A government gains its legitimacy to govern if it can ensure the general safety of all its citizens not only with respect to planned aggressions but also emergency cases. The Social Contract Theory as espoused by John S. Locke stipulates that there is always a contract between governments and the people such that while the people pay taxes and cede some of their rights to the state, the state protects them and punishes those who transgress against them. Therefore, it is incumbent upon every administration to fulfill their part of the bargain and ensure the safety of all citizens. That is why there is established the Federal Emergency Management Agency to tackle magnanimous emergency crises in the United States (Kapucu & Özerdem, 2013). This paper intends to discuss the emergency management operations that took place during the Gulf Oil spill; detailing the applicability of the National Response Framework and the National Incident Management System.
On April 20, 2010 a great catastrophe hit the United States. The Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded within the Gulf of Mexico, which is approximately 41 miles from the coast of Louisiana. The oil platform had been leased by the Company, British Petroleum (BP) to another Company called Transocean. The explosion was actuated by drilling actions of workers which took place in waters close to 5,000 feet deep. As a result of this, the oil well was damaged, and there was an outpour of crude oil into the waters all the way from the sea floor. The ramifications of the spill were dire. It claimed the lives of 11 workers and 17 others were injured. America has never witnessed such a large offshore spill with overarching consequences as this one (McKay, 2010). It was apparent that immediate action was needed to cushion the general public from further atrocities.
The ideal reactionary mechanism here would be that a Unified Command had to be established in which case there would result a concerted operation bringing together all agencies. But many analysts blame politics for the manner in which BP oil was sidelined from the operations in disregard of the Oil Pollution Act. The Act was put in place in response to the Exxon Valdez oil spill which occurred in Alaska and it was prudent to mandate collaboration between government and the Company involved or responsible party. The Incident Command System and Joint Information Center were also intended to partake in this course.
Since the BP oil spill happened offshore, within the territorial waters of the United States, the task of emergency intervention laid squarely within the domain of the Federal government. However, the National Incident Management Services had to take heed to the Uniform Incident Command System in accordance with the National Response Framework. At this time, the Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act were also applicable to provide the guiding principles of operation. This implies that since the oil spill was the doing of a private entity, all operations had to factor in the role of BP Company in righting their wrong. It was acknowledged that at that point, only the Company had the ability to close the ruptured wall. Therefore, it had to be involved in all processes thereof. One shortfall of these operations however was the fact that the Oil Pollution Act did not provide for a synchronized approach of tackling such disasters in the sense that the governor and the Federal government would share ideas of probative value to the situation.
In that case, the Federal government also had a limited role in this situation at first because there was a need to let BP bear the burden of preventing further oil spillage. Even though this was in accordance with the Oil Pollution Act, when the government realized that BP was not in opposition to close off the ruptured wall soon enough, they sought foreign intervention from countries which had advanced expertise in such issues. The BP oil spill led to a significant turnaround in the approach of emergency response, especially with respect of matters of oil spillage. According to many analysts, since the inception of the Oil Pollution Act, the federal, state and local government agencies had been working hand in hand to avert dangers of oil related emergencies. However, the 2010 case was slightly different because the Federal government was more inclined towards apportioning more blame and responsibility on the private entity at fault (Maynard, 2012) .
In a nutshell, the Gulf Oil Spill was an eye opening experience to the extent that it created a new perspective about the National Response Framework especially when there are not enough technological mechanisms to combat the crisis at hand. The question of who bears responsibility for the Incident and when such obligations accrue was also rife. In that case the National Incident Management System was torn between either solving a crisis caused by a private Company or leaving it to the Company to solve the issue and risking more casualties. All these options were enforced but the government took the full responsibility in the late stages of the crisis.
References
Kapucu, N., & Özerdem, A. (2013). Managing emergencies and crises. Burlington, Mass: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
McKay, J. (13 September, 2010). Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Prompts Debate on NIMS, Unified Response. Emergency Management, 1, 1-2.
Minyard, E. (2012). After disaster: An insider's perspective from the heart of chaos. Indianapolis, Ind: Dog Ear Publishing.
