Bill Overview
Title: Community Disaster Resilience Zones Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires the President to continue to maintain a natural hazard assessment program that develops and maintains publicly available products to show the risk of natural hazards across the United States. Such products shall show the risk of natural hazards and include ratings and data for loss exposure, social vulnerability, community resilience, and any other element determined by the President. The President shall (1) review the underlying methodology of any product that is a natural disaster hazard risk assessment, and (2) consider including additional data in any product that is a natural hazard risk assessment. Additionally, the President must conduct such reviews to evaluate and update the assessments at least every five years. Using the reviewed assessments, the President must periodically identify and designate community disaster resilience zones (CDRZs), which shall be (1) the 50 census tracts assigned the highest individual hazard risk ratings; and (2) in each state, not less than 1% of census tracts that are assigned a high individual risk rating, taking into consideration specified geographic balance. The President may provide financial, technical, or other assistance to an eligible entity (a state, Indian tribal government, or local government) that plans to perform a resilience or mitigation project within, or that primarily benefits, a CDRZ. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) must develop criteria (taking into consideration the economic effects) to assess damage caused by a harmful algal bloom and report to Congress describing such criteria.
Sponsors: Rep. Davids, Sharice [D-KS-3]
Target Audience
Population: People living in areas prone to natural hazards
Estimated Size: 100000000
- The bill focuses on assessing natural hazard risks across the United States, which could impact all residents of areas prone to natural hazards.
- The identification of Community Disaster Resilience Zones (CDRZs) specifically targets areas with the highest risk of disasters, potentially affecting millions living in high-risk areas.
- Given periodic reviews and updates of hazard assessments, the population impacted may shift over time, affecting more people as areas are added or removed from high-risk zones.
- The bill could affect communities nationwide as it involves not just current high-risk areas, but could potentially identify future at-risk zones, impacting planning and resource allocation.
- FEMA's role in developing criteria for harmful algal blooms could specifically impact communities located near water bodies prone to such events.
Reasoning
- This policy is designed to improve the resilience of communities that are most prone to natural disasters, which includes a significant portion of the U.S. population due to the diverse geographical threats present across the country (e.g., hurricanes in the southeast, wildfires in the west, tornadoes in the midwest).
- Given the budget constraints, the policy will initially focus on the highest-risk areas as identified by the new hazard assessments. This means it won't affect all vulnerable people immediately, but there will be significant long-term benefits as the assessments continue to identify and target different CDRZs.
- The policy also includes provisions for both technical and financial assistance, suggesting that communities designated as CDRZs could see improvements in infrastructure and safety measures, leading to increased community resilience.
- There is an inherent limitation in how widespread the initial impact can be because of the budget cap. This would likely mean prioritization of areas with the highest immediate risk, which might leave out some vulnerable areas in the first few years.
- The wellbeing of people living in areas that receive aid is expected to improve over time as their communities become better equipped to handle disasters. However, those not directly impacted by the policy might not see immediate changes.
Simulated Interviews
community organizer (New Orleans, Louisiana)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this policy will highlight the vulnerabilities we face here in New Orleans, potentially bringing in more resources we desperately need.
- If our area is designated as a disaster resilience zone, it could mean more funding for flood defenses and emergency infrastructure, which is a massive positive.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
farmer (Fresno, California)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the policy could help us understand the risks better, but I'm unsure about how quickly the assistance will arrive.
- I hope the data will help us manage droughts and prevent fire damage in the future.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
climate scientist (Miami, Florida)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm optimistic that this policy will facilitate better disaster preparedness and community resilience.
- If implemented effectively, the policy could greatly enhance public awareness and scientific understanding of our vulnerabilities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
urban planner (New York, New York)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a step in the right direction since it will allow us to better plan our infrastructure projects and protect the city from sea level rise.
- More data will definitely help in making informed decisions about urban development.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
retired school teacher (Houston, Texas)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful this policy can bring more safety and reassurance to our community, particularly in dealing with flooding.
- I worry about whether our neighborhood will be prioritized though.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
software engineer (Boulder, Colorado)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While not directly impacted by this policy, it's reassuring to know that community resilience is being prioritized.
- Even though I'm not in a designated zone, understanding area risks is valuable for personal safety.
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 |
emergency services coordinator (Jackson, Mississippi)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy has the potential to improve emergency response planning and preparedness, especially for tornadoes.
- The identification of high-risk areas might allow targeted improvements in early warning systems and shelters.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
student (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 25 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The focus on risk assessment is essential, especially for earthquake-prone areas like Seattle.
- Hopefully, the data will influence building regulations to make structures more resilient.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
school principal (Topeka, Kansas)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope the policy will bring more resources to enhance school safety during tornado season.
- I'm optimistic but unsure how soon we'll see tangible benefits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
construction manager (Portland, Oregon)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might lead to advancements in sustainable and resilient construction practices.
- It's an opportunity for the industry to innovate in light of new data and risk assessments.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 2: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 3: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 5: $55000000 (Low: $45000000, High: $70000000)
Year 10: $60000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $75000000)
Year 100: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Key Considerations
- The designation of CDRZs needs careful coordination with state and local governments to ensure successful implementation and community buy-in.
- There may be challenges in uniformly applying hazard assessment methodologies across different states and regions, given their diverse natural hazards.
- The success of the act hinges on the efficient and transparent allocation of financial and technical resources to eligible entities.
- Measuring the effectiveness of resilience and mitigation projects will be crucial to justifying continued investment and support.