logo
  • Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Blog

DoD Immediate Response Authority

Though there are a plethora of issues surrounding use of the Military in a disaster; under the Immediate Response Authority, military commanders are allowed to provide limited assistance in life-threatening situations for limited durations.

What Is the Immediate Response Authority?

Defense Support of Civil Authorities (“DSCA”) is the federal policy that allows Department of Defense (“DoD”) resources—be it personnel, equipment, or facilities—to support entities at the state and local level to respond to disasters and other emergency conditions. [1] Under this program is the

Click to Read Full Article.

A handout aerial image released by the US Army on 15 September 2013 shows 2nd General Support Aviation Battalion, 4th Combat Aviation Brigade, 4th Infantry Division, soldiers evacuating fifth-grade students from Firewood Elementary. Courtney of Daily Mail UK. Click Image to read the full article.

Immediate Response Authority (“IRA”). Normally, a request for use of DoD assets to preform DSCA missions (i.e. respond to a crisis or emergency) requires the President or Secretary of Defense to approve a written request from the supported entity. [2] However, IRA allows for this request process to be short-circuited in some circumstances. IRA allows for military commanders to respond

to a DSCA request from local civil authorities under “imminently serious conditions [ ] if time does

not permit approval from higher authority….” [3] The key here is that the power to provide this response is temporary and limited to only situations which are aimed to “prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage.” [4] DSCA missions under IRA will generally end when the whole reason why the request was submitted in the first place ceases to exist. [5] Though a request cannot be denied for lack of agreement to, generally requesting jurisdictions should be prepared to reimburse the federal government for use of DoD assets under IRA. [6] There are some exceptions that would require a fact intensive analysis under other federal regulations and statutes.

What Does This Mean for the Emergency Manager?

First, this is not the source of authority that allows for military installations to enter into mutual aid agreements with local civil authorities. These types of mutual aid requests are considered to be “DSCA mutual aid” or “automatic aid” request and governed by DoD Instruction 6055.06 “DoD Fire and Emergency Services Program”. [7] Even under that program, we’re talking basic Fire & Medical first responders to support; not other uniformed personnel or equipment. IRA allows for the uniformed personnel and equipment, such as non-Fire or EMS personnel, aviation assets (such as helicopters) and engineering assets (such as bridges and boats) to possibly be used in a dire needs circumstance. What is important for the Emergency Manager in a military town, is to be sure they know who to talk to in these two circumstances. A good working relationship and talking to the lawyers and Staff Judge Advocates (the Military Commander’s in-house counsel) early can help iron out how and what to do when minutes count.

References

[1] 32 CFR §185.3 (West 2016).

[2] 32 CFR §185.4(c)-(d) (West 2016).

[3] 32 CFR §184.4 (g) (West 2016).

[4] 32 CFR §184.4 (g) (West 2016).

[5] 32 CFR §184.4(g)(2) (West 2016).

[6] 32 CFR §184.4(g)(3) (West 2016).

[7] DoDI 6055.06, DoD Fire and Emergency Services Program, 27 (Dec. 21, 2006). See generally 42 USCA §5195 (2016) (Policy purpose gives the sense that congress intends to allow federal to local mutual aid agreements in some circumstnaces).

« United Methodist Church Disaster Response
County Mismanagement Leads to Staggering FEMA Debt »

Leave a comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Pages

  • Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Blog

Archives

  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • January 2017
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015

Categories

  • Featured Interviews (3)
    • Mr. John Murphy (3)
  • General EM Law Topics (8)
  • InfoGraphics (1)
  • Legal Practice Areas (16)
    • Bankruptcy (1)
    • Federal Claims (3)
    • Insurance (7)
    • Legal Ethics (5)
    • Tax (1)
  • Non-Profits (1)
  • Notes (2)
  • Phases of Emergency Management (55)
    • Mitigation (11)
    • Preparedness (24)
    • Recovery (16)
    • Response (21)
  • Proposed Legislation (23)
    • Federal (12)
    • New York (1)
    • Oklahoma (1)
    • Texas (9)
  • Rulemaking (4)
    • Federal (2)
    • Texas (2)
  • Special Topics (29)
    • Body Cameras (1)
    • Department Management (1)
    • Drone/Unmanned Aircraft (3)
    • Ebola (1)
    • Emergency Medicine (2)
    • Employment (3)
    • Equipment (3)
    • Fire Department (1)
    • International (1)
    • Kids (2)
    • Marijuana Legalization (2)
    • NFPA 1600 (1)
    • Price Gouging (2)
    • Technology (6)
    • Volunteer Management (3)
  • Specific Hazards (17)
    • Natural Hazards (16)
      • Earthquakes (1)
      • Flooding (8)
      • Hurricane (3)
      • Tornados (6)
    • Technological Hazards (2)
      • HazMat (1)
  • Uncategorized (22)

WordPress

  • Log in
  • WordPress

Subscribe

  • Entries (RSS)
  • Comments (RSS)
  • Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Blog