Bill Overview
Title: Disaster Resiliency Planning Act
Description: This bill requires the Office of Management and Budget to establish guidance that requires federal agencies to incorporate natural disaster resilience into real property asset management and investment decisions. Specifically, the guidance must direct each agency to incorporate assessments of natural disaster risk information conducted by the agency, such as from vulnerability and other risk assessments, into real property asset management and investment decisions.
Sponsors: Rep. Carter, Troy [D-LA-2]
Target Audience
Population: People worldwide potentially benefiting from improved disaster-resilient infrastructure
Estimated Size: 330000000
- The bill affects federal agencies that manage and invest in real property assets by requiring them to include natural disaster resilience in their asset management.
- Real property managed by federal agencies can include infrastructure, buildings, and land, which may be used or inhabited by a wide range of individuals.
- The legislation aims to improve the resilience of federal infrastructure to natural disasters, potentially reducing future damage and increasing safety.
- This bill impacts broader communities by potentially enhancing the overall preparedness and resilience to natural disasters.
Reasoning
- The Disaster Resiliency Planning Act is targeted towards federal agencies, so it most directly involves people working within or with those agencies, as well as individuals who frequently use federal facilities or live in areas adjacent to federal infrastructure.
- The primary costs and benefits are related to improving infrastructure to withstand natural disasters, which might initially result in increased government spending but could save significantly on long-term disaster response and recovery costs.
- The policy mainly impacts communities susceptible to natural disasters and people who interact with federal properties, thus including a diverse socio-economic and geographical range of the population.
- Considering the budget, the impact of this policy will be gradual and spread over many years, affecting how government agencies plan and respond to infrastructure vulnerabilities.
- The commonness score reflects how representative each interviewee might be of the broader diversity within affected populations in terms of geography, occupation, and demographic factors.
Simulated Interviews
Federal Building Manager (Miami, FL)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think incorporating natural disaster resilience into our asset management is crucial, especially in areas like Miami.
- This policy could help us better assess and mitigate risks associated with hurricanes, potentially saving lives and reducing repair costs.
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 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Construction Engineer (Denver, CO)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Integrating disaster resilience into planning is something we've been pushing for years.
- This bill should create new opportunities and set higher standards across construction projects.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Retired (New Orleans, LA)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies that address infrastructure and disaster risk are very much needed here.
- If federal buildings are better protected, maybe this approach could extend to more local infrastructure improvements.
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 |
Urban Planner (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having a mandatory framework for disaster resilience is a significant step forward.
- It could make a huge difference in how cities like ours plan future developments.
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 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Environmental Scientist (Houston, TX)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The inclusion of up-to-date risk assessments in planning processes is vital.
- This could reinforce the practical side of our climate change research.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Federal Policy Analyst (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This connects high-level policy-making with practical, on-the-ground benefits.
- It will guide future policy work in federal infrastructure investments.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
State Emergency Coordinator (Kansas City, MO)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Bridging federal and local perspectives on disaster resilience is crucial.
- This policy could foster a more integrative approach between different government levels.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Small Business Owner (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improved resilience could ensure continuity in operations during a disaster.
- There's a bit of uncertainty about direct impacts, but overall positive outlook if it secures federal infrastructure.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Civil Rights Advocate (Portland, OR)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Strengthening public properties is good, but it should benefit everyone evenly, especially vulnerable groups.
- We need transparency to ensure marginalized communities are not overlooked.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Federal Land Ranger (Anchorage, AK)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Federal lands are at the forefront of disaster risks; this policy could help us better prepare.
- Improvements might take time but are essential for long-term ecological integrity.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $700000000 (Low: $600000000, High: $800000000)
Year 2: $720000000 (Low: $610000000, High: $830000000)
Year 3: $740000000 (Low: $620000000, High: $860000000)
Year 5: $780000000 (Low: $650000000, High: $900000000)
Year 10: $860000000 (Low: $700000000, High: $1030000000)
Year 100: $1400000000 (Low: $1000000000, High: $2000000000)
Key Considerations
- The execution of this policy will necessitate time for agencies to develop competent disaster resilience strategies and implement changes.
- Initial costs may be high as agencies identify and mitigate vulnerabilities in existing infrastructure.
- Long-term benefits manifest as reductions in costs associated with repairs and emergency responses post-disaster.