Bill Overview
Title: Post-Fire Flooding and Debris Flow Act of 2022
Description: This bill makes changes to eligibility under the hazard mitigation grant program of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to include mitigating and preventing post-wildfire flooding and debris flow. Specifically, the bill requires the federal share of hazard mitigation assistance for mitigating and preventing post-wildfire flooding and debris flow to be not less than 75% of the cost (currently, the President may contribute up to 75% of the cost).
Sponsors: Sen. Padilla, Alex [D-CA]
Target Audience
Population: People living in wildfire-prone areas
Estimated Size: 30000000
- The bill specifically addresses post-wildfire flooding and debris flow, which primarily affects areas prone to wildfires.
- Wildfires are a global issue, impacting millions of individuals living in fire-prone areas around the world.
- Global hotspots for wildfires include the United States, Australia, Southern Europe, and certain regions in Africa and South America.
- Post-wildfire flooding and debris flows are significant risks in regions that experience seasonal or severe wildfires.
Reasoning
- The target population is people living in wildfire-prone areas, estimated at about 30 million in the U.S., mainly in western states such as California, Colorado, and Arizona.
- The policy provides increased financial support for hazard mitigation which is crucial post-wildfire events, significantly reducing risks associated with flooding and debris flows after a fire.
- It is important to consider varying degrees of impact, as some individuals live in areas more severely affected by wildfires and subsequent flooding.
- While some people might not notice immediate benefits, even a low impact can represent a stabilization of conditions, which is a positive outcome.
- Budgeting considerations also involve ensuring that funds are distributed equitably, addressing the most severely impacted while considering a cap to avoid overspending.
- Ensuring that smaller communities with fewer resources also receive support is vital for equitable assistance across regions.
Simulated Interviews
Forest Ranger (California)
Age: 43 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is vital for prevention because we see devastating consequences of wildfires exacerbated by climate change.
- My community can use the funds to reinforce infrastructure against post-fire flooding and debris flows.
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 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Construction Worker (Colorado)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I appreciate the financial easing this policy means for my community as rebuilding always faced uncertainty and costs.
- Having FEMA cover more costs means we can financially recover faster and prepare better.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Environmental Scientist (Arizona)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy helps implement innovative mitigation strategies based on research.
- Increased funding will enhance our efforts to prevent erosion post-wildfire, crucial for the ecosystem and local communities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Retired (Oregon)
Age: 56 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Additional funding is good, but it's only part of the solution. We need better coordinated local responses too.
- I feel somewhat relieved knowing that there are more resources available should a disaster strike.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Local Business Owner (New Mexico)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's comforting to know more of the rebuilding will be covered by FEMA after disasters.
- This policy might mean my business isn't shut down for as long post-wildfire.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
College Student (California)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy seems like a critical step for better wildfire preparedness.
- Education around these policies should increase so more people understand the benefits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Non-profit Director (Nevada)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The bolstered funding support can greatly aid our community projects.
- It's a good move, but awareness and access to these funds are still hurdles.
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 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Insurance Adjuster (Washington)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased mitigation efforts potentially mean reduced claims severity.
- The policy reduces fears but true resilience requires broader risk management initiatives.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Tourism Manager (Montana)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Supporting post-fire recovery financially helps restore tourism faster.
- It's a welcome change to have FEMA extending its commitment.
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 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Emergency Response Volunteer (California)
Age: 21 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 12.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More resources for post-fire flooding will keep more neighborhoods safe.
- I'm optimistic this will encourage more volunteers to help with emergency preparedness.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1500000000 (Low: $1300000000, High: $1700000000)
Year 2: $1575000000 (Low: $1365000000, High: $1785000000)
Year 3: $1653750000 (Low: $1433250000, High: $1874250000)
Year 5: $1827421875 (Low: $1581578125, High: $2073265625)
Year 10: $2328040527 (Low: $2015870491, High: $2640210563)
Year 100: $98734567891 (Low: $85505595161, High: $111563540621)
Key Considerations
- The policy increases the mandatory federal share for specific hazard mitigation, which is likely to affect federal budget planning.
- There is potential for significant savings in disaster response funding due to proactive mitigation efforts.
- Changing climate patterns leading to more severe wildfires can increase the policy's expenditure impact.
- Policy effectiveness hinges on accurate identification and rapid response to post-fire flooding risks.