This bill reauthorizes the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 and updates its framework to include tribal governments, broaden the scope of program activities, and sharpen focus on post‑earthquake recovery. It expands standards development, risk inventories, and best practices for retrofitting, while strengthening early warning and information sharing across agencies.
The act also sets explicit funding levels through 2028 for USGS, NSF, and NIST, tying resources to the creation of a more resilient built environment.
At a Glance
What It Does
The act reauthorizes NEHRP with expanded scope to local and Tribal governments, adds evaluation, retrofitting, and post-earthquake recovery objectives, and updates program activities to include best practices, inventories, and coordination across agencies. It also funds key components like the Advanced National Seismic System and hazard mapping efforts.
Who It Affects
Federal agencies (FEMA, USGS, NSF, NIST) and their state, local, and Tribal partners, plus engineers, builders, building owners of high seismic risk assets, and operators of lifeline infrastructure (water, energy, transportation).
Why It Matters
By formalizing tribal participation, expanding risk assessment and retrofit tools, and locking in funding for data-rich systems and standards, the bill aims to reduce earthquake losses and shorten recovery times across the nation.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Reauthorization Act of 2025 updates the core statute governing earthquake risk reduction. It expands participation beyond states and territories to include Tribal governments, and it broadens the purposes to cover construction, evaluation, and retrofitting as part of building resilience.
Definitions are expanded to clarify terms such as Tribal government, functional recovery, and earthquake forecast, ensuring these concepts are embedded in planning and funding decisions. Create-and-keep inventories of high-risk buildings and lifeline infrastructure, and develop best practices for retrofitting to improve post‑earthquake recovery and continuity of essential services.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill expands NEHRP to explicitly include Tribal governments and local jurisdictions in governance and funding decisions.
It requires inventories of high seismic risk buildings and lifeline infrastructure, with emphasis on critical facilities for community resilience.
Post-earthquake functional recovery becomes a formal objective, influencing design standards and downtime targets for key assets.
Congressional funding is authorized through 2028 for USGS, NSF, and NIST, including a dedicated ANSS budget to advance the Advanced National Seismic System.
Interagency coordination broadens, with strengthened earthquake early warning responsibilities and communications, including FCC cooperation for emergency alerts.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short Title
This section designates the act as the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Reauthorization Act of 2025, establishing the legal label for subsequent sections and the policy package.
Modification of Findings
Findings are updated to replace references to Puerto Rico with broader State and Tribal jurisdiction. It adds quantitative risk framing, including updated estimates of annualized losses and total economic exposure, and broadens references to include Tribal considerations within the affected population and hazard recognition.
Modification of Purpose
The purposes are expanded to explicitly include local and Tribal governments, broaden occupancy and infrastructure scope, and require incorporation of resilience considerations into planning and retrofitting activities. Housing and care facilities for vulnerable populations are added as explicitly relevant facilities.
Modification of Definitions
Key terms are broadened: Tribal government is defined; functional recovery is clarified as maintaining or restoring performance to support pre‑quake use; and earthquake forecast is defined to mean probabilistic expectations of quakes within a magnitude range and time window.
Improvements to NEHRP
Program activities are expanded to include designing, constructing, evaluating, and retrofitting; standards and guidelines are developed for buildings and lifeline infrastructure; post‑earthquake recovery objectives are integrated into planning; provisions authorize inventory development and technical assistance for States, locals, and Tribes.
Seismic Performance Standards
The act shifts emphasis from safety-based language toward performance-based standards for seismic resilience of housing and infrastructure, aligning performance expectations with post‑earthquake recovery goals.
Seismic Standards
The agencies must implement recommendations to improve built-environment performance, reoccupancy timelines, and coordination with multiple hazard mitigation topics, including tsunami susceptibility and fire risk following earthquakes.
Post-Earthquake Investigations
The investigations program expands to domestic and international activities, enhancing data collection and international collaboration, and situating post‑earthquake research within a broader global context.
Authorization of Appropriations
The bill sets specific annual funding for FY 2024–FY 2028 for the NEHRP agencies (USGS, NSF, NIST) and earmarks dedicated totals, including a minimum ANSS‑related outlay, to support system completion and related activities.
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
- Tribal governments gain formal participation rights and funding streams to participate in inventories, risk assessments, and resilience planning.
- State and local governments receive clearer authorities and resources to plan, inventory, and retrofit high‑risk assets within their jurisdictions.
- Building owners and operators of high seismic risk facilities gain access to standardized guidance, inventories, and best practices for retrofit and recovery.
- Lifeline infrastructure operators (water, energy, transportation) obtain prioritized attention in standards, evaluation, and post‑quake recovery planning.
- Emergency management agencies (FEMA) and engineers benefit from expanded data, guidelines, and interagency coordination to reduce losses and speed recovery.
Who Bears the Cost
- Local and Tribal governments bear the costs of implementing inventories, planning processes, and retrofitting programs.
- Property owners with high seismic risk assets incur retrofit or upgrade costs as part of compliance and resilience efforts.
- Utilities and infrastructure operators face potential capital costs to upgrade or reinforce critical facilities and systems.
- Federal agencies take on expanded coordination, reporting, and program management obligations that require funding and personnel.
- Taxpayers ultimately bear the broad fiscal impact through appropriations and potential deficit implications tied to programmatic funding.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
Balancing the desire for rapid, nationwide resilience investments (inventories, retrofits, and recovery objectives) with finite public funds and the sovereignty of Tribal and local governments, all while maintaining clear, timely nationwide coordination.
The bill embeds a comprehensive resilience agenda that raises several policy tensions. Expanding participation to Tribal governments and broadening retrofit and inventory duties will require substantial funding, cross‑agency coordination, and long‑term maintenance of data systems.
Aligning performance-based standards with existing construction codes may create transitional complexities for states, tribes, and industry practitioners, and could raise costs for retrofit programs. The funding levels, while explicit, may still be stretched across multiple agencies and programs, potentially affecting the pace of implementation.
Finally, the interplay between hazard forecasting, early warning obligations, and communications requires careful governance to avoid information overload or misalignment with local emergency protocols.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.