Should Texas declare a state of emergency over coronavirus? 6 things to know

Updated at 4:13 p.m., March 12, 2020: to include description of Abbott’s Thursday call with local officials.

As more Texans test positive for coronavirus disease 2019, state lawmakers and health advocates have begun to ask whether -- and when -- Gov. Greg Abbott might declare some kind of emergency.

Others are asking whether the state has the wallet to pay for a wide-ranging and costly response.

On Friday, President Donald Trump signed an $8.3 billion coronavirus bill into law. On Wednesday, the federal Department of Health and Human Services announced that Texas initially will receive $35.2 million for preparedness. It could receive additional federal funds.

Here are six things to know about emergency powers and responses to the COVID-19 outbreak:

1) What can Texas do?

Under state law, local public health authorities and the Texas Department of State Health Services have the power to issue “control measures,” such as detaining and quarantining individuals, to limit spread of communicable diseases.

Violation of a control measure is punishable by up to 180 days in jail and/or $2,000 in fines.

If the department’s commissioner John Hellerstedt, an Abbott appointee, decides there’s a high risk of exposure that could cause “death or serious long-term disability to a large number of people,” he can recommend the governor declare a public health disaster. It can last up to 30 days, and Hellerstedt can renew it for an additional 30 days.

During such a disaster, the list of control measures that Texas can take includes, among other things, immunization, detention, isolation, quarantine, disinfection and decontamination.

The local and state health authorities also can put entire areas under a quarantine order.

Asked Wednesday if Abbott is considering a disaster declaration on COVID-19, spokesman John Wittman replied, “Stay tuned.” On Thursday, Abbott hosted one conference call with mayors and county judges, followed by another with lawmakers, to discuss the outbreak. According to his office, Abbott stressed the need to support local jurisdictions -- and how they need to closely track expenses. That was an indication he’s looking down the road, at potential federal reimbursement.

Matt Hirsch, a former Abbott adviser who now is partner at the Austin-based consulting firm Vianovo, said the two-term Republican governor is used to responding to major events, such as Hurricane Harvey and mass shootings.

“This is consuming his every waking hour right now,” Hirsch said of COVID-19. “He and the staff are completely dialed in, engaged. They’re talking to local officials, state officials, federal officials on a near-constant basis. … He’s not going to hesitate to take whatever action needs to be taken, and he’ll do it as quickly as possible.”

Texas Sen. John Cornyn, also a Republican, said his staff and Abbott’s are in “hourly, minute-by-minute contact” to discuss Texas’ needs.

“I have confidence that Gov. Abbott is going to do what he see fits,” Cornyn said.

2) Could we see entire areas under lockdown, as happened in China?

The state health commissioner has sweeping powers to “close areas, to sequester people, … to take samples, to close swimming pools or other congregation areas or other places where exposures to infectious and other diseases can occur,” said former state epidemiologist Dennis Perrotta.

“He has all that authority to make those and he shares that with the local health authority,” he said.

Referring to a man who tested positive in the Houston suburbs on Wednesday, Perrotta said, “In Montgomery County, the local health authority is in charge and the Texas Department of State Health Services works with that.” Together, the local and state agencies tap into the best scientific advice from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, he said.

Until a specific infectious disease spreads very widely, though, Perrotta doesn’t expect quarantine areas or lockdowns that would impede movement of cars, trucks, buses and light-rail systems.

“The ability of our citizens to move around within the country is a highly held freedom” and impairing that “would really require a very bad public health emergency.”

The most aggressive action he saw a state take during his decades in public health in Utah and Texas was placement of a Utah woman with “multiply drug-resistant tuberculosis” in mandatory isolation in her home, with sheriff’s deputies making sure she stayed put, he said.

“Because there’s been a case in Montgomery County and they haven’t yet or maybe will never be able to identify where the contact was made doesn’t mean that anything’s changed for El Paso or Dallas or areas throughout the state,” Perrotta said. “Texas is a very large place.”

3) Why are some states declaring states of emergencies?

More than 20 states had declared states of emergency or public health emergencies in response to the coronavirus outbreak by Wednesday afternoon, according to the National Governors Association. Most of those states are clustered in the Midwest, Northeast and West Coast.

It varies from state to state on what exactly those declarations mean, since there’s no accepted definition across the U.S., said Michael Coen, who served as the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s chief of staff under President Barack Obama.

If a state hasn’t made such a designation, that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s taking the matter less seriously or tackling the problem less aggressively. But taking that step typically allows a state to marshal resources and potentially exercise powers that it would not normally have, Coen said.

Declaring a state of emergency is also often a precursor to making an aid request to the federal government.

4) What can the feds do?

What’s true in any emergency situation is that the response typically comes from the bottom up. Cities and counties try to deal with the situation. If it’s beyond their capacity, they turn to state authorities. If it’s beyond the state’s capacity, it moves to the federal level.

The federal government has at its disposal a variety of options – some of them so similarly named that it can cause confusion.

“There’s a lot of anxiety right now,” Coen said. “People naturally think of FEMA as the solution, when it’s not always the right solution.”

The president could declare a national emergency under the National Emergencies Act, giving himself some special tools to help respond. He could also take action under the Stafford Act, either by making an emergency declaration or by granting a major disaster declaration.

The latter option is especially important because it helps open up federal funding from FEMA for states and municipalities.

5) Can there be a disaster declaration related to public health?

Most major disaster declarations in the U.S. come after calamities like hurricanes or tornadoes.

When those kind of natural disasters strike, the process is pretty straightforward. A governor, if needed, can make a major disaster declaration request under the Stafford Act. It’s sent to the president through FEMA. If approved, new federal funding starts flowing.

While those kinds of requests can be made in response to a public health crisis, that would be unusual, Coen said. He didn’t recall any states, for instance, requesting such a declaration when the Ebola crisis hit Texas and other locales in 2014.

No governors have so far made requests for federal assistance to FEMA in connection to the coronavirus outbreak, officials said.

But Trump is reportedly considering declaring a national emergency under the Stafford Act, which would unlock millions of dollars from FEMA’s disaster relief fund to further assist states and municipalities in dealing with the coronavirus.

“I am fully prepared to use the full power of the Federal Government to deal with our current challenge of the CoronaVirus!” he wrote in a Tweet on Wednesday.

6) What kind of federal aid is Texas receiving?

The U.S. Health and Human Services Department and its affiliate agencies are serving as the leads for the coronavirus response. And they have their own mechanisms in place to send federal funding to Texas and other states.

The health agency, for instance, last week announced $25 million in rapid response dollars to combat the coronavirus, with about $1.75 million being marked for Texas.

Congress has also intervened, recently approving $8.3 billion in emergency spending to address the pandemic. Texas is poised to receive at least $35 million, based on a funding formula used to divvy up the pool of money among states and municipalities.

Texas could receive even more money from that batch, too, according to a Democratic spokesman for the U.S. House Appropriations Committee.

That could include funds to help the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conduct public awareness campaigns; to purchase masks and other medical supplies; to bolster resources for community health centers; and to research and develop vaccines.

Robert T. Garrett reported from Austin and Tom Benning reported from Washington D.C.