prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery. The goals of the plan include:

1. Attaining radio communication interoperability among federal, state, local, and tribal first responders.
2. Developing a prevention, response, and recovery capability to ensure accurate deployment of resources.
3. Fostering the sharing of law enforcement sensitive information.
4. Upgrading state terrorism and weapons of mass destruction response capability.
5. Developing a tiered response capability to ensure statewide terrorism and weapons of mass destruction incident response.
6. Improving the ability of the state to prevent, respond, and recover from acts of terrorism or of weapons of mass destruction through refinement of the state emergency operations plan, state multihazard mitigation plan, jurisdictional emergency operations plans, and jurisdictional multihazard mitigation plans.
7. Assuring continuation of essential government functions in the state.
8. Training first responders and community leaders to recognize, prevent, and respond to a terrorism or weapons of mass destruction incident.
9. Institutionalizing command system training in the state.
10. Expanding and supporting homeland security training into established academic institutions.
11. Evaluating the competency of plans, training, and equipment and personnel resources through a progressive exercise program.
12. Providing adequate professional and support staff to monitor, implement, and evaluate homeland security programs at a state and local level.
13. Furthering the integration of North Dakota's homeland security strategy.
14. Hardening critical infrastructure sites at a state and local level.
15. Improving the collection, analysis, and dissemination of homeland security intelligence.

During federal fiscal year 2003, the federal government distributed over $18 million in federal funds to North Dakota for homeland security purposes. Of that amount, approximately $13 million was designated for use for first responder preparedness and mitigation. Each county received an allocation that was generally used for emergency planning and for purchasing equipment such as personal protection, decontamination, and communications equipment. State Radio also received over $1 million to begin the migration from analog to digital radio.

During federal fiscal year 2004, the state received over $19 million in federal homeland security funds. Nearly $15 million of that amount was designated for homeland security uses, over $4 million was designated for law enforcement, and about $300,000 was allocated for the Citizen Corps. Of the amount designated for homeland security, 80 percent was required to be distributed to local governments. The state's share of the funds was used to upgrade the state public safety communications infrastructure and the criminal justice information sharing system, to enhance geographic information system mapping, and to support planning and the administration of the Division of Emergency Management and the State Operations Center.

The local share of homeland security funds was distributed to each county based upon the population of the county and the assessment of the county's security needs. Each county was required to develop a homeland security spending plan that had a nexus with the state plan and that allocated the homeland security funds to entities within the county based upon the county plan.

The committee received testimony from representatives of various political subdivisions and other first responders regarding the use of homeland security funds at the local level. The testimony indicated that a great deal of the local funding was dedicated to purchases of personal protection equipment and decontamination equipment and radio communications equipment to provide interoperability among fire, police, and other first responders.

Representatives of entities such as hospitals, ambulance services, and other emergency medical services in some areas of the state testified that they were not provided the opportunity to participate in the decisions regarding allocations of the homeland security funding and that those entities did not receive funding necessary to ensure that those entities will be prepared to respond to a large-scale emergency or disaster. Representatives of hospitals also expressed concern that federal funding allocated to the State Department of Health has remained centralized and has not been allocated to the local level to address emergency preparedness of hospitals.

The committee received testimony indicating that future disbursements of homeland security funding to the state might be reduced because the federal government may change the method through which state allocations are determined. Although the new formula would distribute more funds to more populated areas, the fiscal year 2005 distribution to North Dakota is estimated to be approximately $16 million.

Although the state and local governments have received significant amounts of federal funds for homeland security efforts, testimony indicated that additional funds are necessary to raise the level of emergency response preparedness in the state. Concerns were expressed with respect to the ongoing costs of emergency response training and maintenance and replacement of equipment purchased with grant funds.

The committee also received testimony from public health officials regarding the need to address the threat of bioterrorism. Because public health units have not traditionally been faced with issues relating to bioterrorism, public health officials have had to expand the focus of the public health units and seek expertise in areas involving bioterrorism. Because of the added cost of addressing bioterrorism, many public health units, particularly the smaller health units, have had to reduce other services that have traditionally been provided by the health units.

The threat of bioterrorism has also impacted hospitals and other first responders. Those entities have incurred significant costs in planning, training employees, and purchasing equipment. Because of declining population in most rural areas of the state, there is concern regarding the possibility of ambulance services and other emergency medical services being eliminated due to the cost of those services. Hospitals also have had to consider additional security measures such as lock-down capability and issues such as separation of air-handling service areas.

In September 2003 the Governor announced that State Radio would be consolidated with the Division of Emergency Management. The committee received testimony indicating that although there was some concern expressed regarding the method through which the consolidation was announced, the transition was accomplished smoothly.

The committee received reports regarding the implementation of computer-based public notification systems, often commonly referred to as "reverse 911" systems. Although the costs of implementing the notification systems appeared to be moderate, concerns were expressed regarding the ongoing costs of maintaining current data bases. In addition, there were questions regarding the limitations of the systems.

Conclusion

The committee makes no recommendation with respect to the study of the state's emergency management system, the impact of federal emergency reorganization on the state's emergency operations plan, and the emergency management preparedness of state agencies and local governments.

PUBLIC HEALTH UNIT STUDY

Background

During the 1997-98 interim, the Legislative Council's Insurance and Health Care Committee studied the development of a strategic planning process for the future of public health in the state. Because laws regarding public health were spread through various chapters in the North Dakota Century Code and were regarded as being antiquated, the committee recommended, and the Legislative Assembly enacted, Senate Bill No. 2045 (1999), which consolidated the public health law into a new chapter, unified powers and duties of local public health units, and required statewide participation in public health units.

North Dakota Century Code Chapter 23-35 contains the consolidated and updated public health law. The 1999 legislation required that all land in the state must be in a public health unit by January 1, 2001. As a result of that requirement, 28 public health units have been established. The public health units take a variety of forms, including multicounty health districts, single county health units, city and county health departments, city and county health districts, and single county health departments.

A local health officer is required to be a licensed physician. Among the powers and duties of a local health officer are to take any action necessary for the protection of public health and safety and determine when quarantine is necessary for the safety of the public.

North Dakota Century Code Chapter 23-07.6 sets forth procedures for confinement of individuals who may be infected with a communicable disease. The State Health Officer or any local health officer may order an individual into confinement if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the individual is infected with a communicable disease and is unwilling to behave in a manner as not to expose other individuals to danger of infection, the State Health Officer or local health officer determines that the individual poses a substantial threat to the public health, and confinement is necessary and is the least restrictive alternative to protect or preserve the public health. An individual confined may contest the confinement through a court hearing.

Testimony and Committee Considerations

The committee received testimony regarding the structure, funding, and core functions of the various public health units. Although all areas of the state are required to be included within a public health unit, state law does not mandate any minimum requirements or establish any expectations of services for public health units. A county may allocate funding not exceeding the amount raised by levying up to five mills to support public health units. In addition to the local tax funding, public health units are funded through state and federal grants and fees collected for services. Because funding levels and service areas vary for the 28 public health units, the services provided vary greatly. The largest health unit employs over 100 employees, while the smallest unit has one employee.

The American Public Health Association has specified core functions and essential services of public health entities to serve as a guide for public health decisionmaking and operations. The three core functions identified by that association are assessment, policy development, and assurance. With respect to services provided by public health entities, 10 services have been identified as essential. The State Department of Health has coordinated efforts to complete the national public health performance standards assessment and strategic planning processes to identify strengths and weaknesses of public health units. A statewide summary of the assessment indicated that the essential services of diagnosing and investigating health problems are being performed well by public health units. In addition, the assessment indicated that public health units have performed well with respect to the planning function. However, the assessment indicated that public health units scored low in the area of readiness to respond to emergencies or disasters.

The committee heard testimony indicating that many public health units are unable to meet the goals of providing all 10 of the essential public health services under the current public health infrastructure. Nonetheless, there was testimony suggesting that state-defined minimum standards or core responsibilities would be beneficial in providing direction for public health unit infrastructure development. However, concern was expressed that additional state funding would be necessary if state-mandated minimum standards were imposed.

The committee received testimony indicating that the role of public health units has changed significantly in the last few years. Planning to address bioterrorism threats and reacting to the emergence of new diseases have placed additional burdens on public health units. However, representatives of several public health units indicated that public health units generally have not received federal homeland security grant funds to assist in addressing the additional responsibilities that the public health units have assumed.

To assist public health units in carrying out some of the additional responsibilities, the State Department of Health has identified a lead public health unit in each of the eight regions of the state. Utilizing federal grant funds, each of the lead public health units employs a public health emergency response coordinator, a public information officer, and an environmental health practitioner to provide services to the public health units in the region. In addition, the State Department of Health provides an epidemiologist for each region.

The committee received testimony questioning the need for the requirement that a local public health officer be a physician. Because some rural public health units may not have any physicians with experience in public health or any physicians willing to serve as public health officers, the committee was requested to consider a bill draft that would have allowed an individual who has experience in public health and who holds a bachelor's degree in an allied health profession to serve as a local health officer. Opponents of the bill draft expressed concern that the significant responsibilities of the local health officer, including the ability to quarantine individuals, require the individual to hold the qualifications of a physician. Other testimony indicated that most public health units have not had problems finding a physician willing to serve as the local health officer.

The committee received testimony indicating that some public health units experience difficulty in obtaining legal counsel. Although the State Department of Health may seek legal counsel from the Attorney General and is able to serve as a conduit between the Attorney General and public health units, representatives of public health units expressed a desire to be able to directly request legal counsel and legal opinions from the Attorney General. The committee considered a bill draft that authorized the Attorney General to provide legal counsel to local boards of health. Proponents of the bill draft contended that because it is difficult to obtain legal counsel with expertise in public health law and because of the limited resources of public health units, direct access to counsel from the Attorney General is vital to public health units. Despite concerns regarding the potential burden on the Attorney General's office, proponents of the bill draft suggested that boards of public health would be judicious in requesting assistance from the Attorney General.

Recommendation

The committee recommends House Bill No. 1034 to authorize the Attorney General to provide legal counsel and legal opinions to local boards of health.

STATE RADIO REPORT

The committee received reports from representatives of State Radio regarding the operation of State Radio and the emergency 911 telephone system standards and guidelines. Twenty-four public safety answering points serve the state by providing emergency services communications. Only one county--Rolette County--has not deployed an emergency 911 system. Because each county has used its own criteria in establishing base geographic information system maps for the county and some counties have not done any mapping, State Radio began an effort to develop base guidelines for counties to follow. Representatives of State Radio made no recommendations for proposed legislative changes.

PUBLIC SAFETY ANSWERING POINT REPORT

The committee received a report regarding city and county fees on telephone exchange access service and wireless service. Enhanced 911 services are funded through fees collected at the local level. Of the approximately 13,000 911 calls per month in the state, about 40 percent are from wireless telephones. The 57th Legislative Assembly (2001) authorized the extension of local 911 fees to wireless telephones. Extension of 911 service to wireless telephones is being done through a two-phased process. The first phase provides a callback number and the cellular site information. During the second phase, latitude and longitude information will be provided. The second phase of the project is estimated to be completed in 2005. The estimated five-year cost for the implementation of wireless 911 services is about $6 million, not including upfront costs of approximately $800,000.

« Back

Top