(Pub. L. 93–288, title II, § 203, as added Pub. L. 106–390, title I, § 102(a),Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1553; amended Pub. L. 108–199, div. H, § 135,Jan. 23, 2004, 118 Stat. 441; Pub. L. 108–447, div. J, title I, § 105,Dec. 8, 2004, 118 Stat. 3343; Pub. L. 109–139, § 2,Dec. 22, 2005, 119 Stat. 2649; Pub. L. 110–329, div. D, title V, § 553,Sept. 30, 2008, 122 Stat. 3690; Pub. L. 111–83, title V, § 543,Oct. 28, 2009, 123 Stat. 2176; Pub. L. 111–351, §§ 3(a), (b),
4,Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 3864.)
References in Text
This chapter, referred to in subsec. (g)(5), was in the original “this Act”, meaning Pub. L. 93–288
, May 22, 1974, 88 Stat. 143
. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section
of this title and Tables.
2011—Subsec. (f). Pub. L. 111–351
, § 3(a), amended subsec. (f) generally. Prior to amendment, subsec. (f) related to a different allocation of funds.
Subsec. (m). Pub. L. 111–351
, § 3(b), amended subsec. (m) generally. Prior to amendment, subsec. (m) related to the termination of this section on Sept. 30, 2010.
Subsec. (n). Pub. L. 111–351
, § 4, added subsec. (n).
2009—Subsec. (m). Pub. L. 111–83
substituted “September 30, 2010” for “September 30, 2009”.
2008—Subsec. (m). Pub. L. 110–329
substituted “September 30, 2009” for “September 30, 2008”.
2005—Subsec. (m). Pub. L. 109–139
substituted “September 30, 2008” for “December 31, 2005”.
2004—Subsec. (m). Pub. L. 108–447
substituted “2005” for “2004”.
Pub. L. 108–199
substituted “2004” for “2003”.
Pub. L. 111–351
, § 2,Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 3863
, provided that: “Congress finds the following:
“(1) The predisaster hazard mitigation program has been successful and cost-effective. Funding from the predisaster hazard mitigation program has successfully reduced loss of life, personal injuries, damage to and destruction of property, and disruption of communities from disasters.
“(2) The predisaster hazard mitigation program has saved Federal taxpayers from spending significant sums on disaster recovery and relief that would have been otherwise incurred had communities not successfully applied mitigation techniques.
“(3) A 2007 Congressional Budget Office report found that the predisaster hazard mitigation program reduced losses by roughly $3 (measured in 2007 dollars) for each dollar invested in mitigation efforts funded under the predisaster hazard mitigation program. Moreover, the Congressional Budget Office found that projects funded under the predisaster hazard mitigation program could lower the need for post-disaster assistance from the Federal Government so that the predisaster hazard mitigation investment by the Federal Government would actually save taxpayer funds.
“(4) A 2005 report by the Multihazard Mitigation Council showed substantial benefits and cost savings from the hazard mitigation programs of the Federal Emergency Management Agency generally. Looking at a range of hazard mitigation programs of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the study found that, on average, $1 invested by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in hazard mitigation provided the Nation with roughly $4 in benefits. Moreover, the report projected that the mitigation grants awarded between 1993 and 2003 would save more than 220 lives and prevent nearly 4,700 injuries over approximately 50 years.
“(5) Given the substantial savings generated from the predisaster hazard mitigation program in the years following the provision of assistance under the program, increasing funds appropriated for the program would be a wise investment.”
Findings and Purpose
Pub. L. 106–390
, title I, § 101,Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1552
, provided that:
“(a) Findings.—Congress finds that—
“(1) natural disasters, including earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes, hurricanes, flooding, and wildfires, pose great danger to human life and to property throughout the United States;
“(2) greater emphasis needs to be placed on—
“(A) identifying and assessing the risks to States and local governments (including Indian tribes) from natural disasters;
“(B) implementing adequate measures to reduce losses from natural disasters; and
“(C) ensuring that the critical services and facilities of communities will continue to function after a natural disaster;
“(3) expenditures for postdisaster assistance are increasing without commensurate reductions in the likelihood of future losses from natural disasters;
“(4) in the expenditure of Federal funds under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
et seq.), high priority should be given to mitigation of hazards at the local level; and
“(5) with a unified effort of economic incentives, awareness and education, technical assistance, and demonstrated Federal support, States and local governments (including Indian tribes) will be able to—
“(A) form effective community-based partnerships for hazard mitigation purposes;
“(B) implement effective hazard mitigation measures that reduce the potential damage from natural disasters;
“(C) ensure continued functionality of critical services;
“(D) leverage additional non-Federal resources in meeting natural disaster resistance goals; and
“(E) make commitments to long-term hazard mitigation efforts to be applied to new and existing structures.
“(b) Purpose.—The purpose of this title [enacting this section and sections
of this title, amending section
of this title, and repealing section
of this title] is to establish a national disaster hazard mitigation program—
“(1) to reduce the loss of life and property, human suffering, economic disruption, and disaster assistance costs resulting from natural disasters; and
“(2) to provide a source of predisaster hazard mitigation funding that will assist States and local governments (including Indian tribes) in implementing effective hazard mitigation measures that are designed to ensure the continued functionality of critical services and facilities after a natural disaster.”