Produced by SmarterSaferSeptember 2019

How to Reform US Disaster Policy to Prepare for a Coming Century of Crisis

A Road Map for Successful

US Disaster Policy

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Devastating extreme-weather events and natural disasters are becoming normal occurrences across the country. In 2018, the US sustained 14 separate billion-dollar natural disasters, and, the previous year, it experienced 16 billion-dollar disaster events totaling $309.5 billion in damages, making 2017 the most expensive year in US history in terms of disaster spending. All told, from 2016 through 2018, the years 2016, 2017, and 2018 have had a three-year average of 15 billion-dollar disaster events per year, the highest on record.

From wildfires in California to flooding in Louisiana and hailstorms in Colorado – as well as hurricanes such as Harvey, Maria, Florence, and Michael – billion-dollar disasters have become a grim reality. Unfortunately, dangerous weather events and natural disasters are predicted to become even more frequent and severe in the coming years.

Experts say that Americans will face an increase in severe weather events, including more frequent flooding and destructive wildfires. The number of hurricanes strong enough to reach categories four and five on the Saffir-Simpson scale will more than double by mid-century, flood events will increase their damage-to-value ratio by 25 percent, and wildfires will burn longer than ever before.

As disasters become more frequent and severe, natural disaster policy at the federal level must be updated to reflect the heightened risk.

Currently, the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is paying out claims at an unsustainable rate, borrowing nearly $40 billion from US taxpayers to date. If approached correctly, reforming the NFIP will be an opportunity to update mapping, ensure mitigation, and give Americans greater access to much-needed insurance protection.

While not all disasters are preventable, Congress must focus on implementing protective measures to reduce vulnerabilities and limit damage. Current federal disaster policy emphasizes short-term recovery and neglects long-term mitigation efforts, which is both ineffective and expensive. Preparedness around flooding, wildfires, and earthquakes is key, and funds must be allocated more proactively to reduce risk.

This congressional guide lays out a roadmap to a more rational approach to federal disaster policy that will save taxpayer dollars, protect the environment, and better prepare Americans for the risks posed by increasingly frequent and severe weather events.

Texas 2017 California 2018 Hawaii 2018

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary 2

Table of Contents 3

Current US Disaster Policy 4

Risk Rating 2.0 11

Areas of Concern 12

Flooding 12

Wildfires 15

Earthquakes 17

Policy Recommendations 19

About SmarterSafer 21

4

Federal Disaster Spending Is Increasing

Natural disasters caused catastrophic damage to the US in 2017. Sixteen unique billion-dollar Natural disasters caused catastrophic damage to the US in 2017. Sixteen unique billion-dollar disaster events – including three hurricanes, eight severe storms, two inland floods, a crop freeze, a drought, and the California wildfires – caused more than $300 billion in damages in 2017.i Weather damage totaled $431.1 billion between 2007 and 2017; 2017 alone accounted for nearly two-thirds of that total.

In fall 2017, Congress passed two supplemental spending bills that appropriated $34.5 billion in post-disaster funds and forgave $16 billion of debt from the National Flood Insurance Program. In early 2018, the two-year budget signed into law by President

CURRENT US DISASTER POLICY

Source: Risk Management and Decision Processes Center at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania

5

Trump included $90 billion in appropriations for disaster rebuilding. The cumulative $130 billion appropriated by Congress in response to 2017 natural disasters is an all-time record.ii

The year 2017 marked a peak in federal disaster spending during a decade in which federal assistance for natural-disaster response ballooned. FEMA’s Public Assistance program – tasked with helping states clear debris and rebuild infrastructure after disaster events – had eight of its most expensive years in history between 2007 and 2016.

In June 2018, the Pew Research Center released results of a survey on state emergency managers, their staffs, and state-funded disaster-assistance programs. The survey found that while natural-disaster spending is increasing, most states do not keep comprehensive records of that spending.iii Collecting this information would ensure a better understanding of federal, state, and local capacity to respond to emergencies more effectively.

Current US Disaster Policy

Source: Risk Management and Decision Processes Center at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania

6 Current US Disaster Policy

In February 2018, the Risk Management and Decision Processes Center at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania stated that the federal government has a “trend of allocating risk-reduction dollars post-disaster, tied to a presidential disaster declaration, and spending little ahead of time.”iv A study by the same researchers found that over 90 percent of federal flood risk-reduction funds are appropriated in supplemental legislation after the disaster occurs.v

Lack of Investment in Mitigation

Mitigation efforts reduce the risk associated with disasters, and have been proven to be highly cost-effective in the long run. Mitigation efforts that support the enforcement of building codes and the regular maintenance of f lood protections, both natural and artificial, help prepare at-risk communities and properties to withstand natural disasters.

Source: Pew Charitable Trusts

7Current US Disaster Policy

A 2018 report from the Institute of Building Sciences examined 23 years of federally funded mitigation grants and found that the strategy saved the federal government an average of $6 in disaster recovery for every $1 invested.vi This high yield is one reason many communities have initiated mitigation plans such as buying out the most vulnerable properties, raising building elevations, and providing tax incentives to reduce damage caused by natural disasters.

Yet the federal government has historically done too little to encourage mitigation efforts. Until 2018, Congress had been moving backwards, providing less funding and fewer incentives for mitigation every year.vii But in 2018, Congress took a step in the right direction, appropriating $12 billion for disaster-mitigation projects and increasing pre-disaster-mitigation funding to $249 million.viii

Source: Risk Management and Decision Processes Center at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania

8 Current US Disaster Policy

Looking ahead, as a result of the 2018 Disaster Recovery and Reform Act, FEMA now has the authority to set aside up to 6 percent of estimated disaster grant expenditures for pre-disaster mitigation. FEMA is in the process of developing guidelines for this program, which it has named Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC). This new authority will replace the annual FEMA appropriation for pre-disaster mitigation grants but is expected to substantially increase the overall funding available for pre-disaster mitigation efforts.

Still, Congress continues to overlook cost-effective mitigation efforts in favor of post-disaster recovery appropriations.

Critical Infrastructure Left Vulnerable

Much of the country’s coastal infrastructure, including facilities important to national security, is unprepared to face the growing impacts of natural disasters. For example, a Government Accountability Office study of Defense Department bases found that 14 of 15 facilities have yet to address the threat posed by changing natural conditions, despite nearly half reporting that they had observed the effects of rising sea levels and increased storm surges.ix Ignoring these risks is dangerous: it puts both people and their property in harm’s way and could result in significant financial damages.

The nation’s energy infrastructure is similarly exposed. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) estimates that outages caused by weather events cost the US economy between $20 and $55 billion annually. The CRS’ investigation also revealed that 78 percent of electric grid disruptions between 1992 and 2010 were caused by weather conditions.x

Federal Flood Standards Rolled Back

In January 2015, new flood standards were established for federally funded projects that considered new and increasing risks from the changing climate. The new standards required government-funded agencies involved in floodplain construction to follow certain mitigation strategies and also required that projects be equipped to withstand rising sea levels and stronger rains.xi The intent of the executive order was to ensure that government funds for construction were being used for projects that could withstand disasters. The standards merely required that new projects be built above expected flood levels.

In August 2017, after multiple efforts were made in the previous Congress to block the flood standards from moving forward, those flood standards were rescinded. Less than two weeks later, Hurricane Harvey made landfall. Harvey cost the country $125 billion in post-relief efforts – second only to Hurricane Katrina – and Hurricanes Maria and Irma caused a combined $140 billion more in damages. A responsible approach to reforming disaster policy would start with reinstating federal flood standards and continuing to responsibly extend and advance those guidelines.xii

9Current US Disaster Policy

The National Flood Insurance Program Is Insolvent

The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) provides critical flood insurance to more than 5 million properties nationwide. Unfortunately, the outdated program is tens of billions of dollars in debt, making it unsustainable in its current form.

In October 2017, President Trump signed a $36.5 billion disaster-relief bill that forgave $16 billion of the NFIP’s debt. The bill’s passage came as Hurricanes Harvey and Irma added another $16 billion to the NFIP’s existing $24.6 billion program debt. Mick Mulvaney, director of the Office of Management and Budget, stated, “The NFIP is simply not fiscally sustainable in its present form.”xiii

Scientific American recently summarized the present and future problems with the NFIP: The number of claims being filed with the agency are ballooning while it lacks the resources to cover them; the agency assesses risk based on “outdated science”; and the program is ill-suited for dealing with flood risks in the long view of 50 years and on.xiv

Source: FEMA

10 Current US Disaster Policy

The NFIP’s outdated methodology for calculating the potential impact of natural disasters underscores the need for reform. One February 2018 study in Environmental Research Letters found that, partially due to under-examined inland flooding, the number of Americans exposed to serious flooding may be three times higher than current estimates. FEMA calculates that 13 million people live in a “100-year flood zone.” The study also points out that closer to 41 million people in the US are exposed to these conditions.xv They continue to say that FEMA is working to update its mapping and premiums structure and is taking important steps to make sure the program is sustainable and that property owners understand their level of risk.

The NFIP is expected to spend $375 million solely on interest expenses for debts in 2018.xvi This indebted program is a strong example of failing federal disaster policy.

11

RISK RATING 2.0 Current Outlook

FEMA is currently redesigning the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to better assess and provide transparency on a property’s unique flood risk and to better align rates with risk. With Risk Rating 2.0, FEMA is pairing state-of-the-art technology, like LIDAR, with the NFIP’s mapping data to establish a more comprehensive understanding of risk at both the community and individual levels.

The goals of Risk Rating 2.0 reflect the policy objectives outlined in this paper for the NFIP. These include:

JJ More accurate mapping, including property-level dataJJ Use of the most up-to-date mapping and modeling technologies to assess riskJJ Alignment of rates with risk

JJ Transparency of risk regardless of rates

FEMA’s goal in Risk Rating 2.0 is to have a database that will allow individuals and communities to type in their address and receive a full readout of the risks associated with the property. Once released, Risk Rating 2.0 will be a critical risk-management tool for communities and their residents.

Risk Rating 2.0 recognizes that for too long, the NFIP has masked risk through generally inadequate rates that do not reflect the true flooding risk of a home or community. FEMA has also acknowledged that the current rate structure results in lower-income property owners paying proportionately more than affluent policyholders. This regressive system of cross-subsidization has resulted in inequities and affordability issues for many policyholders. Risk Rating 2.0 will not move policyholders to risk-based rates immediately upon re-mapping; rate increases are currently capped so properties will slowly move towards risk-based rates.

Next Steps

Risk Rating 2.0 has the potential to ensure that the NFIP is financially viable, that the environment and taxpayers are better protected, and that people in harm’s way understand the risks they face. However, as FEMA refines this new process, FEMA must provide an assessment of what mapping/elevation data is available and what is still needed. Congress must work with FEMA to provide needed funding to ensure property-level data is collected in all at-risk areas. In addition, FEMA should roll out new rates and risk assessments only when they know precisely what those rates are; hypotheticals only lead to confusion.

FEMA and Congress must work together to develop a means-tested affordability framework that helps low-income policyholders who may face higher rates. FEMA and Congress must also work in tandem to target mitigation funds to policyholders who are most at risk, could most benefit from mitigation, and need assistance to undertake mitigation efforts.

Finally, Congress should not delay or stop FEMA from moving forward on Risk Rating 2.0. For decades, NFIP has masked risk and, at the very least, it is incumbent upon the government to ensure that people understand their risks and that they are protected.

12

AREAS OF CONCERN

Flooding Current Outlook:

As sea levels rise, flooding continues to be more and more common in all areas of the country. As recently as spring 2019, the Midwest experienced severe flooding, resulting in breached levees, flooded farms, washed-out roads, and submerged homes. A June 2017 study by researchers at Princeton University and Rutgers University used probabilistic sea-level projections to determine that the coastal US will experience a 40-fold increase in floods by 2050 due to changing conditions.xvii One of the study’s authors, Princeton professor Michael Oppenheimer, expressed particular concern about “chronic, but less extreme” flooding along the East Coast – including the South Shore of Long Island, New York; Charleston, South Carolina; and South Florida. “These areas have terrain that’s gently sloped,” Oppenheimer said. “South Florida is really in trouble. Not only are they having a lot of nuisance flooding, but they sit on limestone, which makes it extremely difficult to build coastal defenses. These places really have to get on the ball and decide what they have to protect.”

The Cost:

Flooding is the most expensive type of natural disaster in the US, not just because of the danger it poses to property, but also because of the exceptional disruption and strain it puts on economic activity and government operations.

Hurricanes – Increasing Threat

In the years ahead, the intensity of natural disasters will increase due to changing conditions. Hurricanes, for example, will continue to carry higher wind speeds and higher levels of precipitation, while rising sea levels and growing coastal populations will exacerbate their impact. Though hurricane frequency has seen little change since the mid-1970s, the number of hurricanes that reach categories four and five in strength on the Saffir-Simpson scale has roughly doubled. By the end of the century, this number is projected to double again.

Texas 2017

13Areas of Concern

Next Steps:

Now more than ever, the nation must consider a rational approach to federal disaster policy that will save taxpayer dollars, protect the environment,

and better prepare Americans for current and future risks.

The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is a central part of the federal disaster apparatus, protecting more than 5 million homeowners nationwide. But it is financially unsustainable, and Congress should implement long-term reforms to ensure that it can be a stable and productive cornerstone of federal disaster policy. Congress must embrace the following reforms to the NFIP:

Ensure Accurate Flood Mapping

Most of the f lood maps used to estimate exposure to f lood risk are badly outdated, resulting in an overwhelming number of at-risk properties lacking f lood insurance. FEMA must be required to update its maps, using the best technology and science on known conditions and risks to get property-level elevation data, ideally combined with the latest climate modeling.

Embrace Mitigation

The best way to reduce flood insurance rates is by reducing risk. Congress must require FEMA to work with lenders and the Federal Housing Administration to facilitate mitigation loans and to provide more flexibility in increased cost of compliance (ICC) mitigation funds. ICC coverage is a resource for flood insurance policyholders who need additional help rebuilding after a flood occurs. Congress should also require communities to plan for known flood risks and assess community-wide nature-based mitigation efforts that are cost-effective and will reduce future flooding. Means-tested assistance with mitigation assistance can help save lives and property. And it is cost-effective, saving more than $6 for every $1 spent.

Move to Risk-Based Rates

As it stands, the NFIP is not transparent and incentivizes further development in vulnerable and ecologically sensitive floodplains and coastal areas. FEMA should begin to move all properties toward risk-based rates with annual increases capped to a percentage of current premiums to make the increases predictable. This move to risk-based rates should be coupled with means tested-assistance, focused on mitigation where cost-effective.

14 Areas of Concern

Ensure Affordability

The cost of flood insurance should be tied to risk with means-tested and targeted assistance for low-income people.

However, the best way to reduce rates is by reducing risk,

so subsidies should be used for mitigation assistance where cost-effective. In addition, community-wide mitigation to reduce risks and reduce rates should be incentivized. This will ensure that low-income communities and households can properly prepare for inevitable disasters.

Expand Consumer Choice with Private Competition

Though nothing in federal law prohibits a property owner from choosing a private f lood-insurance policy, lenders remain uncertain about what they can accept for mandatory purchase requirements, and this has suppressed the growth of a robust private market in many states. Banking regulators recently released a rule designed to ensure lenders can accept private policies, and Congress should clarify that those who move to the private sector can return to NFIP policies by ensuring private coverage counts for continuous coverage requirements.

Improve Transparency

Homeowners and communities must have access to information about f lood risks in order to make smart decisions to reduce the potential for f lood damages. FEMA should be required to make more data available to the public on f lood losses, repeatedly f looded homes, and community compliance with the NFIP. Homeowners and buyers should also have a right to know more about a home’s history of f lood damages to help guide their decisions about mitigation.

15

Wildfires Background:

Wildfires have impacted large portions of the West, with warmer climates producing “conditions ripe for wildfires,” such as snowpack melting earlier than in the past due to rising winter and spring temperatures, and drier forests and grasslands due to rising summer temperatures.xviii A 2018 University of Arizona study predicted that by the mid-21st century, about half of the states and provinces in the western and northern US will see a fivefold increase in total forest area burned.xix

Since the mid-1980s, wildfires have been increasing in frequency and duration. Wildfires now occur nearly four times more often, burn more than six times the land area, and last almost five times as long as they did in the period from 1970 to the mid-1980s. As wildfires have increased, so have firefighting expenditures: In September 2017, the US secretary of agriculture announced that wildland fire-suppression costs had exceeded $2 billion for the year, a billion-dollar increase from annual firefighting expenditures in 2006.xx This has caused US Forest Service spending on fire suppression to rise from 15 percent to over 50 percent of its budget. The Department of Agriculture, in turn, has been forced to borrow from funds intended for long-term forest management to pay for short-term fire suppression – a necessary, but unsustainable, move.xxi

Previously, when suppression funds ran out, agencies would transfer funds from non-suppression accounts, including those focused on restoration and mitigating wildfire risk, in order to carry out suppression activities during wildfire season. As a result, wildfire suppression funding could have come from a number of different sources and require supplemental funding from Congress to reimburse the borrowed money. It also means that the risk of forest fires has unnecessarily increased, as many of the funds allocated to the US Forest Service to restore the national forests and to reduce the threat of fires have been continually redirected for years to suppress wildfires.

Areas of Concern

California 2018

16 Areas of Concern

Current Outlook:

Wildfires have become increasingly destructive in the US. They were the second costliest type of natural disaster in the US in 2017 and their impact is growing. The aftereffects of wildfires on human life and property have increased with warmer, drier conditions during fire season and the expansion of development closer to wildlands. Close proximity to vegetation increases the risk of harm from wildfires. According to Verisk’s 2017 Wildfire Risk Analysis, 4.5 million homes in the US are at high or extreme risk of wildfires.xxii

Just last year, we saw devastating wildfires burn throughout California. The aftermath of those fires is still being felt by people in the affected areas as well as those in neighboring states. The Camp Fire destroyed 14,000 homes, becoming the most destructive and deadliest fire on record.

While the cost, frequency, and severity of wildfires has grown in recent years, our approach to mitigation has not evolved, and that puts the US at risk.

The Cost:

From 2007 to 2016, the total cost of wildfire damage in the US was $15.8 billion.xxiii In 2017 alone, wildfires destroyed 16,000 homes and caused $16.2 billion in damages. From 2007 to 2016, the average amount of insurance payouts for wildfires was $9.3 billion each year. In 2017 alone, there were $13.2 billion in insurance payouts for wildfires.

Next Steps:

A 2018 analysis found that the wildland-urban interface (WUI), the area between unoccupied land and human development, currently consists of more than 190 million acres in the US. xxiv Homes and infrastructure in the WUI can best be protected by readily available “firewise” measures that maximize their ability to survive a fire. “Firewise” means using techniques to protect the surrounding area when operating in a fire-dependent natural community.

Some of the land in the WUI is part of the National Forest System. A 2015 US Forest Service (USFS) report notes that “large areas of National Forest System land are at risk from catastrophic wildfire.”xxv Yet in 2016, an audit by the USDA Office of the Inspector General (OIG) found that the USFS “lacks a consistent, cross-agency process for identifying and selecting” highest-priority hazardous fuels projects. The OIG recommended that the USFS “fully develop and implement the national risk assessment model for identifying and prioritizing hazardous fuels reduction projects on National Forest System lands.”xxvi These science- and risk-based projects would be undertaken both in the WUI and on other sensitive and high-risk National Forest lands.

Policymakers must develop incentives for natural mitigation techniques for states, communities, and homeowners, and prioritize funding of federal programs for risk-reduction projects in the WUI.

17Areas of Concern

Earthquakes Current Outlook:

There is significant earthquake risk in various regions of the US, including California, the Pacific Northwest along the Cascadia Fault, and in the Midwest and the South along the New Madrid Fault. In each of these areas, a large earthquake would be devastating, putting millions of lives at risk and causing billions of dollars in damages. About 143 million Americans live in areas at some risk of damage from an earthquake and 28 million Americans live in areas with high earthquake risk.xxvii

Despite the risks posed by earthquakes, just 8 percent of homeowners across the country have earthquake insurance.xviii

There is a misconception that the government will write a large check after a disaster strikes; this makes access to insurance even more critical. Unlike for hazards such as fires, floods, and windstorms, there is no requirement from lenders or the government that homeowners purchase earthquake coverage, even in the most at-risk areas. Take-up rates for earthquake insurance vary by geographic region, with the highest rates in the West at 14 percent followed by the Midwest at 7 percent, and the South and Northeast at 6 percent. In California, most of the state’s nearly 40 million residents live within 30 miles of an active fault line. However, even there, only 13.3 percent of Californians have earthquake coverage.

Since so few people have earthquake insurance, rebuilding after a large earthquake will be costly, and much of the cost will fall to the federal government. The federal government holds a large amount of earthquake risk on its books; according to one study by the R Street Institute, the uninsured earthquake risk held by government-sponsored enterprises could be as high as $204.68 billion.

Hawaii 2018

18 Areas of Concern

The Cost:

The most expensive major earthquake in the US – a 6.7-magnitude temblor that struck Northridge, California, in 1994 – resulted in more than 70 deaths and 11,000 injuries, and caused $15 billion in insured damage, a total that still ranks among the top five costliest natural disasters in US history.xxix

The direct economic costs of earthquakes average around $1 billion annually, even in years when there is no major earthquake.

Scientists from the US Geological Survey predict the following:

JJ California: 90-percent chance of a 6.7-magnitude or higher multibillion-dollar earthquake in the next 30 years.

JJ San Andreas Fault: 8.3-magnitude earthquake could harm more than 3 million homes and cause up to $289 billion in damages.

JJ Oregon: 20-percent chance of a magnitude 8 or higher earthquake within the next 50 years.

JJ Washington: 14 to 17 percent chance of a magnitude 8 or higher earthquake within the next 50 years. A large earthquake in this region would cause at a minimum $80 billion in direct economic damages.

JJ New Madrid Seismic Zone: 7- to 10-percent chance of a 7.5- to 8-magnitude earthquake in the next 50 years. Such an earthquake could cause almost $300 billion in direct economic damages.

Next Steps:

Congress should require studies on earthquake risk to evaluate the risk held by individuals versus governmental agencies and associations. These studies should include a report on earthquake insurance take-up rates, as well as what can be done to encourage more people in harm’s way to purchase insurance. Any study must evaluate the risk and potential economic damage to various sectors, as well as options for mitigation, both at the community and property-owner levels.

FEMA should create a multi-agency forum or task force to work toward establishing a national earthquake conference to raise awareness and ensure that all organizations are in alignment

19

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

The recommendations outlined below will assist in developing a framework for disaster assistance and mitigation programs. Creating a clear set of responsibilities for all parties will help save taxpayer dollars, protect the environment, and better prepare Americans for the risks they face now and in the future.

Encourage Efforts to Reduce Damage Before Disaster Strikes:

JJ Congress should fund pre-disaster mitigation more robustly, incentivizing investment in cost-effective mitigation, focused on community-wide, nature-based mitigation that protects whole areas, saving lives and property.

JJ Any pre-disaster funds should prioritize nature-based, community-wide mitigation, where possible.

JJ Require at-risk communities to develop assessments and plans focused on reducing risks.

JJ Ensure that low-income communities and households can participate in federal mitigation efforts by implementing a clear plan to help them bear the costs of planning, preparedness, and mitigation, and make sure that disaster relief goes to areas of greatest need.

JJ The Community Development Block Grant - Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) program should be made permanent within the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), with a portion of funds allocated specifically for mitigation activities.

JJ Create incentives for natural mitigation techniques and prioritize funding of federal programs for risk-reduction projects in the WUI.

Revise Federal Standards to Encourage Smarter, Safer Communities:

JJ Require that where federal funds are used, construction is done to withstand disasters including elevation above base flood-elevation levels.

JJ Encourage FEMA to create a multi-agency forum or task force to work toward establishing a national earthquake conference to raise awareness and ensure that all organizations are in alignment.

JJ Support research-based methods to increase fire safety for homes and communities: the state, local, and volunteer fire-assistance programs that support identification of high-risk communities, public education, community planning, and firewise implementation in the immediate vicinity of homes.

JJ Require a set of studies on:

J� Wildfires, with consideration of future conditions

J� Earthquake risk held by individuals versus governmental agencies and associations

J� Earthquake risk and potential economic damage to various sectors, as well as what is being done to mitigate risk

20 Policy Recommendations

Reform the National Flood Insurance Program:

JJ Update and improve mapping techniques and require FEMA maps to include property-level elevation data and require FEMA to make information on risks and mitigation available.

JJ Ensure that risks and likelihood of f lood events are communicated to any new purchaser or renter of a property.

JJ Continue to move toward a system of risk-based rates for all properties while providing assistance to lower-income policyholders, with an emphasis on subsidizing mitigation instead of rates, where possible.

JJ Allow consumer choice in f lood-insurance policies by ensuring that private insurance meets mandatory purchase and continuous coverage requirements.

JJ Provide mitigation assistance instead of premium support for low-income customers, where cost-effective; ensure access to ICC pre-disaster; and require FEMA to work with FHA to provide low-interest loans for mitigation.

Enhance Coordination:

JJ Set clear roles for the federal government, state and local governments, and community organizations regarding disaster activities ranging from planning to mitigation, response, and recovery.

JJ Require the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and US Department of the Interior (DOI) to work cooperatively with state and local governments, the insurance industry, and other stakeholders to develop a model for wildfire risk that incorporates future conditions and includes: (a) a probabilistic simulation of property risk and vegetation spread; (b) land-use planning alternatives; and (c) risk to the federal government and state and local infrastructure.

JJ Ensure that the US Forest Service implements the 2016 Office of the Inspector General (OIG) recommendations for identifying and prioritizing hazardous-fuels reduction projects on National Forest System lands.

21

ABOUT SMARTERSAFER

SmarterSafer is a national coalition made up of a diverse chorus of voices united in favor of environmentally responsible, fiscally sound approaches to natural catastrophe policies that promote public safety. The coalition believes that the federal government has a role in encouraging and helping homeowners to undertake mitigation efforts to safeguard their homes against natural disasters. At the same time, the coalition opposes measures that put peoples’ lives at risk at the expense of taxpayers. Measures such as subsidizing artificially low rates for homeowners’ insurance policies help to encourage construction in environmentally sensitive and unsafe areas.

The coalition is working to ensure that Congress does not incentivize people to live in harm’s way, specifically in places prone to hurricanes and floods.

Coalition members strongly support reform of the National Flood Insurance Program. The program must be based on accurate maps, must charge risk-based rates, and must focus on mitigation. These steps will ensure that the program can continue to function, will protect people from flooding, and will protect taxpayers. The coalition supports a move towards risk-based, actuarial pricing for insurance that not only supports fiscally sustainable policies but helps those most at risk bear the costs and understand the real risks.

Members of the SmarterSafer coalition also strongly support measures that would encourage and assist homeowners in taking mitigation steps to protect their homes against natural disasters. These include incentives like a hurricane-mitigation tax credit and a new loan program that would provide low-interest loans to homeowners undertaking risk mitigation.

To learn more about SmarterSafer, please visit SmarterSafer.org. For more information on how the National Flood Insurance Program should be reformed, please visit www.ReformNFIPNow.org.

22 About SmarterSafer

i Smith, Adam B., “2017 U.S. billion-dollar weather and climate disasters: a historic year in context,” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, January 8, 2018.

ii Lingle, Brett, Kousky, Carolyn and Shabman, Leonard, “Federal Disaster Rebuilding Spending: A Look at the Numbers,” Risk Management And Decision Processes Center, The Wharton School, The University of Pennsylvania, February 22, 2018.

iii Pew Research Center, “What We Don’t Know About State Spending on Natural Disasters Could Cost Us,” June 19, 2018.

iv Lingle, Brett, Kousky, Carolyn and Shabman, Leonard, “Federal Disaster Rebuilding Spending: A Look at the Numbers,” Risk Management And Decision Processes Center, The Wharton School, The University of Pennsylvania, February 22, 2018.

v Kousky, Carolyn and Shabman, Leonard, “Federal Funding for Flood Risk Reduction in the US: Pre- or Post-Disaster?” Water Economics and Policy, January 20, 2017.

vi “National Institute of Building Sciences Issues New Report on the Value of Mitigation,” National Institute of Building Sciences, January 11, 2018.

vii Weidman, Jackie and Weiss, Daniel J., “Disastrous Spending: Federal Disaster-Relief Expenditures Rise amid More Extreme Weather,” Center for American Progress, April 29, 2013.

viii Scata, Joel, “After Disaster-Filled 2017, Congress Invests in Preparedness,” Natural Resources Defense Council, March 23, 2018.

ix “Climate Change Adaptation: DOD Can Improve Infrastructure Planning and Processes to Better Account for Potential Impacts,” United States Government Accountability Office, May 2014.

x Campbell, Richard J., “Weather-Related Power Outages and Electric System Resiliency,” Congressional Research Service, August 28, 2012.

xi Executive Order – Establishing A Federal Flood Risk Management Standard an a Process for Further Soliciting and Considering Stakeholder Input,” White House Office of the Press Secretary, January 30, 2015.

xii Volcovici, Valerie and Mason, Jeff, “Trump infrastructure push rolls back environmental rules,” Reuters, August 15, 2017.

xiii Gonzalez, Gloria, “Trump signs bill forgiving $16 billion in NFIP debt,” Business Insurance, October 27, 2017.

xiv Schwartz, Jen, “National Flood Insurance Is Underwater Because of Outdated Science,” Scientific American, March 23, 2018.

xv Wing, Oliver et. al., “Estimates of present and future flood risk in the conterminous United States,” Environmental Research Letters, February 28, 2018.

xvi Federal Insurance & Mitigation Administration, The Watermark, Fiscal Year 2018, First Quarter.

xvii Buchanan, Maya, “Amplification of flood frequencies with local sea level rise and emerging flood regimes,” IOP Science, June 7, 2017.

xviii Climate Central, “Climate Change is Tipping Scales Toward More Wildfires,” June 23, 2016.

xix McGinley, Susan, “Wildfire Problem Will Get Bigger in Coming Decades,” University of Arizona News, February 26, 2018.

xx U.S Department of Agriculture, “Forest Service Wildland Fire Suppression Costs Exceed $2 Billion,” September 14, 2017.

xxi Westerling, A.L., Hidalgo, H.G., Cayan, D.R., and Swetnam, T.W., “Warming and Earlier Spring Increase Western U.S. Forest Wildfire Activity,” Science, August 18, 2006; “Forest Service Wildland Fire Suppression Costs Exceed $2 Billion, U.S. Department of Agriculture Press Release, September 14, 2017.

xxii Verisk, “Key Findings from the 2017 Verisk wildfire risk analysis,” July 12, 2017

xxiii Property Casualty Insurers, “The Risk of Wildfires is Growing,” 2018

xxiv United States Department of Agriculture, “Areas where homes, forests mix increased rapidly over two decades,” March 12, 2018

xxv “From Accelerating Restoration to Creating and Maintaining Resilient Landscapes and Communities Across the Nation,” USDA Forest Service, November 2015, pp. 4.

xxvi United States Department of Agriculture, “Forest Service Wildland Fire Activities – Hazardous Fuels Reduction,” July 2016

xxvii Government Technology, “U.S. Earthquake Damage is a Risk That Goes Way Beyond California,” May 7, 2015

xxviii Insurance Information Institute, “Background on: Earthquake insurance and risk,” October 10, 2018

xxix The Atlantic, “The Northridge Earthquake: 20 Years Ago Today,” January 17, 2014