The Earthquake Resilience Act mandates a national risk assessment to identify communities' earthquake resilience progress and gaps, and enhances post-earthquake recovery standards for infrastructure and services.
Kevin Mullin
Representative
CA-15
The Earthquake Resilience Act requires a national risk assessment to identify communities' progress and remaining gaps in earthquake resilience. It amends the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 to include post-earthquake recovery objectives, develop standards for lifeline infrastructure, and incorporate real-time global navigation satellite system data. This aims to improve the nation's ability to recover and reoccupy after earthquakes.
This bill, the Earthquake Resilience Act, directs key federal science and emergency agencies—think NIST, FEMA, NSF, and USGS—to figure out just how prepared the nation is for a major earthquake. Within two years, they need to deliver a national risk assessment to Congress, pinpointing which communities are making strides in earthquake safety and where the dangerous gaps remain.
The Act updates the old playbook (the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977) by adding specific goals for what happens after the shaking stops. It introduces performance objectives focused on "functional recovery" and "reoccupancy" – basically, making sure buildings are safe enough to get back into and essential services can restart reasonably quickly. It calls for developing new standards and codes specifically aimed at getting crucial "lifeline infrastructure" back online faster. Think power grids, water systems, transportation networks, and communication lines – the stuff modern life grinds to a halt without.
Beyond the planning, the bill pushes for a tech upgrade in how we monitor seismic activity. It mandates incorporating real-time data from global navigation satellite systems (like GPS, often called GNSS) and other geodetic networks (which measure precise points on Earth). Adding this high-tech data aims to give scientists and responders a clearer, faster picture of ground movement during and after an earthquake, potentially improving warnings and damage assessments down the line. The goal is a more coordinated, science-driven approach to both preparing for and recovering from major seismic events.