H. Rept. 115-820 - PROMOTING FLOOD RISK MITIGATION ACT115th Congress (2017-2018)
Committee Report
Hide Overview| Report Type: | House Report |
|---|---|
| Accompanies: | H.R.5846 |
| Committees: |
|
Report text available as:
- TXT
- PDF (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?
115th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { 115-820
======================================================================
PROMOTING FLOOD RISK MITIGATION ACT
_______
July 16, 2018.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Shuster, from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 5846]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to whom
was referred the bill (H.R. 5846) to require the Comptroller
General of the United States to conduct a study regarding the
buyout practices of the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
and for other purposes, having considered the same, report
favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill
as amended do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Purpose of Legislation........................................... 3
Background and Need for Legislation.............................. 4
Hearings......................................................... 4
Legislative History and Consideration............................ 5
Committee Votes.................................................. 5
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 5
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................ 5
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................ 5
Performance Goals and Objectives................................. 6
Advisory of Earmarks............................................. 6
Duplication of Federal Programs.................................. 6
Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings.............................. 7
Federal Mandate Statement........................................ 7
Preemption Clarification......................................... 7
Advisory Committee Statement..................................... 7
Applicability of Legislative Branch.............................. 7
Section-by-Section Analysis of Legislation....................... 7
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 7
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Promoting Flood Risk Mitigation Act''.
SEC. 2. GAO STUDY REGARDING BUYOUT PRACTICES.
(a) Definitions.--In this section--
(1) the term ``Administrator'' means the Administrator of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency;
(2) the term ``appropriate committees of Congress'' means--
(A) the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs of the Senate;
(B) the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs of the Senate;
(C) the Committee on Financial Services of the House
of Representatives; and
(D) the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives;
(3) the terms ``buyout practice'' and ``buyout program'' mean
a practice or program, as applicable, under which the
Administrator provides assistance to State and local
governments so that those entities may acquire flood-damaged
properties committed to open space use in perpetuity in
accordance with section 404(b)(2) of the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C.
5170c(b)(2));
(4) the term ``eligible property owner'' means a policyholder
under the National Flood Insurance Program with a household
income that is not more than 120 percent of the mean household
income for the community in which the primary residence of the
policyholder is located;
(5) the term ``National Flood Insurance Program'' means the
program established under the National Flood Insurance Act of
1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.);
(6) the term ``repetitive loss structure'' has the meaning
given the term in section 1370(a) of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4121(a)); and
(7) the term ``severe repetitive loss structure'' has the
meaning given the term in section 1366(h) of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4104c(h)).
(b) Study Required.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall conduct a study to assess--
(1) the efficacy of buyout practices, as in effect on the
date on which the study is conducted; and
(2) ways to streamline the buyout practices described in
paragraph (1) in order to provide more timely assistance to a
larger number of State and local governments.
(c) Considerations and Analysis.--The study conducted under
subsection (b) shall consider and analyze the following:
(1) To the extent possible, current (as of the date on which
the study is conducted) and future trends with respect to
repetitive loss structures and severe repetitive loss
structures that are insured under the National Flood Insurance
Program, including, with respect to both inland and coastal
areas--
(A) changes in flood risk, flood frequency, and flood
magnitude since the inception of the National Flood
Insurance Program; and
(B) projections for changes in flood risk, flood
frequency, and flood magnitude by 2025, 2050, and 2075.
(2) To the extent possible, buyout practices (as of the date
on which the study is conducted), including--
(A) the availability of funding sources for buyout
programs through various grant programs;
(B) the total number of properties acquired though
buyout programs;
(C) the average length of time for a State or local
government to acquire a flood-damaged property under a
buyout program, with that period beginning on the date
on which the State or local government, as applicable,
begins participating in the buyout program;
(D) an estimate of the number of flood-damaged
properties that could be acquired from willing property
owners under buyout programs with the full cooperation
of State and local governments;
(E) the socioeconomic status of recipients of buyouts
under buyout programs; and
(F) examples of successful buyout programs, including
best practices employed.
(3) Administrative, financial, or temporal constraints that
may impede the timely acquisition of properties under a buyout
program, including--
(A) a lack of communication or cooperation between
the Administrator and the State and local governments
that purchase properties under a buyout program;
(B) pressures to redevelop a property after acquiring
a property through a buyout program; and
(C) a lack of adequate funding.
(4) Potential options, methods, and strategies to address the
constraints identified under paragraph (3), including
evaluating the feasibility of--
(A) a pilot program under which--
(i) an eligible property owner may agree,
before a flood event occurs, to have the
primary single-family residence of the eligible
property owner purchased after the residence
has been substantially damaged by a flood;
(ii) the Administrator may provide--
(I) financial assistance to State and
local governments that are willing to
participate in the program to purchase
and acquire the properties of owners
that have incurred substantial damage
from a flood event; and
(II) a premium credit as an incentive
to eligible property owners to agree to
participate in the program;
(iii) properties that are acquired--
(I) shall be maintained as open space
in accordance with section 404(b)(2) of
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C.
5170c(b)(2)); and
(II) may be used for non-structural
mitigation, conservation, and
recreational purposes; and
(iv) not fewer than 5 and not more than 10
State and local governments shall participate;
and
(B) the role that nonprofit organizations could play
in making buyouts more readily available or more
efficient, similar to the role that those organizations
play in the acquisition of properties for conservation
purposes.
(5) The ecological, financial, and flood risk reduction
benefits that buyout practices, as in effect on the date on
which the study is conducted, provide, which shall--
(A) take into account the differences between inland
and coastal areas; and
(B) include--
(i) examples in which ecosystem restoration
and other nature-based approaches have enhanced
the reduction of flood risk; and
(ii) recommendations for best practices.
(6) To the extent possible, an assessment of how the
Administrator may use buyout programs to reduce future flood
disaster recovery costs that are attributable to future
projections of flood risk as a result of sea level rise,
population changes, subsidence, and other factors.
(7) A cost-benefit analysis of mitigation and buy-out
projects and programs, including an assessment of opportunities
and challenges for leveraging different Federal resources and
funding to maximize the value of Federal investment in disaster
mitigation.
(d) Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United
States shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress
and the Administrator a report that sets forth the analysis,
conclusions, and recommendations resulting from the study
conducted under subsection (b).
(2) Contents.--The report submitted under paragraph (1) shall
detail the feasibility of the Administrator establishing, and
the processes required for the Administrator to establish, an
alternative buyout program, such as the pilot program described
in subsection (c)(4)(A).
PURPOSE OF LEGISLATION
H.R. 5846, as amended, would require the Comptroller
General of the United States to conduct a study regarding the
buyout practices of the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA).
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
According to numerous studies, disaster losses and federal
disaster spending have increased significantly over the last 50
years. According to a 2012 report published by Munich Re, the
world's largest reinsurance company, North America suffered
$1.06 trillion in total disaster-related losses between 1980
and 2011. This amount included $510 billion in insured losses.
This report also showed that there was an increase in weather-
related events five-fold over the previous three decades.\1\ A
2005 report published by Princeton University, indicated that
since 1952 the cost of natural disasters to the federal
government more than tripled as a function of gross domestic
product.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Munich Re (2012). Severe weather in North America--Perils Risk
Insurance. Munich, Germany: Muchener Ruckversicherungs-Gesellschaft.
\2\The Princeton University Geoscience 499 Class, The Increasing
Costs of U.S. Natural Disasters. Geotimes, November 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disaster mitigation includes actions taken to reduce loss
of life and property by lessening the impact of disasters.
Effective mitigation acts to minimize the potential loss from a
disaster based on identifying and understanding the risks in a
given area or community. Mitigation can encompass a wide
variety of activities, including preparation and planning,
elevating or moving structures prone to flooding, hardening
structures to mitigate effects of hurricanes or earthquakes,
and establishing building codes and zoning ordinances.
Mitigation not only saves lives but has been shown to also
reduce disaster costs by minimizing damage from a disaster. For
example, pursuant to a requirement of the Disaster Mitigation
Act of 2000, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) completed an
analysis on the reduction in federal disaster assistance as a
result of mitigation efforts. That study examined mitigation
projects funded from 2004 to mid-2007 and found that of the
nearly $500 million invested through Pre-Disaster Mitigation
grants future losses were reduced by $1.6 billion for an
overall ratio of three to one. In essence, for every dollar
invested in mitigation, $3 were saved. CBO's analysis
reaffirmed a prior study commissioned by FEMA and conducted by
the Multihazard Mitigation Council of the National Institute of
Building Sciences that concluded that funding spent on
mitigation reduces future disaster costs. More recent studies
conducted by the Wharton School\3\ and the National Institute
of Building Sciences\4\ show potential savings of four to eight
dollars for every one dollar invested in mitigation.
Specifically, moving structures out of harm's way as intended
by FEMA's buyout program has been shown to be very effective in
mitigating against future losses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\University of Pennsylvania, Wharton School Risk Center,
``Economic Effectiveness of Implementing a Statewide Building Code: The
Case of Florida''. May 2016.
\4\National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS), ``Natural Hazard
Mitigation Saves: 2017 Interim Report Summary of Findings''. Available
here: https://www.nibs.org/page/ms2_dwnload.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HEARINGS
No hearings were held on H.R. 5846, as amended.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND CONSIDERATION
On May 16, 2018, Congressman Earl Blumenauer (D-OR)
introduced H.R. 5846. The bill was referred solely to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
On June 27, 2018, the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure met in open session. An amendment was offered by
Congressman Peter DeFazio (D-OR) and adopted by the Committee
by voice vote. A second amendment was offered by Congressman
Garret Graves (R-LA) and adopted by the Committee by voice
vote. The Committee ordered the bill, as amended, reported
favorably to the House by voice vote with a quorum present.
COMMITTEE VOTES
Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires each committee report to include the
total number of votes cast for and against on each record vote
on a motion to report and on any amendment offered to the
measure or matter, and the names of those members voting for
and against. There were no recorded votes taken in connection
with consideration of H.R. 5846 as amended.
COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(1) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee's oversight findings and recommendations are
reflected in this report.
NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND TAX EXPENDITURES
Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives does not apply where a cost estimate and
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 has been timely submitted prior to the filing of the
report and is included in the report. Such a cost estimate is
included in this report.
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE
With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(3) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has
received the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 5846 as amended
from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, July 12, 2018.
Hon. Bill Shuster,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 5846, the
Promoting Flood Risk Mitigation Act.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Robert Reese.
Sincerely,
Mark P. Hadley
(For Keith Hall, Director).
Enclosure.
H.R. 5846--Promoting Flood Risk Mitigation Act
H.R. 5846 would direct the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) to complete and submit to the Congress a study on the
efficacy of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's current
practices related to the federal acquisition of private
properties following major flood disasters. GAO would be
required to examine the available funding for such federal
acquisition through current grant programs, evaluate any
constraints that may impede the timely acquisition of damaged
or destroyed properties, consider potential options to address
any constraints identified, and assess how an acquisition
program could be used to reduce future flood recovery costs.
Using information on the costs of similar studies, CBO
estimates that implementing the bill would not have significant
cost.
Enacting H.R. 5846 would not affect direct spending or
revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply.
CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 5846 would not increase
net direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four
consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2029.
H.R. 5846 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Robert Reese.
The estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(4) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
performance goal and objective of this legislation is to
require the Comptroller General of the United State to conduct
a study regarding the buyout practices of the FEMA.
ADVISORY OF EARMARKS
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, the Committee is required to include a list
of congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited
tariff benefits as defined in clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of
rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. No
provision in the bill includes an earmark, limited tax benefit,
or limited tariff benefit under clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of
rule XXI.
DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS
Pursuant to clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, the Committee finds that no provision of
H.R. 5846, as amended, establishes or reauthorizes a program of
the federal government known to be duplicative of another
federal program, a program that was included in any report from
the Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to
section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program related to a
program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance.
DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTED RULE MAKINGS
Pursuant to section 3(i) of H. Res. 5, 115th Cong. (2017),
the Committee finds that enacting H.R. 5846, as amended, does
not direct the completion of a specific rule making within the
meaning of section 551 of title 5, United States Code.
FEDERAL MANDATE STATEMENT
The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of federal
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act (Public Law 104-4).
PREEMPTION CLARIFICATION
Section 423 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974
requires the report of any Committee on a bill or joint
resolution to include a statement on the extent to which the
bill or joint resolution is intended to preempt state, local,
or tribal law. The Committee states that H.R. 5846 as amended
does not preempt any state, local, or tribal law.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT
No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b)
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act are created by this
legislation.
APPLICABILITY OF LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law
104-1).
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF LEGISLATION
Section 1. Short title
Section 1 designates the act be known as the `Promoting
Flood Risk Mitigation Act'.
Section 2. References
Section 2 defines and designates the study requirements for
the Comptroller General of the United States.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
H.R. 5846, as amended, makes no changes in existing law.
[all]