IAEM is on record as opposing a very similar Disaster Deductible proposal as far back as 2017. There are many reasons for this.
Despite the mark-up being pushed to September 18, it still bares discussion.
First - it won't work to lower the number of federally-assisted PA disaster responses to any great extent. I have not redone the research, but in 2017, fewer than 2% of all local disasters received PA support. However, as more people have moved into and developed high-hazard areas, the number of significant events continues to increase. Since 2017, however, there have been an average of about 19 "billion dollar" disasters. These are almost entirely hurricane and wildfire disasters on the coasts and in the western states. The "billion dollar" disasters occur in only (approximately) 8.5% of US counties. The vast majority of devastating incidents occur elsewhere and do not garner the support or attention of the federal government. I fail to believe that the US Congress will not aid a major city after a hurricane because its state did not do enough mitigation. Particularly in a state that provides political support to the then-current administration.
This leads to the next point. Most of the USA is simply flyover country, seemingly considered unimportant by the federal government. This means that the positive impact of the deductible will depend entirely on the desires of the state governor. If a state decides to invest in one thing in order to qualify for PA, but not in the issues affecting other counties, those counties suffer twice - lack of investment and lack of PA. Concentration on mitigation IS a GREAT idea, and should have some benefit. But ignoring large parts of the nation is not.
Third, the deductible actually punishes success. Once a mitigation measure is installed (at the potential cost of millions) that disaster scenario is, indeed, reduced or eliminated. BUT, there is no longer a need to spend money on that issue and the savings from NOT having future disasters is not calculated into the deductible formula (as far as I can see). So, once a state completes something, it is penalized for having been successful. This is a disincentive to invest in and complete the major projects that will make a difference, and instead incentivizes ongoing spending on moderately costly lesser projects - and perhaps never quite completing them.
In essence, large numbers of people-often rural communities, poor urban communities, and others with less wealth, resilience, and capacity-are in areas that will be negatively impacted by the disaster deductible system. If such a system is used, insurance reform, discounts, and analysis must ensure that communities are not harmed or ignored.
In 2017, IAEM weighed in on these and other issues surrounding the proposal. I do not see that the current concept fully addresses these issues. Thad will upload that document.
I have never posted here before, and most recently, I have concentrated my legislative efforts on county emergency management issues. I serve as Chair of the National Assoc of Counties (NACo) Homeland Security and Emergency Management subcommittee, and as such, spend significant time face-to-face and online with Congressional leaders and staff, as well as FEMA leadership. This proposal of a so-called deductible is not new and poses significant disadvantages to those of us who work to protect local governments.
------------------------------
Judson Freed
Director
Ramsey County Emergency Mgmt & Homeland Sec.
Past-President, IAEM-USA
------------------------------