Bill Overview
Title: Resilient AMERICA Act
Description: This bill addresses disaster resilience issues and expands coverage for hazard mitigation. The bill increases from 6% to 15% the estimated aggregate amount of grants that may be set aside for national public infrastructure pre-disaster hazard mitigation assistance; makes private nonprofit facilities eligible for technical and financial assistance for implementing cost-effective pre-disaster hazard mitigation measures; provides funding for water resources development projects; and expands the use of hazard mitigation assistance to cover certain activities pertaining to wildfires, tsunamis, and ice storms. Additionally, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) must set aside 10% of funds made available for any given year to further the implementation and enforcement of the latest published editions of relevant consensus-based building codes. FEMA must require as a condition of providing nonemergency financial assistance for construction projects costing at least $1 million that the steel and iron used in the projects be produced in the United States, with certain exceptions. FEMA must carry out a residential resilience pilot program to provide grants for residential resilience retrofits (e.g., elevation of homes, floodproofing measures, wildfire retrofit and mitigation measures, and wind retrofits). The Government Accountability Office must study the challenges to states and territories in obtaining funds under public assistance alternative procedures.
Sponsors: Rep. DeFazio, Peter A. [D-OR-4]
Target Audience
Population: People worldwide in regions prone to natural disasters such as wildfires, tsunamis, ice storms, and related events
Estimated Size: 100000000
- This bill aims to improve disaster resilience, impacting populations in areas prone to natural disasters, such as floods, wildfires, tsunamis, and ice storms.
- National public infrastructure and private nonprofit facilities eligible for mitigation assistance will benefit from increased grants.
- Construction projects that use domestic steel and iron guidelines will see economic impacts due to new stipulations.
- Homeowners, particularly those in disaster-prone areas, will benefit from the residential resilience pilot program providing grants for retrofits.
Reasoning
- Since the policy targets areas prone to natural disasters such as wildfires, hurricanes, floods, ice storms, and tsunamis, the interviews include individuals from such regions.
- The policy impacts both individuals and broader community infrastructure. Homeowners in disaster-prone areas receive specific attention for residential retrofits.
- The budget limitation implies that not all potential beneficiaries can be served fully, so some people will see medium to low impact instead of high.
- Inclusion of requirements for using domestically produced materials means construction-related occupations may be impacted economically.
- The diversity in geographic impact means including people from varying parts of the country—California, Texas, Florida, etc.—as well as urban vs rural.
- Not all people are eligible or impacted to the same degree; hence the interviews include those minimally impacted too.
Simulated Interviews
Homeowner (California)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad there are more grants available now. It's a relief knowing we might get help to safeguard our home against future fires.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Construction Manager (Florida)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Using American steel may raise costs but benefits local economy. The shift towards better building codes is crucial.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Nonprofit Manager (Louisiana)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The new eligibility rules for nonprofit facilities are a game-changer.
- Our facility could really use these supports to mitigate flood risk.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Engineer (Texas)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm very supportive of additional funding for water resources projects.
- Retrofitting could mean better job opportunities for engineers like me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 9 |
Teacher (New York)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe our community can benefit from being better prepared for storms.
- The focus on updated building codes might make our shelter safer.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Forester (Oregon)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The inclusion of wildfire activities means we might see fewer disruptions.
- It's crucial for us to empower communities to prevent fires, not just respond.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Retired (Michigan)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't see how this impacts me directly, but it's good to know communities can be better prepared.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Tourism Worker (Hawaii)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Ensuring tourist areas are safer is essential—it can't come soon enough.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Architect (Colorado)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The emphasis on consensus-based codes aligns with my values.
- I anticipate better project evaluations and opportunities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
City Planner (Alaska)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Finally, funding to improve our area's resilience to ice storms.
- It'll help with community projects making them safer.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $800000000 (Low: $700000000, High: $900000000)
Year 2: $850000000 (Low: $750000000, High: $950000000)
Year 3: $900000000 (Low: $800000000, High: $1000000000)
Year 5: $1000000000 (Low: $900000000, High: $1100000000)
Year 10: $1200000000 (Low: $1000000000, High: $1400000000)
Year 100: $1300000000 (Low: $1100000000, High: $1500000000)
Key Considerations
- The need to balance immediate expenditure with long-term savings through disaster risk reduction.
- Potential variance in construction costs due to the domestic material requirement, affecting project budgets.
- Short-term and long-term economic impacts based on increased resilience and recovery speed during disasters.
- The shifting nature of natural disasters and their unique future impact could alter financial needs.