In the development of aHazard Mitigation Plan (HMP), the "locus" or central focus must always be on long-term risk reduction and life safety, rather thanshort-range and political goals. According to theDisaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000)and FEMA'sLocal Mitigation Planning Handbook, effective planning requires looking beyond the immediate political cycle or temporary local interests.
If a mitigation plan is driven by political goals (Option C), it may prioritize "visible" but less effective projects over technically sound infrastructure improvements. For example, a local politician might push for a new park in a floodplain because it is popular, rather than funding a less visible but more critical drainage system upgrade. This compromises the community’s resilience by ignoring the scientific data provided during theHazard Identification and Risk Assessment (HIRA)process.
Options A and B are, conversely, essential parts of a legitimate planning process. Assessing local threats (Option A) is the scientific foundation of the plan, and evaluating budget capacity (Option B) ensures that the plan is realistic and implementable. A plan that cannot be funded is merely a "wish list." However, theCEDPprofessional is taught that mitigation is a long-term investment. Political goals are inherently transient, whereas the hazards—such as seismic activity or climate-driven flooding—are persistent and require sustained, non-partisan commitment. Aligning mitigation with long-term land-use planning and building codes, rather than short-term political wins, ensures that federal grant eligibility is maintained and that the community is genuinely safer for future generations.
