Result of Declared Incident

Appeal Brief

Appeal Letter

Appeal Analysis

Background

During the incident period of August 26 to September 3, 2021, Hurricane Ida impacted Louisiana.[1]The St. James Parish Housing Authority (Applicant) stated that immediately after the incident, it began to assess the damage to its 112 buildings and 252 housing units. The Applicant added that the State fire marshal visited the properties on September 10, 2021, ultimately condemning about half of the units and deeming them uninhabitable due to hurricane damage. Around approximately February or April of 2022, the Applicant found that due to the prolonged vacancy, rodents had infested the units.

The Applicant noted concerns of disease as well as the gnawing tendency of rodents that could lead to structural damage to buildings and initiate fires when electrical wire insulation is chewed. As such, on March 30 and 31, 2022, the Applicant’s pest control contractor, Absolute Defense, removed contents from the vacant units at a cost of $5,339.00. From May 2 to 5, 2022, Absolute Defense performed additional content removal, rodent elimination, and decontamination and disinfecting at a cost of $4,550.00. The Applicant did not request Public Assistance (PA) for that work. On July 13, 2022, Absolute Defense provided the Applicant with a quote of $69,346.68 for additional pest control and content removal services, and the Applicant requested PA for vector control (i.e., pest management) as an emergency protective measure to protect the health and safety of the public.

On December 7, 2022, FEMA issued a Determination Memorandum, finding the work ineligible because vector control is eligible in relation to mosquitoes, not rodents. Additionally, FEMA stated the rodent infestation was not a result of the declared incident and existed prior to the disaster event. FEMA noted that FEMA policy states that removal and disposal of rodent carcasses are ineligible.

First Appeal

The Applicant submitted a first appeal on January 23, 2023, requesting $69,346.68 per the previously submitted quote. The Applicant stated that rodent elimination was an emergency protective measure eligible as vector control. The Applicant added that the work was required as a result of the incident because the infestation of the vacant units was a result of the hurricane. The Applicant stated that although mosquitoes and not rodents are mentioned in applicable FEMA policy, the actions taken by the Applicant are consistent with efforts described in policy regarding vector control. The Applicant asserted that the disaster destroyed rodents’ natural habitats in the nearby sugar cane fields and caused structural damage in the housing units that provided openings for the rodents to find shelter. The Applicant stated that because most of the units had to be evacuated due to the disaster, the contents that were left provided shelter and food, hence the beginning of the rodent infestation. The Applicant asserted that it is obligated to protect public health and safety and improved property, so pest removal should be an eligible emergency protective measure.

The Applicant provided two years of invoices (pre- and post-disaster) from another pest control provider, DA Exterminating Co. of Houma, Inc. (DA Exterminating), showing regular visits for pest control. The Applicant provided a letter dated January 4, 2023 from DA Exterminating stating that the Applicant was not experiencing any unusual pest control problems prior to the disaster.

On March 14, 2023, the Louisiana Governor’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness (Recipient), transmitted the first appeal to FEMA, expressing its support. The Recipient stated that FEMA policy on mosquito abatement does not preclude the possibility of other disease-carrying vectors and encouraged FEMA to use its discretionary authority to provide funding.

On June 7, 2023, the FEMA Region 6 Regional Administrator denied the appeal, finding that the Applicant did not demonstrate that the rodent infestation was a direct result of the disaster, but rather the Applicant’s failure to take measures to protect a facility from further damage or negligence. FEMA stated that the Applicant first noticed the rodent infestation more than seven months after the disaster in April 2022.[2] FEMA stated that most of the housing units remained full of contents through at least the beginning of May 2022.[3] FEMA added that whether there is a storm event or not, a property abandoned with edible contents can attract and sustain rodents.

FEMA added that the documentation corroborates the existence of pest issues prior to the disaster, and the Applicant did not provide documentation to indicate the extent of the pest problem immediately prior to the disaster, during the disaster, or immediately after the disaster. FEMA stated that instead, the documentation showed the presence of rodents at various units many months after the disaster and that the units were full of edible belongings for seven months and more following the disaster. FEMA stated that under the circumstances, rodent pictures taken seven months after the disaster did not substantiate that the infestation was a result of the disaster. 

Second Appeal

On July 31, 2023, the Applicant submitted a second appeal, reiterating its first appeal arguments. The Applicant adds that one month after the disaster, it covered all of the damaged buildings’ roofs with blue tarps; thus, demonstrating it took measures to protect its facilities. The Applicant states that the rodents were first discovered in February of 2022 by its staff members who were in the units to take damage pictures for FEMA site inspections and project development. The Applicant then began working with its pest control vendor and put a pest control plan in place in late March 2022. The Applicant states that the disaster destroyed the natural habitat for the rodents near the housing units, so they sought shelter and food where they could find it. The Applicant adds that the previous years’ pest control invoices demonstrate that its regular maintenance program was effective and that the Applicant did not have a rodent problem prior to the disaster. On September 22, 2023, the Recipient transmitted the appeal to FEMA, expressing its support. 

Discussion

FEMA is authorized to provide PA funding for emergency work, which is work that must be done immediately to save lives, protect public health and safety, protect improved property, or eliminate or lessen an immediate threat of additional damage.[4] The applicant is responsible for showing that work is required due to an immediate threat resulting from the declared incident.[5] FEMA does not provide assistance for damages caused by the applicant’s negligence.[6] The deadline to complete emergency work is six months from the declaration date unless the recipient or FEMA authorize an extension.[7] FEMA considers the urgency with which the applicant proceeds with work when evaluating eligibility.[8] The applicant should not delay in following its normal policies and procedures when taking actions to address threats to life, public health and safety, and improved property.[9]

The Applicant explained that typically, residents of its housing units would notify the Applicant of a rodent or other pest problem so that the Applicant may address the problem before it became problematic. This is evidenced by the Applicant having a pest management program in place prior to the disaster. However, although the Applicant’s pest control provider continued regular visits after the disaster, the Applicant did not document a rodent infestation until approximately five to seven months had passed, while the damaged units were vacant. The buildings were more easily accessible to rodents due to the disaster damage, and the housing units were full of belongings, thus attracting rodents. 

The Applicant removed drywall from the housing units, likely due to mold damage.[10] Likewise, a prudent measure would have been to remove the units’ contents that could foster a pest infestation during the five to seven months the contents sat in the uninhabited units.[11] Other than covering the damaged roofs with tarps, the record does not show what measures the Applicant, or its pest control provider, implemented to prevent the predictable increase in rodents. Therefore, the record indicates that the rodent infestation is not a result of disaster but rather a consequence of the Applicant’s failure to protect its facilities from further damage.

Moreover, while the Applicant provided a quote for additional pest control, there is no indication in the record that the Applicant completed the work. Therefore, even if the rodent infestation resulted from the disaster, the claimed work would still be ineligible because the deadline to complete emergency work has passed. Further, the lack of urgency shown by the Applicant in completing the work raises concern regarding whether the work was required due to an immediate threat resulting from the declared event.[12]

Conclusion

FEMA finds that the Applicant has not demonstrated that the work was required as a result of the declared incident. Therefore, this appeal is denied.