Bill Overview
Title: Hazard Eligibility and Local Projects Act
Description: This bill makes an entity seeking assistance under a hazard mitigation assistance program eligible to receive such assistance for certain projects already in progress. A covered project means 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 authority provided under this bill terminates three years after its enactment.
Sponsors: Sen. Tillis, Thomas [R-NC]
Target Audience
Population: People in hazard-prone areas benefiting from mitigation projects worldwide
Estimated Size: 100000
- The bill affects entities seeking assistance for hazard mitigation projects, which can be organizations or governments that manage such projects.
- The projects in question are related to acquisition and demolition for hazard mitigation.
- This legislation could affect individuals living in areas prone to hazards, such as floods, fires, or other natural disasters, where mitigation projects might be required.
- The assistance might expedite or enable moving forward with projects that might otherwise lack funding.
Reasoning
- This policy particularly targets areas and entities involved with hazard mitigation projects that might already have started but are in need of additional funding to be completed.
- The population affected includes governmental bodies, local agencies, and potentially individuals living in hazard-prone areas, like flood zones or areas prone to wildfires or earthquakes.
- Budget constraints imply that only a fraction of projects can be funded each year. Hence, not every entity seeking funding will receive it, leading to varied impacts.
- The wellbeing of people impacted will partially depend on the direct safety and property conservation effects of these mitigation projects.
Simulated Interviews
City Planner (Houston, Texas)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is vital for our flood-prone communities that have ongoing projects.
- We have been struggling with funding to continue or accelerate current mitigation operations.
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 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Firefighter (Santa Rosa, California)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any additional resources for fire mitigation are beneficial.
- There are several projects that have started but lack sufficient funding.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Environmental Engineer (Miami, Florida)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The funding could expedite crucial coastal protection initiatives.
- Delays in projects can make neighborhoods vulnerable to storm surge.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Homeowner (New Orleans, Louisiana)
Age: 53 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Too often, funding falls through, leaving us vulnerable.
- Hope this policy brings timely relief to ongoing flood control projects.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Retired School Teacher (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Assistance might enable stronger safety measures.
- Projects in progress can already make a difference in next quake.
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 |
Construction Manager (Omaha, Nebraska)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Budget constraints hinder our ability to complete vital infrastructure projects.
- Helps us avoid project delays, thus improving safety measures.
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 |
Local Government Official (Tampa, Florida)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Current resources are never enough in the face of regular storm events.
- This policy might ensure comprehensive solutions reach fruition.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Architect (San Diego, California)
Age: 61 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy should help get necessary approvals faster.
- Ongoing flood control projects can greatly benefit.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Graduate Student (Kansas City, Missouri)
Age: 25 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Observed how many projects are stalled due to lack of funding.
- Policy could help in mobilizing overlooked projects.
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 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Environmental Consultant (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 12.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Every bit of funding assists in drought and extreme heat planning.
- Pre-existing projects need government continuance.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $100000000 (Low: $75000000, High: $125000000)
Year 2: $120000000 (Low: $90000000, High: $150000000)
Year 3: $130000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $160000000)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The policy could create a bias towards projects that are already funded or in late stages of approval, possibly neglecting emergent needs.
- Some regions may see disproportionate benefits depending on the type and frequency of hazards.
- The administrative costs of evaluating projects in progress could affect overall efficiency in assistance distribution.