Laserfiche WebLink
<br />002871 <br /> <br />9.0 LOCAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AND MITIGATION <br /> <br />This chapter addresses existing measures and capabilities that have been <br />developed by local officials in the three case study counties in response to <br />the problems identified in the preceding chapter. It is also intended to <br />identify additional mitigation opportunities, beyond the resource capabilities <br />of local government, that have been exposed in the development of local <br />emergency response and mitigation plans. A detailed examination of these <br />unmet local needs follows in Chapter 10. <br /> <br />The State Emergency Act of 1973, establishes DODES as the lead agency for <br />coordinating state assistance in disasters and emergencies and sets out <br />guidelines for local governments to follow in meeting the statutory <br />requirements for emergency preparedness. In Colorado, the county is the unit <br />of local government responsible for carrying out emergency management <br />activities, primarily the development and maintenance of all-hazards Local <br />Emergency Operations Plans (LEOP's). While many of the larger incorporated <br />areas in the Denver metropolitan area have their own emergency management <br />agencies, the emergency considerations of most Colorado communities are <br />represented in the County LEOP. This is the case in Mesa County (Grand <br />Junction) and Garfield County (Glenwood Springs), where landslide and <br />debris-flow problems of counties and their municipalities are addressed as <br />hazard-specific annexes to the County LEOP. The Garfield County landslide <br />annex, or plan, has been included in this chapter as a model for local <br />governments with landslide problems (the Eagle and Mesa County landslide plans <br />are included as appendices to this chapter). <br /> <br />Responsibility for the design and implementation of mitigation strategies <br />(aimed at reducing future losses from the hazards identified in the planning <br />process) is generally dispersed throughout local government, where all but the <br />low cost activities are usually unfunded. In the three case study counties, <br />all recommended landslide mitigation techniques, those accomplished locally <br />and those beyond local capability, have been identified in the mitigation <br />elements of the Landslide Annexes to the LEOP. Through this effort, local <br />officials have been able to develop a wish list of needs, unmet locally, to <br />improve public health and safety, as well as provide for a reliable, <br />coordinated response and recovery when landslide emergencies do occur. <br /> <br />- 86 - <br />