Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by Unanimous Consent.
The bill reauthorizes and updates the National Landslide Preparedness Act through 2030, increases funding, and expands program scope.
It adds definitions for atmospheric rivers and extreme precipitation, requires assessment of related landslide risks, creates regional partnerships (including Alaska), and prioritizes early warning systems and 3D elevation data.
The measure broadens participation to Tribal, Native Hawaiian, academic, and private-sector partners and adds NASA to the interagency committee.
Narrow, technical hazard-preparedness reauthorization with modest funding increases fits patterns of bills that become law; appropriations and floor process remain key caveats.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive statutory reauthorization and modification that is well-integrated into existing law and reasonably detailed in program mechanics and funding intent, but it provides limited problem framing and only modestly specific implementation timelines, fiscal clarity, and accountability measures.
Supporters emphasize climate-driven risk reduction; opponents stress federal spending and bureaucracy.
Supporters emphasize climate-driven risk reduction; opponents stress federal spending and bureaucracy.
Likely supportive overall; sees the bill as adapting federal hazard programs to climate-driven risks and improving equity in emergency preparedness.
Appreciates Tribal and Native Hawaiian inclusion, regional partnerships, and set-aside funding for early-warning systems.
May push for larger funding and stronger links to climate mitigation and environmental justice.
Generally favorable but pragmatic; views the bill as useful federal support for hazard preparedness while warranting oversight.
Values improved data, coordination, and targeted grants, but seeks clarity on measurable outcomes, duplication avoidance, and fiscal accountability.
Will look for cost-effectiveness and interagency coordination plans.
Cautiously skeptical: supports preparedness in principle but worries about federal expansion and higher spending.
Concerned that new definitions and expanded partnerships increase bureaucracy and federal control over local land management.
May back portions if local control is preserved and federal costs constrained.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow, technical hazard-preparedness reauthorization with modest funding increases fits patterns of bills that become law; appropriations and floor process remain key caveats.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Supporters emphasize climate-driven risk reduction; opponents stress federal spending and bureaucracy.
Narrow, technical hazard-preparedness reauthorization with modest funding increases fits patterns of bills that become law; appropriations…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive statutory reauthorization and modification that is well-integrated into existing law and reasonably detailed in program mechanics and funding intent,…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.