Federal Infrastructure Bill
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
July 14, 2021 The Honorable Nancy Pelosi The Honorable Charles Schumer Speaker Majority Leader U.S. House of Representatives U.S. Senate H-232, U.S. Capitol BuildinG S-221, U.S. Capitol BuildinG WashinGton, D.C. 20515 WashinGton, D.C. 20510 The Honorable Kevin McCarthy The Honorable Mitch McConnell Minority Leader Minority Leader U.S. House of Representatives U.S. Senate H-204, U.S. Capitol BuildinG S-230, U.S. Capitol BuildinG WashinGton, D.C. 20515 WashinGton, DC 20510 Dear Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Schumer, Minority Leader McCarthy and Minority Leader McConnell: We applaud the announcement of the $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure framework. In 2020, the nation witnessed a record-breaking 22 weather-related disasters each with more than a billion dollars in damaGes – totalinG $95 billion nationally. The proposed investment of $47 billion in funding to prepare our infrastructure for the impacts of climate change, cyber-attacks, and extreme weather events is a vital step towards proactively manaGinG these risks. Many federal aGencies will play an important role in fundinG, desiGn and construction of resilient infrastructure, includinG the U.S. Army Corps of EnGineers (USACE), the Federal Emergency ManaGement AGency (FEMA), the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), among others. As you develop the details of how to allocate the proposed $47 billion in this funding package, we respectfully urge you to allocate at least $30 billion of the proposed funding to urgent climate resilience and adaptation needs across a range of federal agencies. Of this amount, we urge you to authorize $15 billion to fund an ongoing multi-hazard resilience program managed by HUD and supported by other relevant federal agencies, as further described in this letter. As mayors, we hope our experiences throuGh our own resilience efforts and work with federal resilience proGrams includinG USACE, FEMA, and HUD can guide your work as you refine and finalize the approach to distributinG this critical federal resilience fundinG. Please consider the followinG recommendations for chanGes to existinG proGrams. These concepts also apply to the HUD multi-hazard resilience program we recommend below. Recommendations for Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill Wednesday, July 14, 2021 Page 2 of 4 • Allocate fundinG for community- and reGional-scale risk mitigation efforts. Just as we are now experiencing billion-dollar disasters, we are managing pre-disaster risk reduction programs with phased implementation costs in the hundreds of millions and billions of dollars. Only USACE has the authority in law to recommend projects in excess of $1 billion to ConGress. FEMA and HUD should also be granted the authority to recommend authorization of larGer-scale risk mitigation projects addressing multiple hazards to ConGress. • Fund first-dollar planning, feasibility assessment, and design to develop a pipeline of multi-hazard resilience improvements to our infrastructure. Pre-disaster resilience planning is still in its infancy. A focus on last-dollar federal investment will not spur the type of research, development, and community enGaGement needed to redesign the infrastructure servinG our cities and towns to be resilient to hurricanes, extreme heat, drought, earthquakes, and sea level rise. In particular, Capability and Capacity BuildinG fundinG within the FEMA BuildinG Resilient Infrastructure in Communities (BRIC) program should be expanded to ensure that there are sufficient funds for a future pipeline of planned and scoped projects. • Reform federal cost-benefit analysis requirements. In our experience, current formulas used by USACE and FEMA favor areas with a high level of public and private investment to the detriment of disadvantaged communities. HUD’s National Disaster Resilience Competition benefit cost analysis is the best example we have seen of a holistic and highly effective formula: it required potential grantees to describe life cycle costs; resilience value (e.g., reduction of expected property damages due to future/repeat disasters); environmental value (e.g., ecosystem and biodiversity effects); social value (e.g., reductions in human sufferinG and HUD-specific factors, like Greater housinG affordability); and economic revitalization (e.g., direct effects on local or regional economy net opportunity costs). Federal benefit cost analysis should include health benefits, benefits created by protecting vulnerable populations, improvements to natural ecology and environmental clean-up, improved urban desiGn, improved access to recreation, pandemic-related mitiGation activities, resilient energy infrastructure, and disadvantaged business contracting/sub-contracting. • Appropriate significant funding to the Department of Energy for the National Laboratories. Cities in the same metropolitan reGions often use different standards and assumptions to assess risks, even when those risks are shared between neighboring cities. DevelopinG a national standard for multi-hazard risk assessment and modeling with free risk assessment tools and technical assistance to communities will help cities better understand their individual and shared risk profile and position their communities and reGions for federal fundinG. In addition, the National Laboratories should serve as a broader testing ground for adaptation and resilience solutions, such as strategies for resilient buildinG retrofits that are not focused on elevation and better battery storaGe technoloGies. • Set aside significant federal funding to encourage cross-department collaboration. Federal agencies are siloed by their funding streams. Multi-hazard risk reduction requires breakinG out of these siloes. HUD should be workinG with FEMA on strateGies to address extreme heat in our cities. USACE and FEMA should collaborate to reduce earthquake and flood risks where both are a major threat to a community. These Recommendations for Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill Wednesday, July 14, 2021 Page 3 of 4 agencies should also be collaborating with EPA to address environmental justice challenges where they exist. A federal interest determination should reflect the federal government’s interests as a whole. As mayors of major U.S. cities and counties, we have found that HUD has been the aGency that has fostered the most innovation in resilience planning and projects, likely because HUD is the federal aGency with the most direct experience workinG with cities. Unfortunately, HUD’s resilience fundinG has been episodic, coming primarily after major disasters like Superstorm Sandy. We urge ConGress to fund an ongoing multi-hazard resilience program within HUD. Building on the strengths of HUD’s National Disaster Resilience Competition, we urGe ConGress to authorize $15 billion of the proposed $47 billion in resilience funding in the bipartisan infrastructure bill to this program, which would accelerate climate adaptation and resilience improvements to protect state and local infrastructure and communities from natural disasters, includinG recurrinG floodinG, sea level rise, drouGht, wildfires, extreme heat and storms, and earthquakes. The program should be open to all cities, counties, and towns, not just those with recently declared federal disasters. EliGible project costs for resilience fundinG should be broad, with a risk assessment and planninG activity cost share of up to 100% for specific grant applications, no arbitrary caps on the fundinG required to support community scale resilience planning efforts, and a federal share of non-planning project costs up to 80%. The proGram should: • ChallenGe states to develop innovative resilience approaches, including technical assistance strategies and low barrier matching requirements for disadvantaGed communities; • Allocate siGnificant fundinG to capability and capacity building within local Governments themselves to ensure that there are stronGer hazard mitigation plans and more eligible, shovel-ready, innovative future mitiGation projects; • Focus direct fundinG to local jurisdictions for planninG, feasibility assessment, and construction of resilient infrastructure improvements, includinG large scale efforts at community and regional scales, with a focus on multiple hazards and social and economic benefits; • Fund robust community education and enGaGement, and collaborate with community- based organizations to ensure adaptation projects incorporate solutions that reflect community priorities and improve quality of life; • Develop compassionate buyout strateGies that are fair and equitable with expedited buyouts and relocation opportunities and assistance that retain and bolster rather than divide communities; and • Match local aGencies with technical assistance from relevant federal agencies and provide fundinG to those aGencies to develop solutions to the most difficult problems, includinG best practices to: o redesiGn wastewater and drainage systems for sea level rise and increased precipitation; Recommendations for Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill Wednesday, July 14, 2021 Page 4 of 4 o cool the urban heat island effect and reduce heat duration with new approaches such as cool pavement, expanded urban forests and green roofs; o integrate weatherization and energy efficiency measures; o manaGe stormwater flows and reduce inland flood risk after shorelines are elevated with coastal flood protection; o manaGe tidal floodinG and Groundwater rise; o develop best practices to increase seismic resiliency; and o protect