Overview
Title
To reauthorize the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
S. 320 is a plan to update older rules about being ready for earthquakes. It wants everyone, like local communities and agencies, to work together better to keep people safe when earthquakes happen.
Summary AI
S. 320 is a bill intended to renew and modify the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977. It aims to enhance safety and preparedness by updating definitions and expanding the roles of state, local, and Tribal governments. The bill includes new sections to improve early earthquake warning systems, encourage building retrofitting, and develop better standards for earthquake-related issues. Additionally, it authorizes funding for various agencies such as the United States Geological Survey and the National Science Foundation to support these efforts.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The bill aims to reauthorize the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977, with updates and improvements to better address contemporary challenges. Titled the “National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Reauthorization Act of 2025,” it revises existing legislation to reflect the ongoing need to enhance earthquake preparedness and resilience across the United States. The bill includes amendments to definitions, incorporates Tribal governments in planning and response activities, and proposes updates to building and infrastructure standards. It also emphasizes improved coordination among various federal agencies to ensure effective earthquake early warning systems and response strategies.
Summary of Significant Issues
One of the significant issues in the bill is the addition of responsibilities for Tribal governments without clear guidelines on resource allocation. While striving for inclusivity, this could lead to implementation challenges if the specific needs and capabilities of these communities are not considered. Similarly, there is a frequent use of the phrase "subject to the availability of funds," which casts doubt on the guaranteed execution of the bill's numerous initiatives. This lack of funding commitment raises concerns about the effectiveness of the proposed plans.
Another concern is regarding the financial allocations set for the Advanced National Seismic System. The allocations are repeated annually without apparent adjustments for inflation or changing program needs. Additionally, the document relies on economic data from 2011, which might not accurately reflect today’s financial environment. Finally, the replacement of terms like "safety" with "performance" is not accompanied by clear definitions, leading to potential ambiguities in enforcement and application across different regions.
Impact on the Public
The bill reflects a broader focus on enhancing national earthquake preparedness which could potentially improve public safety by mitigating damage and ensuring faster response times during earthquake events. Broadening the scope to include Tribal governments acknowledges the diverse demographic fabric of the United States and aims to incorporate their perspectives and needs into disaster planning and response.
However, without clear definitions and guaranteed funding, some provisions may not be effectively implemented, leaving portions of the population underserved. If the stated initiatives are successfully carried out, communities, especially those in high-risk areas, could see significant improvements in resilience against earthquake-related risks.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Tribal Governments: The bill's inclusion of Tribal governments in planning and emergency responses is a positive step, granting these communities a voice in shaping strategies that affect their safety and resilience. However, the ambiguity regarding resource allocation and management might lead to inadequate support unless further guidance is provided.
Federal Agencies: The expansion of responsibilities for federal agencies, including coordination with new partners like the Federal Communications Commission, broadens their mandate. These agencies might require additional resources or restructuring to effectively meet these new demands, but the bill does not specify these enhancements or budgets.
Communities in Earthquake-Prone Areas: Residents of areas with high seismic risk stand to benefit significantly from improved building standards and early warning systems. Effective implementation could mean reduced damage and quicker recovery times following earthquakes.
Without structural clarity and financial assurances, stakeholders might face challenges adapting to and implementing the bill's numerous requirements effectively. Overall, while the bill sets an ambitious agenda for improved earthquake preparedness, its success will largely depend on the details of its execution and the careful management of resources.
Financial Assessment
The bill S. 320 is an initiative to amend and reauthorize the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977. It addresses various aspects related to earthquake preparedness, safety, and response through a series of modifications to existing frameworks and new provisions. Central to this legislative effort is how financial resources are allocated and referenced in the bill, which merit close examination given the issues identified.
Financial Allocations and Appropriations
The bill outlines specific funding amounts for fiscal years 2024 through 2028 for several agencies involved in earthquake hazard reduction. Key financial allocations include:
- General authorization for the program: $10,590,000 annually from 2024 to 2028.
- United States Geological Survey: $100,900,000 annually from 2024 to 2028, with a stipulation that at least $36,000,000 each year be directed towards completing the Advanced National Seismic System.
- National Science Foundation: $58,000,000 annually from 2024 to 2028.
- National Institute of Standards and Technology: $5,900,000 annually from 2024 to 2028.
Relationship to Identified Issues
The bill includes several financial issues related to its efficacy and execution:
- Repeated Use of "Subject to the Availability of Funds":
The bill mentions that some initiatives are "subject to the availability of funds." Such phrases introduce uncertainty into whether the initiatives will receive steady financial support, potentially undermining the bill’s objectives. This could result in some initiatives not being implemented as planned, affecting the overall impact of the program.
Fixed Financial Allocations:
The financial allocations are fixed amounts repeated annually without adjustments for changing financial needs or inflation. This could impact long-term effectiveness and adaptability, as inflation and evolving needs are likely to alter the financial landscape over time.
Reliance on Outdated Economic Estimates:
Financial references in the sections discussing economic impacts are based on data from 2011. Using outdated financial estimates can mislead budgetary decisions and risk assessments, as they may not reflect current economic realities or potential cost escalations.
Lack of Financial Monitoring and Evaluation Mechanisms:
- While significant funds are allocated, there is a lack of clearly defined mechanisms for monitoring or evaluating the effectiveness and impact of the allocated funds. This omission raises concerns about transparency and accountability, which are critical to ensuring that financial resources are utilized effectively and efficiently.
Conclusion
In summary, while the bill S. 320 provides for specific financial allocations aimed at enhancing earthquake hazard reduction, its effectiveness may be hampered by some unresolved issues. These issues include the uncertainty of funding due to non-committal phrasing, fixed annual allocations not accounting for inflation, reliance on outdated economic data, and a lack of explicit monitoring mechanisms. Addressing these issues could enhance the bill's potential impact and ensure that allocated funds are used to their fullest potential to improve earthquake preparedness and resilience.
Issues
The bill mandates the expansion of responsibilities to include Tribal governments without specific considerations of how resources will be managed or allocated differently (Section 5). This might lead to inefficiencies or ineffectiveness in implementation, especially if the specific needs of Tribal governments are not addressed.
The repeated use of 'subject to the availability of funds' (Section 5) is non-committal and may result in the initiatives not being executed as planned. This lack of funding commitment raises concerns about the effectiveness of the programs outlined.
There is a significant financial allocation for the completion of the Advanced National Seismic System, with the same amounts allocated annually from 2024 to 2028 (Section 9). This approach does not appear to account for changing financial needs or inflation over time.
The sections referring to economic values are based on a study from 2011, such as the damages estimated in 2011 dollars (Section 2). This might present outdated financial estimates and may mislead current budgetary decisions or risk assessments.
The sections discussing performance standards (Section 6) have replaced 'safety' with 'performance', without clearly defining the new standards of 'performance'. This could create ambiguity and inconsistencies in interpreting safety standards across regions.
The document outlines an expansion of partnerships and responsibilities, including coordination with agencies like the Federal Communications Commission and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Section 5); however, clarity on the implementation and funding of these partnerships is lacking.
The document predominantly focuses on financial allocations, without outlining mechanisms for monitoring or evaluating the effectiveness and impact of the allocated funds (Section 9). This raises concerns about transparency and accountability in financial governance.
Terms like 'high seismic risk' and 'community resilience' are not clearly defined in the document (Section 2 and Section 5), leading to potential discrepancies in implementation and interpretation by different stakeholders.
The insertion of terms like 'housing and care facilities for vulnerable populations' is vague and lacks specific definitions (Section 3). Without clear parameters, this could lead to varied and potentially ineffective implementation.
The requirement for biennial reports is considered insufficient to address emerging issues or rapidly implement updates based on new research or findings (Section 7), possibly delaying effective actions in response to new developments.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the act is its short title, which states that the legislation may be referred to as the “National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Reauthorization Act of 2025.”
2. Modification of findings Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section modifies the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 to update various findings about earthquake risks and responses, such as stating that almost half of the U.S. population is at risk for damaging earthquakes over the next 50 years, updating figures on potential economic losses from earthquakes, adding information about the importance of newer building codes, and emphasizing the significance of improving earthquake early warning systems and community resilience efforts.
Money References
- Section 2 of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7701) is amended— (1) in paragraph (1)— (A) by striking “50 States, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,” and inserting “States and Tribal jurisdictions”; (B) by striking “of them” and inserting “States”; and (C) by adding at the end the following: “Almost half of the United States population resides in areas that are at risk or experiencing a damaging earthquake during the 50-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Reauthorization Act of 2025”; (2) in paragraph (2)— (A) by inserting after the first sentence the following: “A 2023 report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the United States Geological Survey (FEMA P–366) estimates the annualized earthquake losses to the national building stock is $14,700,000,000 per year and the total economic exposure to earthquake losses (buildings and contents) across the nation is $107,800,000,000,000.”; and (B) in the third sentence— (i) by striking “and construction” and inserting “, construction, evaluation, and retrofitting”; and (ii) by striking “and (E)” and inserting the following: “(E) inventories of buildings and infrastructure with high seismic risk, especially those that are critical to community resilience, (F) programs that require or incentivize replacement or retrofit of existing buildings and infrastructure with high seismic risk, especially those that are critical to community resilience, and (G)”; (3) in paragraph (3), by inserting “Tribal,” after “local,”; (4) in paragraph (4), by striking “could provide” and all that follows through the period at the end and inserting “is necessary to provide the scientific understanding needed to improve and expand the earthquake early warning system.”; (5) in paragraph (8), by striking “cave-ins” and inserting “collapse”; (6) in paragraph (9)— (A) in the first sentence, by striking “and local” and inserting “local, and Tribal government”; (B) in the second sentence, by striking “transfer knowledge and information to” and inserting “exchange knowledge and information between”; and (C) in the third sentence, by striking “specifications, criteria” and inserting “guidelines, codes, standards”; (7) in paragraph (12)— (A) in the second sentence— (i) by striking “When earthquakes occur, the built environment is generally” and inserting “Relatively newer buildings and infrastructure have generally been”; and (ii) by striking “and is” and inserting “when earthquakes occur, but most are”; and (B) by adding at the end the following: “In addition, buildings and infrastructure built to older codes and standards may pose significant risk of injury, loss of life, or irreparable damage.
- A 2021 report submitted to Congress pursuant to section 8(b), as amended by section 5 of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Reauthorization Act of 2018 (Public Law 115–307), by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (FEMA P2090/NST SP–1254) provides recommendations for improving post-earthquake functional recovery time of the built environment to support community resilience goals and many of these recommendations still need to be implemented.”; and (8) in paragraph (13)— (A) in the first sentence, by inserting “in 2011” after “a study”; (B) in the second sentence, by inserting “(in 2011 dollars)” after “$300,000,000”; and (C) by adding at the end the following: “The cost of actual seismic retrofits to reduce known risks is not included in such valuation.”.
3. Modification of purpose Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendment to Section 3 of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 involves changes to language that expands the role of Tribal governments, broadens the types of infrastructure considered, and emphasizes the importance of evaluating and retrofitting buildings, including facilities for vulnerable populations.
4. Modification of definitions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section modifies the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act by clarifying that secondary effects like tsunamis are included in its scope, and it adds new definitions for "Tribal government," "functional recovery," which is about maintaining essential building functions after an earthquake, and "earthquake forecast," which predicts possible future earthquakes.
5. Improvements to National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendments to the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 aim to improve earthquake preparedness and response by incorporating Tribal governments, enhancing standards for infrastructure resilience, and ensuring better communication and coordination among federal agencies. The changes also focus on expanding earthquake early warning systems, developing new engineering tools to mitigate post-earthquake hazards, and providing technical assistance to governments for seismic evaluations and emergency planning.
6. Seismic performance property standards Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section updates the Cranston-Gonzales National Affordable Housing Act by changing the term "safety" to "performance" in one part and clarifying that the aim is to reduce "seismic-related property damage" to help homes recover more quickly after an earthquake.
7. Seismic standards Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act to require agencies to carry out activities that follow new recommendations for improving building performance after earthquakes. It also mandates that agencies submit reports every two years on their progress and have these included in a larger interagency report, ensuring their efforts are coordinated and budgeted properly.
8. Improvements to post-earthquake investigations program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section updates the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act to improve investigations of significant earthquakes by explicitly including both domestic and international events, and clarifies that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is involved in these efforts.
9. Authorization of appropriations Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines the authorization of funds from fiscal years 2024 to 2028 for different federal entities involved in earthquake hazard reduction. It specifies the allocated amounts for the general program, the United States Geological Survey, the National Science Foundation, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, with specific conditions for the Advanced National Seismic System.
Money References
- (a) General authorization for program.—Subsection (a)(8) of section 12 of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7706) is amended— (1) in subparagraph (I), by striking “, and” and inserting a comma; and (2) by inserting after subparagraph (J) the following: “(K) $10,590,000 for fiscal year 2024, “(L) $10,590,000 for fiscal year 2025, “(M) $10,590,000 for fiscal year 2026, “(N) $10,590,000 for fiscal year 2027, and “(O) $10,590,000 for fiscal year 2028,”. (b) United States Geological Survey.—Subsection (b)(2) of such section is amended— (1) in subparagraph (I), by striking “; and” and inserting a semicolon; (2) in subparagraph (J), by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and (3) by adding at the end the following: “(K) $100,900,000 for fiscal year 2024, of which not less than $36,000,000 shall be made available for completion of the Advanced National Seismic System established under section 13; “(L) $100,900,000 for fiscal year 2025, of which not less than $36,000,000 shall be made available for completion of the Advanced National Seismic System established under section 13; “(M) $100,900,000 for fiscal year 2026, of which not less than $36,000,000 shall be made available for completion of the Advanced National Seismic System established under section 13; “(N) $100,900,000 for fiscal year 2027, of which not less than $36,000,000 shall be made available for completion of the Advanced National Seismic System established under section 13; and “(O) $100,900,000 for fiscal year 2028, of which not less than $36,000,000 shall be made available for completion of the Advanced National Seismic System established under section 13.”. (c) National Science Foundation.—Subsection (c)(2) of such section is amended— (1) in subparagraph (I), by striking “, and” and inserting a comma; (2) in subparagraph (J), by striking the period at the end and inserting a comma; and (3) by adding at the end the following: “(K) $58,000,000 for fiscal year 2024, “(L) $58,000,000 for fiscal year 2025, “(M) $58,000,000 for fiscal year 2026, “(N) $58,000,000 for fiscal year 2027, and “(O) $58,000,000 for fiscal year 2028.”. (d) National Institute of Standards and Technology.—Subsection (d)(2) of such section is amended— (1) in subparagraph (I), by striking “, and” and inserting a comma; (2) in subparagraph (J), by striking the period at the end and inserting a comma; and (3) by inserting after subparagraph (J) the following: “(K) $5,900,000 for fiscal year 2024, “(L) $5,900,000 for fiscal year 2025, “(M) $5,900,000 for fiscal year 2026, “(N) $5,900,000 for fiscal year 2027, and “(O) $5,900,000 for fiscal year 2028,”. ---