Sponsors (7)
This is not an official government website.
Copyright © 2026 PLEJ LC. All rights reserved.
Requires FEMA to change how it identifies, plans for, and funds hazard mitigation by adding new definitions (including “high hazard risk,” “environmental justice community,” and “small impoverished community”), authorizing climate‑aware guidance for mitigation projects, and prioritizing assistance to high‑need and low‑capacity communities. It raises federal cost‑share limits (up to 90%) for qualifying disadvantaged communities, increases the share of certain Disaster Relief Fund resources available for predisaster mitigation and community planning, requires targeted outreach to underserved communities, and directs FEMA to create a centralized, searchable federal database of pre‑ and post‑disaster mitigation and recovery spending within three years.
The bill shifts FEMA programs toward data‑driven, climate‑informed prioritization and greater federal support for high‑risk, low‑capacity, and environmental‑justice communities—improving long‑term resilience—while creating administrative complexity, equity and privacy risks, and funding trade‑offs that could limit near‑term recovery benefits unless accompanied by new appropriations and implementation capacity.
Low-income, small, Tribal, and environmental‑justice communities will be explicitly prioritized and recognized for disaster planning, outreach, and eligibility, improving their access to federal mitigation and recovery support.
Federal financial support for mitigation is increased and made more accessible — including up to 90% federal cost‑share for very low‑capacity communities and raising predisaster mitigation availability from 6% to 15%, plus a 2% planning set‑aside — reducing local cost burdens and funding more resilience projects.
Integration of climate projections and measurable criteria into FEMA tools (e.g., National Risk Index) plus a searchable national database improves data-driven targeting, transparency, and federal prioritization of mitigation investments.
Many new definitions, priorities, and guidance are created without guaranteed new appropriations or binding implementation timelines, risking elevated expectations in disadvantaged communities that may not be met.
Granting states discretion to define "economically disadvantaged" areas and relying on risk‑index tools risks inconsistent or politicized eligibility and could misclassify or exclude vulnerable communities.
New data, tool, and outreach requirements plus expanded program activity could create significant administrative burdens for FEMA, states, and localities and slow grant decisions if capacity and staffing are not increased.
Introduced January 14, 2025 by Eric Swalwell · Last progress January 14, 2025