The bill requires the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), working with FEMA, NSF, USGS and other stakeholders, to deliver a national earthquake resilience risk assessment to specified congressional committees within two years. The assessment must identify progress communities have made on resilience and pinpoint remaining gaps.
The bill also amends Section 5 of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7704). It adds post-earthquake recovery–focused performance objectives that explicitly target functional recovery and reoccupancy, directs development of standards, guidelines and consensus codes for lifeline infrastructure recovery coordinated by a national lifeline organization, and expands required monitoring data to include real-time GNSS and geodetic network streams.
Together, these changes push federal seismic policy from hazard-reduction toward measurable recovery outcomes and data modernization.
At a Glance
What It Does
The Act directs NIST to produce a national risk assessment within two years and amends the federal earthquake program to require recovery-focused performance objectives and the creation of standards for lifeline infrastructure recovery. It also requires integration of real-time GNSS and geodetic data into program monitoring.
Who It Affects
Federal agencies named in the bill (NIST, FEMA, NSF, USGS) must collaborate on the assessment; state, local, Tribal and territorial governments and lifeline operators (utilities, communications, transportation) are the primary subjects of the assessment and potential adopters of new standards. Standards organizations and code-writing bodies will be asked to develop or revise consensus codes for post‑earthquake recovery.
Why It Matters
This shifts federal seismic policy toward measurable post‑event functional outcomes—how quickly services and occupancy return—rather than only limiting shaking damage. It also modernizes monitoring inputs (GNSS/geodetic) that materially improve detection of ground deformation and recovery planning.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates two linked tracks: a near-term diagnostic and programmatic changes to federal earthquake policy. First, NIST must lead a national risk assessment and deliver it to Congress within two years.
That assessment has a narrow scope: document how far communities have progressed on earthquake resilience and identify remaining gaps. The statute requires multi‑agency collaboration and consultation with government partners at every level, so the assessment is intended to be both technical and policy oriented.
Second, the bill amends the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act by adding post‑earthquake recovery-based performance objectives. Where past federal language focused on reducing seismic hazard and damage, this instructs the program to set objectives linked to functional recovery and reoccupancy—meaning measures tied to restoring critical services and enabling people to safely return to buildings.
The amendment also requires development of standards, guidelines and consensus codes specifically aimed at improving post‑earthquake recovery for lifeline infrastructure (for example, power, water, telecommunications and transportation).Practically, the standards work is to be coordinated, as appropriate, by a national lifeline infrastructure organization. The bill does not create that organization directly, but it presumes an existing or convened body will take a coordinating role.
Finally, the bill modernizes data inputs to the federal program: it explicitly adds real‑time GNSS network streams and geodetic network data to the list of monitoring sources. That change recognizes the operational value of geodetic observations for detecting ground deformation, informing situational awareness after an event, and improving recovery planning.Taken together, these changes reframe federal activity from primarily researching how to reduce structural damage toward producing actionable plans and standards that shorten downtime for critical services after earthquakes.
The law leans on standards development and improved data to produce measurable recovery outcomes, but it leaves adoption, enforcement and financing of implementation largely to nonfederal actors.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Director of NIST must submit a national earthquake resilience risk assessment to the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation within two years of enactment.
The bill amends 42 U.S.C. 7704 (Section 5 of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977) to add post‑earthquake recovery‑based performance objectives that address functional recovery and reoccupancy.
It requires development of standards, guidelines, and consensus codes specifically targeting the post‑earthquake recovery of lifeline infrastructure, coordinated as appropriate by a national lifeline infrastructure organization.
The bill inserts a reporting reference so Program results must reflect the new recovery‑oriented objectives when assessing outcomes.
The bill expands the Program’s monitoring data to explicitly include real‑time GNSS network data streams and geodetic network data alongside regional seismic networks.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Designates the Act as the “Earthquake Resilience Act.” This is a formal naming provision; it does not affect substance but signals the bill’s focus on resilience and recovery rather than only hazard mitigation.
NIST-led national earthquake resilience risk assessment
Directs the NIST Director, in collaboration with FEMA, NSF and USGS and in coordination with federal, state, local, Tribal and territorial representatives and other stakeholders, to submit a national risk assessment within two years. The assessment must identify progress jurisdictions have made on earthquake resilience and catalog remaining gaps. The provision places the report with two specific congressional committees, which frames the assessment as a policy product intended to inform legislative oversight and future federal action.
Adds post‑earthquake recovery performance objectives and lifeline standards
Modifies the program’s statutory objectives to include post‑earthquake recovery–based performance objectives addressing functional recovery and reoccupancy. It inserts a requirement to develop standards, guidelines and consensus codes that improve post‑earthquake recovery for lifeline infrastructure, explicitly tying that standardization work to coordination by a national lifeline infrastructure organization. That creates a federal directive to produce consensus tools aimed at shortening outages and restoring services after earthquakes.
Requires Program results to incorporate recovery objectives
Inserts language requiring that Program results reflect the new recovery objectives (including pursuant to the new paragraph added in (2)). Practically, this forces Program reporting and evaluations to measure outcomes against recovery goals, which changes how success will be defined and reported in future assessments and budgetary narratives.
Adds real‑time GNSS and geodetic data to monitoring requirements
Expands the Program’s required data sources to include real‑time global navigation satellite system (GNSS) network data streams and geodetic network data in addition to regional seismic networks. This is a technical but consequential change: it directs the Program to integrate geodetic observations that detect ground deformation and slow‑onset hazards—data that strengthen situational awareness and help prioritize recovery of lifeline infrastructure.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Infrastructure across all five countries.
Explore Infrastructure in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- State, local, Tribal, and territorial emergency managers — they gain a federal assessment and new consensus standards focused on restoring services and reoccupying buildings, which can improve planning and prioritization during recovery.
- Lifeline infrastructure operators (utilities, telecom carriers, transportation agencies) — the bill drives development of recovery‑focused standards and guidance that clarify performance expectations for rapid restoration of critical services.
- Researchers and earth science communities (USGS, academic geodesy groups) — increased emphasis on real‑time GNSS and geodetic data creates demand for their expertise and may accelerate funding and operational use of geodetic networks.
- Standards-development organizations and code bodies — they receive a federal mandate to produce or update consensus codes and guidelines targeted at post‑earthquake recovery, expanding their role and market for technical products.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal agencies named in the bill (NIST, FEMA, NSF, USGS) — must divert staff time and resources to collaborate on the assessment and standards work; the law imposes deliverables without specifying new appropriations.
- State and local governments — may need to adopt or align building codes, retrofit priorities, and recovery plans based on new consensus standards, which can generate significant planning and capital costs.
- Private lifeline operators (electric, water, telecom, transport companies) — could face new compliance expectations or market pressure to upgrade systems to meet recovery‑oriented standards, potentially requiring investments in redundancy and monitoring.
- Standards bodies and professional societies — will need to expand technical committees and consensus processes to meet the directive, incurring administrative and technical costs that may be recouped through membership or contract work.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between federal leadership to produce actionable recovery-focused standards and the practical limits of enforcement and funding: the bill elevates recovery objectives and data modernization, but relies on nonfederal actors to implement them, potentially creating unfunded mandates and uneven adoption while promising improved outcomes that require sustained investments.
The bill pushes federal seismic policy toward measurable recovery outcomes and better data, but it leaves several critical implementation questions unresolved. It mandates a NIST-led assessment and standards development without specifying funding streams, leaving agencies and standards bodies to absorb costs or seek appropriations.
That raises the prospect that the assessment and standards work will be completed unevenly or depend on interagency goodwill. The requirement that Program results reflect recovery objectives changes evaluative metrics, but the bill does not define performance metrics, acceptable timelines for recovery, or thresholds that would trigger federal assistance or regulatory changes.
Another tension is institutional: the bill calls for coordination by a “national lifeline infrastructure organization” but does not create or define that entity, its governance, or its authority over private utilities and state regulators. Similarly, adding real‑time GNSS and geodetic data streams improves technical capacity, but requires investments in sensor networks, data integration, interoperability, data-sharing agreements and cyber/operational security.
Smaller jurisdictions and private operators may lack capacity to use or contribute those data, creating uneven benefits. Finally, the statute nudges standards and codes toward recovery outcomes but stops short of preempting state building codes; that leaves open complex legal and political questions about adoption, liability and the pace of implementation.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.