Federal Emergency Management Agency Review Council; Notice of Meeting

The National Taxpayers Union supports the FEMA Review Council's Final Report, which aims to reduce taxpayer burdens by emphasizing individual responsibility, increasing state and local disaster capacity, and reforming the National Flood Insurance Program. They argue that while the report's goals are beneficial for fiscal responsibility, the council must remain realistic about the political challenges and implementation hurdles involved in transitioning to a more privatized and risk-based system.

The Reinsurance Association of America (RAA), representing property and casualty reinsurers, supports the Final Report's recommendations for FEMA reform. They advocate for a phased approach that emphasizes public-private partnerships, expands private-sector participation in flood insurance and risk sharing, and maintains federal investment in science-based hazard data and mapping.

The Los Angeles County Office of Emergency Management provides feedback on the FEMA Review Council Final Report, advocating for reforms that recognize underinsurance and insurance delays as factors for federal assistance. The County supports expanding eligibility for underinsured survivors and opposes increasing the federal cost share for public assistance or raising the per capita disaster declaration threshold.

Adrian Sevier opposes the Council's recommendations, arguing that the proposed parametric insurance model for public assistance is impractical due to inevitable state challenges over loss valuations. The commenter suggests alternative reforms, such as increasing the per capita indicator, amending the Stafford Act to establish a 50% fixed award, and combining the HMGP and BRIC programs into a state-administered funding stream.

The Council on Foundations, a nonprofit membership association for philanthropies, supports the integration of nonprofit and faith-based organizations into national disaster frameworks. They specifically recommend engaging community foundations as key partners in the National Business Emergency Operations Center and streamlining application processes to reduce bureaucratic requirements for smaller communities.

The National Association of REALTORS and the National Association of Home Builders submitted joint comments regarding the FEMA Review Council's Final Report. While they support streamlining mitigation funding and simplifying assistance programs, they oppose the proposal to privatize the NFIP through depopulation and express concerns regarding raising disaster declaration thresholds and limiting Individual Assistance.

Ayuda Legal Puerto Rico, a nonprofit public interest organization, opposes the proposed reforms because they would shift disaster costs to states and territories, tie assistance to property values rather than actual needs, and create barriers for survivors with informal ownership. They argue that the proposed changes would disproportionately impact vulnerable populations and jurisdictions with limited economic capacity, like Puerto Rico.

Artanis Capital, LLC, representing its emergency housing platform, supports the FEMA Review Council's goal of reducing administrative costs and waste in disaster housing. They argue that the Final Report fails to include specific "redeployable" asset standards, which they believe are necessary to prevent states from continuing to purchase disposable, single-use trailers.

Artanis Capital, LLC, representing its emergency housing platform, supports the FEMA Review Council's goal of reducing administrative costs and waste in disaster housing. They argue that the Final Report fails to include specific "redeployable" asset standards, which they believe are necessary to prevent states from continuing to purchase disposable, single-use trailers.

The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) opposes several recommendations in the FEMA Review Council's Final Report, particularly the push toward privatizing the National Flood Insurance Program and raising federal disaster declaration thresholds. They argue that these changes would undermine community resilience, widen the insurance gap for vulnerable populations, and unfairly shift the financial burden of disaster recovery onto under-resourced state and local governments.