HB2907 would amend Section 203 of the Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to require the President to provide assistance for predisaster hazard mitigation measures, effectively turning BRIC-like activities into a mandatory program.
The bill grounds this with findings about rising disaster costs and the long-run benefits of mitigation, citing historical BRIC activity and a 2025 figure about funding clawbacks to underscore the need for proactive resilience. It then codifies the shift by using mandatory language in key subsections of Section 203, signaling a binding federal obligation to fund predisaster mitigation efforts.Crucially, the text does not specify funding amounts or new authorization levels, leaving budgeting decisions to Congress while establishing a mandatory framework for mitigation assistance aligned with the BRIC program.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends Section 203 of the Stafford Act to require predisaster hazard mitigation assistance and to replace discretionary language with mandatory language in subsections (b) and (c).
Who It Affects
Federal disaster-grant programs (notably BRIC) and the state and local agencies that manage predisaster mitigation projects, along with communities in hazard-prone areas.
Why It Matters
It formalizes a federal obligation to fund mitigation before disasters occur, aiming to reduce long-term losses and modernization of vulnerable infrastructure.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Save Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities Act (Save BRIC Act) would change how the federal government supports mitigation before disasters hit. By amending Section 203 of the Stafford Act, it would require the President to provide assistance for predisaster hazard mitigation measures, moving BRIC-related activities from a discretionary option to a mandatory obligation.
The bill relies on a body of findings that highlight rising disaster costs and the efficiency of investing in mitigation—claiming, for example, that every dollar spent on predisaster mitigation can save many dollars in recovery costs later. It also cites BRIC’s established history and a cited 2019 origin, alongside a stated 2025 cancellation and clawback of funds, to justify a need for renewed federal commitment.
Mechanically, the bill makes coercive changes to the language in Section 203(b) and (c), replacing the word may with shall to ensure predisaster mitigation assistance is provided. There is no funding level or formula in the text, so budgeting would depend on separate appropriations.
In short, the bill creates a mandatory framework for mitigation funding, anchored in the BRIC program, without prescribing exact dollars or timelines.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires predisaster hazard mitigation assistance to be provided by the President under the Stafford Act.
Subsections (b) and (c) are changed from 'may' to 'shall', making mitigation assistance mandatory.
Findings reference BRIC’s history, including an asserted 2019 origin and a 2025 cancellation with a large clawback of funds.
No specific funding amount or appropriation level is defined in the bill text.
The bill shifts focus toward proactive resilience, aiming to lower long-run disaster recovery costs.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title — Save BRIC Act
This section provides the official name of the act as the Save Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities Act (Save BRIC Act). The naming signals the bill’s alignment with the BRIC program and resilience objectives. It establishes the formal label under which the statute will be cited.
Findings and purpose
The findings describe predisaster mitigation as a proactive approach to reduce loss of life and property by addressing risks before disasters strike. They enumerate the cost-benefit claim that mitigation saves disaster recovery costs and reference the BRIC program’s history, including prior funding actions. The section frames the rationale for elevating mitigation to a federal priority and justifies the subsequent mandatory provisions by highlighting recent disaster costs and resilience imperatives.
Mandatory mitigation
This section amends Section 203 of the Stafford Act. It strikes the word 'may' in subsections (b) and (c) and inserts 'shall', thereby converting discretionary predisaster mitigation support into a mandatory obligation. Practically, this would require federal agencies to provide predisaster mitigation assistance and would bind the executive branch to fund and facilitate mitigation activities before disasters occur, subject to future appropriations.
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
- Municipalities in flood- and hurricane-prone regions gain access to federal predisaster mitigation funds to upgrade infrastructure, backstop planning, and protective barriers.
- State and local emergency management agencies receive formal authority and resources to implement mitigation programs, improving coordination with federal grants.
- Critical infrastructure operators (utilities, transit, water/sewer systems) benefit from funding for resilience upgrades and protective hardening.
- Federal grant administrators (FEMA and related offices) gain clearer mandates and a sustained program focus on mitigation, potentially improving program predictability.
- Insurance markets and risk modelers may see reduced uncertainty as pre-emptive measures lower overall disaster losses.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal taxpayers underpin the funding for predisaster mitigation, with costs embedded in annual appropriations and long-term budget planning.
- State and local governments face administrative overhead and potential matching or reporting burdens associated with implementing mandatory mitigation programs.
- Utilities and infrastructure owners must undertake resilience investments or fund upgrades to meet mitigation standards.
- Developers and property owners subject to upgraded building or retrofit requirements may face higher upfront costs for hazard-resistant construction.
- Small businesses operating in disaster-prone communities could experience indirect costs from compliance activities or beneficiaries of the funding challenges.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether mandating predisaster mitigation funding, without defined budgetary pathways, will deliver timely, effective resilience gains or strain federal and local budgets while risking misallocation or bureaucratic inefficiency.
The bill creates a binding framework for predisaster mitigation funding, but it relies on future appropriations to determine the scale and speed of grants. The absence of explicit funding levels or schedules raises questions about how quickly and equitably funds would be distributed, and which communities would be prioritized.
There is also a risk that a mandatory program could crowd out other critical priorities if budgeting isn't carefully planned or accompanied by clear performance metrics, oversight, and targeted eligibility criteria. Implementation would depend on how appropriations align with the new mandate, how matching requirements (if any) are set, and how agencies measure the effectiveness of pre-disaster mitigation investments.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.