Improving National Infrastructure Through Resilience and Pre-Disaster Mitigation | Article

Extreme weather events are intensifying across the United States, leaving virtually no region untouched by the effects of wildfires, hurricanes, thunderstorms, storm surge, or ice storms. In 2020, the state of California experienced nearly 10,000 wildfires requiring the deployment of fire crews, which affected over 4.2 million acres of land. The same year also made history with a record-breaking Atlantic hurricane season that saw 30 named storms in the continental United States. More recently, in February 2021, an anomalous and fatal winter storm impacted the state of Texas, causing power outages that affected millions of homes and commercial buildings.

As climate change continues to alter weather patterns, communities throughout the United States are increasingly vulnerable to environmental adversities. Improving national infrastructure with federal commitments to pre-disaster mitigation and resilience efforts is a necessary step towards addressing climate impacts.

Against this background, the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure held a hearing entitled Building Smarter: The Benefits of Investing in Resilience and Mitigation. Members of Congress and witnesses engaged with the topics of resilience, pre-disaster mitigation, and emergency preparedness, outlining key steps the federal government can take to adapt to climate change while upgrading the nation’s infrastructure.

Participants in the hearing focused much of their attention on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which provides the majority of federal funding for disaster mitigation, according to Rep. Dina Titus (D-Nev.), Chair of the subcommittee. Much of FEMA’s mandate has been authorized by the Stafford Act, a federal directive for pre-and post-disaster recovery.

Pursuant to the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018, an amendment to the Stafford Act, FEMA’s Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Grant program was replaced by a novel grant program called Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC). While it is too soon to tell how effective BRIC has been, the first application cycle saw high demand for grants ranging from $5 million to $3 billion, according to Rep. Titus. Programs like BRIC are essential to pre-disaster mitigation efforts, which have been shown to yield an average return on investment of $6 per dollar invested.

In his testimony, Russell Strickland, Executive Director of the Maryland Emergency Management Agency, stated that BRIC funding will allow states to implement long-term resilience projects that proactively strengthen community lifelines and speed disaster recovery. To this end, he strongly encouraged Congress to ensure that the full 6 percent of federal post-disaster grant funding is directed to BRIC, as authorized by the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018, and made available to state and local entities every year.

While BRIC provides one way to incentivize pre-disaster mitigation, participants in the hearing also highlighted updating building codes as another route to adapting infrastructure to climate impacts. Ben Harper, Head of Corporate Sustainability at Zurich North America, offered recommendations from an insurance perspective on how to enhance building codes with climate change in mind. Without adapting assets to heightened environmental risks, many infrastructure projects could become uninsurable.

In his testimony, Roy Wright, President and CEO of the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety, stated that “housing is infrastructure” and, as such, must be resilient. Wright noted that Congress can fortify the residential sector with stronger building codes and smart tax policies that will cultivate public-private partnerships and channel resilience efforts where they are most needed.

Velma Smith, Senior Government Relations Officer at the Pew Charitable Trusts, highlighted the need for investments in transportation, water infrastructure, and nature-based solutions, and cataloged the co-benefits of building resilient infrastructure. Among these are maintaining business continuity, providing workforce opportunities, and addressing social inequity.

Harper’s testimony signaled a need for broader investments in interconnected infrastructure, offering a whole-community approach to pre-disaster mitigation. As Harper explained, if a few buildings are still operative after a disaster, but surrounding roads are not, the resilience of an entire community can be impaired.

A focus on social and economic equity punctuated the hearing. Wright said that resilience should not be a luxury item for homeowners. In response to a question from Rep. Titus on better ways to build resilience in underserved communities, Wright expressed concerns about the ability of low-income communities to match federal grants when they lack sufficient local revenue. More private investment must target high-poverty communities, which are typically more vulnerable to climate change impacts, according to Wright. Smith proposed a needs-based sliding scale that could better address cost-sharing inequities between localities.

On the topic of equity, Resident Commissioner Jenniffer González Colón (R-Puerto Rico) noted the lack of coordination in getting authorized FEMA funds to Puerto Rico for post-disaster mitigation efforts, highlighting the storm-battered territory’s struggle to receive necessary agency attention when it comes to resilience. Similarly, Rep. Grace Napolitano (D-Calif.) called attention to the difficulties that Native Americans and residents of Puerto Rico face in securing necessary resilience funds.

As these crucial questions of equity continue to complicate discussions around pre-disaster mitigation, the climate crisis offers no relief to U.S. infrastructure. Any approach to resilience will require enhanced coordination across federal and state agencies, smarter enforcement of building codes, and solutions to inequities that disproportionately place low-income communities and communities of color at the front lines of an increasingly perilous environment.

Author: Hamzah Jhaveri