Bill Overview
Title: Community Disaster Resilience Zones Act of 2022
Description: This act 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 hazard risk assessment and receive public input on the methodology and data used for the product, and (2) consider including additional data in any product that is a natural disaster 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.
Sponsors: Sen. Peters, Gary C. [D-MI]
Target Audience
Population: People living in areas prone to natural hazards worldwide
Estimated Size: 100000000
- The bill aims to assess and mitigate risks of natural hazards across the United States, impacting individuals living in areas prone to such hazards.
- The focus is on the 50 highest-risk census tracts and at least 1% of high-risk census tracts in each state, which directly encompasses residents living in these designated Community Disaster Resilience Zones (CDRZs).
- The inclusion of a methodology for public input and periodic reviews suggests that a wide range of communities and stakeholders will be indirectly involved or affected.
- Financial, technical, or other assistance for resilience or mitigation projects implies potential benefits to infrastructure and community services affecting all residents in CDRZs.
- As it uses census tracts for assessment, the target population includes everyone residing in the identified high-risk areas, encompassing diverse demographic profiles.
Reasoning
- The policy targets areas at significant risk from natural hazards, suggesting direct impacts on residents in those zones.
- We need to consider diversity in geography, economic status, and community resilience which can vary significantly across different regions.
- The policy's budget constraints mean not all high-risk areas will receive immediate benefit, but initial focus will be on the highest-risk areas.
- The geographic diversity implies different types of risks (hurricanes, wildfires, floods, etc.) and consequently different needs and responses.
- Different demographic groups will have varying perceptions and reporting of wellbeing before and after the policy.
Simulated Interviews
construction worker (Houston, Texas)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've seen my area get flooded pretty badly, and it's worrying when you think of how often we're getting storms now.
- If the government can help us prepare better, it would ease a lot of stress, especially in taking care of my kid.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
retired (Paradise, California)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I lived through the last fire, lost almost everything. Insurance took forever to come through.
- I've been worried every dry season since, so extra support would be a blessing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 2 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 1 |
small business owner (Miami, Florida)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We face hurricanes regularly, and sometimes it's tough getting everything back up afterward.
- If the government helps us, it means we're back in business sooner and less financially strained.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
teacher (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We've had earthquake drills, but you never feel truly ready.
- It would really help to know that there'd be a structured response plan in place.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
agricultural scientist (Des Moines, Iowa)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The data from this project could aid in crop resilience strategies.
- It's exciting for scientific research and practical applications.
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 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
nurse (New Orleans, Louisiana)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Being on the frontline during disasters is tough, both mentally and physically.
- Better preparation could save lives and ease the burden on healthcare workers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
school principal (Tornado Alley, Oklahoma)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We practice shelter drills regularly, but it's always a worry.
- More government support could mean real shelters and resources.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
student (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As someone in climate research, I see the importance of such data initiatives.
- Involving communities can shape more effective climate policies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
fisherman (Anchorage, Alaska)
Age: 46 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Fishing has become more unpredictable with changing weather, increasing risks.
- Data and support could stabilize our planning and operations.
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 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
government worker (North Carolina)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our state already has coordinated efforts, but more federal support can enhance efficiency.
- It's promising to have a national perspective on local vulnerabilities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)
Year 2: $155000000 (Low: $105000000, High: $210000000)
Year 3: $160000000 (Low: $110000000, High: $215000000)
Year 5: $170000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $230000000)
Year 10: $190000000 (Low: $140000000, High: $250000000)
Year 100: $300000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $400000000)
Key Considerations
- The initial and ongoing costs need to balance with the possible long-term savings from reduced disaster impact.
- Constant technology upgrades and data accuracy will be crucial for the success of this program.
- Involving community input and integrating diverse local needs could incur additional costs but may lead to more relevant and effective solutions.
- The geographical distribution and diversity of climate threats will affect implementation and cost variably across different regions.