BRIC: Expanding the Concepts of Federal Pre-Disaster Mitigation, by Elizabeth Zimmerman.
BRIC was created as Section 1234 of the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018, which will replace the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program. BRIC is built upon lessons learned from that program. BRIC is funded based on a formula of obligations from the DRF from the previous year for all active disasters, not just one disaster. The percentage for BRIC is 6 percent and is available nationwide. Another difference is when the funding is available, BRIC is pre-disaster versus HMGP is post-disaster.
New reports and data from the PewTrusts:
Data Highlight State-by-State Benefits of Federal Natural Disaster Mitigation Grants
Returns on investment vary across jurisdictions and hazard type
While disaster mitigation activities—such as elevating buildings or earthquake retrofits—save $6 on average per dollar spent in recovery costs, that amount varies by state and type of disaster, according to a new analysis released today from The Pew Charitable Trusts. Using data from the National Institute of Building Sciences, Pew found that states that stand to benefit the most from mitigation are: Kansas (which would save $6.81 per dollar spent on mitigation), Missouri ($6.72), New Jersey ($6.67), Delaware ($6.65), New Hampshire ($6.62), and Arizona ($6.60).
Pew’s analysis also broke down mitigation savings by type of disaster: floods, high winds, earthquakes, and wildfires. See your state’s data for mitigation savings overall, and by type of disaster: https://pew.org/2XHxxS6
This information offers helpful context to policymakers as they work to manage the increasing cost of natural disasters. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you’d like to speak with our policy team about this research. As always, you are welcome to republish our graphics or screenshots from our website with attribution to The Pew Charitable Trusts. I’d also encourage you to link through to our analysis at: https://pew.org/2XHxxS6
From The Guardian: The US won’t be prepared for the next natural disaster. Every $1 spent on hazard mitigation saves the nation $6 in future disaster costs, yet billions are still spent on recovery efforts
After two devastating floods in recent years, this historic city is conflicted over how to mitigate against future floods. See: In Ellicott City, painful debate on preventing deadly floods in historic district.
From TheHill: How to protect US communities from future disasters. Author is James L. Witt, former FEMA Director. An excerpt:
In early 2019, Project Impact 2 will launch — this time backed by the private sector. This project is a nationwide campaign with the goal of engaging community leaders and the public to tackle future impacts of increasingly frequent and severe weather events and climate change.
This initiative will provide the vehicle to create a community coalition, establish a process and blueprint for action within the community, and facilitate access to resources to implement community risk reduction actions.
‘Living With Water’: Cities Facing Climate Change Trade Sea Walls for Parks
To protect itself from a devastating flood, Boston was considering building a massive sea wall, cutting north to south through nearly 4 miles of Boston Harbor, taking $11 billion and at least 30 years to build. But a new plan unveiled in October represents a 180-degree turn: Instead of fighting to keep the water out, the city is letting it come in.
Boston Mayor Martin Walsh, a Democrat, announced the city would be scrapping the idea of a sea wall in favor of, among other things, a system of waterfront parks and elevation of some flood-prone areas. The city will add 67 new acres of green space along the water and restore 122 tidal acres.
From the Pew Trusts, this report (11 pages) on disaster mitigation. Natural Disaster Mitigation Spending Not Comprehensively Tracked. Most federal funding to help states manage cost growth is available only after an incident. Here is the concluding paragraph:
Because the federal government and state do not know how much they spend on mitigation in total, they lack the information to accurate compare proactive investments with post-disaster response and recovery Expenditures. All levels of government need a more comprehensive understanding of federal and state investment in order to better target funding to help manage the growing costs of catastrophic events.
FEMA used to have a program called Project Impact, which made money available for mitigation prior to a disaster. But the G..W. Bush administration killed the program. It is truly painful to see lessons forgotten or ignored.
Update: for those not familiar with Project Impact, which was notable and effective during its short life, I suggest you use Google Scholar with the search term “FEMA and Project Impact.” There you will find several studies and articles. See especially the study done by the Univ. of Delaware.
From Ed Thomas, President of the Natural Hazards Mitigation Association:
A link to some materiel the NMHA has developed to assist all involved in navigating the well-intentioned, costly, yet truly Byzantine way we do disaster recovery in our Nation.Build Back Safer and Smarter (5 pp.).
From Governing, this article about a recent IBHS study: As Storms Worsen, Many Coastal States Aren’t Prepared. Lax building codes and poor enforcement are a big problem in some places. An excerpt:
Eight out of the 18 hurricane-prone coastal states along the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Coast are highly vulnerable, according to a new report from the Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS). The report, Rating the States: 2018, is the institute’s third in six years. It evaluates the states on 47 factors that include whether residential building codes are mandated statewide, whether states and localities enforce those codes, and whether licensing and education are required of building officials, contractors and subcontractors.
Overall, the institute found “a concerning lack of progress” in the adoption and enforcement of updated residential building code systems across most of the states examined. “There’s not been much movement from [the first report] in 2012 to today,” says Julie Rochman, who stepped down as CEO and president of IBHS in April. “There’s some inertia.”