Subcommittees Discuss Wind Hazards - Democrats Emphasize the Need for Adequate Funding and a Multi-Hazards Approach
(Washington, DC) – Today, the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology’s Subcommittees on Research and Technology held a hearing to review H.R. 1786, the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act, which reauthorizes the National Windstorm Reduction Program (NWIRP).
NWIRP is an interagency effort created to reduce the losses of life and property from windstorms by studying wind hazards and their impacts, and developing and encouraging the implementation of cost effective mitigation measures to reduce these impacts. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) all carry out different NWIRP activities.
Ranking Member of the Technology Subcommittee, Frederica Wilson (D-FL), said in her opening statement, “While we cannot stop a hurricane or tornado from happening, we should do all that we can to make sure our communities have the tools they need to respond and recover from such an event. We as a nation must invest in preparedness and resilience. Studies of FEMA’s pre-disaster mitigation program have shown that for every dollar we invest in mitigation activities, we save 3 to 4 dollars in recovery costs. NWIRP has the potential to dramatically bolster the resiliency of our communities and reduce the costs associated with disaster recovery.”
Democratic Members discussed a number of issues regarding the legislation such as increased coordination between the NWIRP agencies and the need to include social science research.
Ranking Member of the Research Subcommittee, Dan Lipinski (D-IL), said, “In order for these efforts to be effective they cannot leave out the most critical component – people. Understanding how people —such as state and local officials, business owners, and individuals —make decisions and respond to storm warnings is essential to designing effective strategies to prepare for, respond to, and recover from a disaster. It is important to remember that we can perform all the engineering and natural science research we like, but in the grand scheme of things if we don’t have a clear understanding of the human element in disaster mitigation, preparedness, and response then those efforts may be for naught. Building disaster resilient communities will take an interdisciplinary approach and that approach must include social science research.”
Democratic Members also emphasized the need to adequately fund NWIRP. Ms. Wilson said, “Unfortunately, experts have expressed concern that insufficient funding has negatively impacted the implementation of the program and we are missing out on low-cost mitigation opportunities.
The bill cuts the authorization level for the program by 14 percent. Second, it “locks in” this lower funding level for the duration of the bill. We don’t have any reason to believe the agencies need any less money to carry out the responsibilities we assigned them the last time we reauthorized this program. And when we consider the devastating losses that have plagued the United States recently, this course of action seems irresponsible.”
She also discussed her legislation, H.R. 2132, the Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2013, which would reauthorize both NWIRP and the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP). She said, “This legislation passed the House by an overwhelming margin in the 111th Congress…This Committee has an important role to play in helping Americans prepare for and recover from all natural hazards.”
Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), said, “It is clear that the NWIRP agencies have not gotten the resources they need to carry out all of the responsibilities assigned to them by Congress. Strong and effective hazard reduction programs will not only save lives and property, but also provide us with meaningful cost savings. That is why I support Ms. Wilson’s legislation, which would provide NWIRP with a more appropriate authorization level. I also believe that we need to take a multi-hazards approach to disaster mitigation and that we should not prioritize one hazard program over another as they are all important to producing communities that are resilient to any and all disasters. As a result, I hope that as we move forward with legislation we consider all of the hazard programs within the Committee’s jurisdiction.”
Related Content
Next Article Previous Article