Bill Overview
Title: Hazard Eligibility and Local Projects Act
Description: This act makes an entity seeking assistance under a hazard mitigation assistance program eligible to receive such assistance for certain projects already in progress. Specifically, this act covers a project that is an acquisition and demolition project for which an entity began implementation, including planning or construction, before or after requesting assistance for the project under a hazard mitigation assistance program; and qualifies for a categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) must have determined that the project qualifies for a categorical exclusion, is compliant with applicable floodplain management and protection of wetland regulations and criteria, and does not require consultation under any other environmental or historic preservation law or regulation or involve any extraordinary circumstances. FEMA must report to Congress, within 180 days of enactment and annually thereafter for three years, on use of the authority under this act. Such authority terminates three years after enactment.
Sponsors: Rep. Fletcher, Lizzie [D-TX-7]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals involved in hazard mitigation projects related to acquisition and demolition
Estimated Size: 500000
- The bill affects entities engaging in hazard mitigation projects specifically related to acquisition and demolition, and which are also eligible under FEMA programs.
- Projects must qualify for categorical exclusion under NEPA to be covered, impacting entities involved in environmental planning and floodplain management.
- The bill is pertinent to those who have existing projects already in progress, thus individuals or companies involved in these projects would be directly impacted.
- FEMA’s involvement and reporting requirements imply federal oversight, affecting project timelines and compliance costs for project implementers.
- Environmental agencies or consultants involved in NEPA assessments could be indirectly impacted by increased demand for their expertise.
Reasoning
- The policy directly affects entities engaged in projects that involve acquisition and demolition within hazard mitigation efforts. These projects are likely to be within floodplains or other environmentally sensitive areas, requiring NEPA exclusions.
- The policy allows funding for projects already underway, lifting potential financial barriers for eligible entities.
- The bill's scope affects a target population limited to those involved in these specific projects—a relatively small but significant segment considering economic and safety impacts.
- Considering the capped budget, the number of projects that can be supported is limited, necessitating prioritization based on urgency or potential impact.
- The involvement of FEMA implies an emphasis on compliance and regulatory adherence, which might create additional administrative burdens.
Simulated Interviews
Project Manager (Louisiana)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy would significantly speed up our current projects, as getting retroactive funding removes a major hurdle.
- It's crucial for improving the resilience of vulnerable communities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Environmental Consultant (California)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act could boost demand for my services if more projects are expedited.
- There might be initial confusion over compliance and eligibility criteria.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
City Planner (Florida)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could allow cities to fast-track necessary demolition projects under budget constraints.
- However, it will require us to keep a close eye on FEMA's strict reporting requirements.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
General Contractor (Texas)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Retroactive funding could stabilize my business during periods of slow funding.
- It's important that we streamline the qualification process to avoid delays.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Community Advocate (New York)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could be a game-changer for communities fighting to protect their environments.
- Funding assurance for ongoing projects helps plan for long-term sustainability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Floodplain Manager (New Jersey)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Being able to fund current and upcoming projects will benefit local economies and safety.
- Compliance will remain a challenge, but it's worthwhile.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Retired schoolteacher (North Carolina)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Projects that enhance flood protection are invaluable to homeowners like us.
- It's reassuring to know there's support for existing efforts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Civil Engineer (Oregon)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could expedite critical infrastructure projects by securing needed funds.
- Ensuring eligibility might still be a hurdle for many agencies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Environmental Specialist (Illinois)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My workload might increase with more projects getting the green light.
- The ability for projects to receive funding regardless of their stage of completion is promising.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Construction Business Owner (Mississippi)
Age: 63 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The assurance of project funding positively affects future business planning.
- We might still face bureaucratic hurdles in accessing those funds.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $30000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $40000000)
Year 2: $30000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $40000000)
Year 3: $30000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $40000000)
Year 5: $31000000 (Low: $21000000, High: $41000000)
Year 10: $35000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $45000000)
Year 100: $35000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $45000000)
Key Considerations
- The policy enhances project eligibility but terminates after 3 years, limiting long-term fiscal impacts.
- While the bill facilitates project inclusion, it relies heavily on stringent environmental compliance (NEPA categorical exclusion approval processes).
- Budgetary effects would relate to the specific scope and nature of eligible projects under the updated FEMA program criteria.
- Potential administrative and oversight challenges could arise with increased project reviews, particularly regarding compliance with floodplain and environmental regulations.