Bill Overview
Title: Fire Suppression Improvement Act
Description: This bill sets the federal cost share of fire management assistance at 75% of the eligible cost of such assistance and permits a state or local government to use such assistance for the predeployment of assets and resources. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) must complete a rulemaking to provide criteria for the circumstances under which it may recommend that the President increase the federal cost share.
Sponsors: Sen. Padilla, Alex [D-CA]
Target Audience
Population: People living in areas prone to wildfires
Estimated Size: 120000000
- Fire management efforts directly impact communities that are at high risk of wildfires.
- The legislation affects state and local governments involved in fire prevention and suppression activities.
- The bill indirectly impacts residents living in fire-prone areas across the globe.
- It can influence insurance premiums and risk assessment for properties in fire-prone areas.
Reasoning
- The policy affects state and local governments involved in fire prevention and suppression activities, especially in states prone to wildfires.
- Residents in high-risk wildfire areas will have a significant interest in the effectiveness and funding of fire management efforts due to direct personal property risks.
- Areas not frequently affected by wildfires would not see significant impact from the proposed legislation, but these areas should be represented to understand the broader population impact.
- Stakeholders such as local government employees, first responders, residents living in high-risk areas, and individuals involved in insurance will likely have differing perspectives on the policy.
Simulated Interviews
Firefighter (California)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The additional funding will be crucial for predeployment and proactive measures.
- The policy should ensure that funds are directly benefiting firefighter units and not lost in bureaucratic delays.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Insurance Adjuster (Oregon)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could help stabilize the insurance market by reducing severe fire outbreaks.
- Better prevention can lead to more predictable risk assessments.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 2 |
Environmental Scientist (Washington)
Age: 37 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is pivotal in how local governments prepare for and respond to wildfire threats.
- It's essential to integrate robust data assessment for predeployment strategies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
State Official (Texas)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy allows for flexibility and autonomy in how funds are used to manage potential fire crises.
- Continual funding and revisiting criteria for cost share is essential.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Retired Farmer (California)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's reassuring to know that more federal support could help prevent situations like what happened last year.
- I hope this helps improve resource allocation during wildfire seasons.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 2 |
Wildfire Prevention Consultant (Arizona)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- These funds will help implement innovative fire prevention strategies and training programs.
- However, the success will depend on how states manage and utilize these resources.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Tech Entrepreneur (New York)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I don't live in a fire-prone area, the policy could drive demand for newer technologies in fire prevention.
- It highlights the need for advanced tools to combat environmental challenges.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Emergency Management Director (Florida)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Additional federal funding should downgrade fire outbreak impacts.
- This policy change should be paired with local training and resource management improvements.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
College Student (Nevada)
Age: 21 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is progressive policy that will assist communities like mine at the frontline of wildfire threats.
- The key is ensuring swift fund allocation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Forest Ranger (Colorado)
Age: 54 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Enhanced funding is much needed for effective fire combat strategies.
- The focus should be on long-term prevention tactics alongside immediate response improvements.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1500000000 (Low: $1200000000, High: $1800000000)
Year 2: $1600000000 (Low: $1300000000, High: $1900000000)
Year 3: $1700000000 (Low: $1400000000, High: $2000000000)
Year 5: $1900000000 (Low: $1600000000, High: $2200000000)
Year 10: $2200000000 (Low: $1900000000, High: $2500000000)
Year 100: $3500000000 (Low: $3000000000, High: $4000000000)
Key Considerations
- The long-term effectiveness of predeployment assets in reducing the severity of wildfires and associated costs.
- The possible establishment of thresholds or conditions for increasing federal cost share beyond 75% by FEMA rulemaking.
- Potential demand on federal resources in years with heightened wildfire activity.