Martin,

I think that the approach needs to be positive; anything that says that you can't do something will never see the light of day. IMO, you need to turn it around into positive suggestions for what the public can/should do for themselves.

I liked bsmith's revised letter except for the "We cannot." Let me try something from his letter in a slightly different way, that may make the same point and illustrate what I mean:

Bsmith's original:
During an emergency,
We will:
· evaluate situations from most critical to least critical – just like patients in an emergency room.
· provide you with information and recommended action plans.

We cannot:
· immediately provide drinking water, food or sanitation facilities.
· provide shelter within the township.
· provide fuels of any kind.


My alternative:

During an emergency,
We will:
· evaluate situations from most critical to least critical – just like patients in an emergency room.
· provide you with information and recommended action plans.

You can Help us help you by:
· Having a supply of drinking water, food, and sanitation supplies on-hand and available for your use during the emergency; we suggest a 72 (96?)hour supply should be kept on hand.
· Make plans for an alternate shelter for you and your family should you be forced to leave your home.
· Have a supply of fuels you may require, or plan to make use of alternate fuels. Your normal supply may be disrupted.

So, turn the 'cannots' into positive suggestions.
I think it may actually be more effective that way. I've seen enough situations where people want to help, but simply don't know what to do, but are willing to do something. All they need is someone to point them in the right direction.

Good luck