To be fair not sure how they are counting. A quick glance at the FEMA page on this suggests California is #2 and Oklahoma is #3.
Given the sheer size of Texas and California this is not entirely surprising (both states are huge in area so have more opportunity for disasters to strike). Oklahoma though is not especially large as states go.
Having the (or second most, or third most) most declared disasters doesn’t mean receiving the most (or second most, or third most) disaster funding, either. One disaster on the densely-populated Eastern seaboard could easily cost more than twenty disasters in lightly-populated Oklahoma. More people to care for, more structures to rebuilt.
As much as it pains me, I’ll defend the Republican.
Let’s say you are in a House Share, and the question of adding HBO to the cable package comes up. You state that you think it’s wasteful and do not want to add it. You are overruled by the others, HBO is added, and you pay your share of the higher bill. Do your house mates get to criticize you for watching Game of Thrones?
Your disagreement with adding the expense does not mean you are forbidden from taking advantage of the benefits. The people of Oklahoma pay their taxes, and shoulder their burden of the Sandy cleanup, they deserve their share of FEMA support. Now, if Imhofe and Coburn figured out a way to stop Oklahomans from paying into the Sandy bill, I might have a different opinion.
It’s closer to the mark to say that you want just HBO, and the roommates want HBO and Showtime. Later, when talk of adding Starz comes up, they accuse you of hating premium cable and refusing to allow it in the house.
This can’t be overstated: Neither Inhofe nor Coburn are opposed to federal disaster relief. They’ve differed with their colleagues about certain aspects of funding offsets, immediate versus long-term relief budgeting, and pork.
Yes, because GoT is trash. You should be watching AMC’s Walking Dead instead! 
YOU LIE!!!
Tried Walking Dead… realistic zombie apocalypse or “Captain Trips” stuff just doesn’t agree with me. The more well done it is, the less I enjoy it, it’s a shame, really.
The number of times a declared disaster occurs in a state is not the same as the amount of disaster relief funding that state gets. The fact that Oklahoma is third in one category doesn’t make it third in the other category.
The issue is minor, though. The major issue is that you were flat wrong when you said “They voted against Sandy relief”. This is not the first time that you’ve started a thread based on something from Huffington Post, only to learn that what you were copying was untrue, or at least misleading or omitting important information. One would think that after the same thing happened many times, you might grow a bit skeptical about Huffington Post as a source.
Well, the measure you want in this case is how much disaster relief money per capita a given state gets.
Sure a much more populous state may get “more” money in absolute terms but then the bigger state kicks in more money in taxes too.
I do not know the answer to the per capita measure for disaster money and I doubt gathering that data for a casual forum thread would be a simple matter so I will leave it to others if they want to try. That said, if I was a betting man, my money is on Oklahoma taking more than its “fair share” (quotes because “fair share” is kind of meaningless when a tornado or hurricane nukes your town).
Considering red states overall get more federal money than they give back makes me feel safe in betting on this one (blue states are makers, red states are takers yet red states are the ones who bitch most about the takers…go figure).