SB378 (Expediting Hazard Mitigation Assistance Projects Act) gives the FEMA Administrator explicit authority to waive or reduce a broad set of environmental and historic preservation requirements for property-acquisition, structure-demolition, and relocation projects funded under hazard-mitigation programs of the Stafford Act and the National Flood Insurance Act.
The bill aims to speed federally assisted buyouts and demolitions after disasters by shortening review timelines and narrowing review scope, while imposing a short, 30-day consultation requirement and an annual reporting obligation to Congress. For practitioners, this changes the compliance landscape for FEMA grants: more projects may skip familiar regulatory steps, but the law shifts risk and discretion to FEMA and raises questions about legal exposure, interagency coordination, and stakeholder consultation quality.
At a Glance
What It Does
SB378 authorizes the FEMA Administrator to waive or reduce applicable environmental and historic-preservation laws and executive orders for covered hazard-mitigation projects, subject to a streamlined consultation process and consideration factors. It also amends the Stafford Act to add 'structure demolition' to property acquisition assistance and requires regulations and annual reporting to Congress for five years.
Who It Affects
State, local, and tribal hazard-mitigation officials, FEMA grant recipients who pursue property acquisition/demolition/relocation projects, SHPOs/THPOs and environmental regulators, and contractors performing buyouts and demolition work. It also affects communities whose properties are candidates for federally funded buyouts.
Why It Matters
The bill reallocates decision-making power to FEMA to accelerate project delivery for hazard mitigation, potentially shortening timelines that currently delay buyouts. That shift alters compliance obligations for grant recipients and creates new legal and programmatic trade-offs between speed and environmental or historic protection.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB378 defines a 'covered project' as a property-acquisition, structure-demolition, or relocation project funded under three FEMA programs: Stafford Act section 404 (hazard mitigation), Stafford Act section 203 (management costs/assistance), and the Flood Mitigation Assistance program under the National Flood Insurance Act. The core change is grant of waiver authority: the FEMA Administrator may waive or reduce ‘‘applicable environmental or historic preservation requirements’’ for those covered projects.
The list of statutes and directives the bill explicitly permits FEMA to waive is extensive: NEPA, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Coastal Barrier Resources Act, the Farmland Protection Policy Act, CERCLA, RCRA, and relevant executive orders on floodplain management and wetlands, among others. The Administrator may also waive other requirements the Administrator deems appropriate, which creates a broad discretionary authority beyond the enumerated list.Before using that authority, FEMA must conduct a consultation that is expressly capped at 30 days with appropriate state and local officials and any other individuals the Administrator determines appropriate.
The bill requires FEMA to consider a set of factors during the waiver decision: the nature of the covered project and local recovery needs, whether waiver would foreseeably cause serious environmental harm, whether the property's historic value has been destroyed by disaster damage, and whether a nearby prior NEPA or historic-review suffices for the project, among other factors.SB378 also makes a small textual amendment to the Stafford Act to insert 'structure demolition' into the list of property-related assistance activities, requires the Administrator to promulgate implementing regulations, and compels annual reports to the relevant congressional committees for five years (the first report due within one year of enactment) summarizing reasons for waivers, whether waiver authority expedited FEMA's acquisition process, and any recommendations for additional waiver authority. Those reporting and regulatory obligations are the bill’s primary accountability mechanisms.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill applies waiver authority to projects funded under Stafford Act section 404, Stafford Act section 203, and the Flood Mitigation Assistance program under 42 U.S.C. 4104c.
FEMA may waive requirements across a long list of statutes and directives—including NEPA, NHPA, ESA, CWA, Clean Air Act, CERCLA, RCRA, CZMA, and the Rivers and Harbors Act—plus any other environmental or historic-preservation requirement the Administrator designates.
Before waiving requirements, FEMA must conduct a consultation with state and local officials (and others as needed) that the bill limits to no more than 30 days.
The bill amends Stafford Act section 404(b)(1) to insert 'structure demolition or relocation assistance' into the statutory text for hazard mitigation assistance.
FEMA must issue regulations to implement the Act and provide annual reports to two congressional committees for five years, beginning within one year of enactment, detailing waiver reasons and whether waivers expedited the acquisition process.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Gives the Act the name 'Expediting Hazard Mitigation Assistance Projects Act.' This is a housekeeping provision with no operational effect but signals the bill’s focus on speeding hazard-mitigation property projects.
Definitions and scope—what counts as a 'covered project'
Defines 'Administrator' as FEMA's Administrator and 'covered project' narrowly as property acquisition, structure demolition, or relocation projects funded under Stafford Act section 404, Stafford Act section 203, or the Flood Mitigation Assistance program (section 1366 of the National Flood Insurance Act). That scope confines the waiver authority to certain mitigation grant types rather than all FEMA-funded activities.
Waiver authority and pre-waiver consultation/considerations
Grants FEMA explicit authority to waive or reduce applicable environmental and historic preservation requirements for covered projects and lists an extensive set of statutes and executive orders that may be waived. The provision requires FEMA to conduct a consultation limited to 30 days with appropriate state and local officials (and others as deemed appropriate) and to consider enumerated factors—such as potential for serious environmental harm, whether historic value has been lost by disaster damage, and whether an earlier NEPA or historic review nearby suffices. Practically, the provision replaces longer, statute-specific review tracks with a single FEMA-centered decision point and a short window for external input.
Technical amendment to the Stafford Act—adds 'structure demolition'
Amends section 404(b)(1) of the Stafford Act by replacing 'property acquisition and relocation assistance' with 'property acquisition and structure demolition or relocation assistance.' This insertion clarifies Congress’s intent that demolition is a covered hazard-mitigation activity, which may affect program eligibility and grant language in future FEMA guidance and contracts.
Reporting and regulation requirements
Requires FEMA to promulgate implementing regulations and to submit annual reports for five years (first due within one year of enactment) to the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Reports must summarize reasons for waivers, assess whether waivers expedited FEMA's acquisition process, and state whether FEMA recommends additional waiver authority. The regulation and reporting mandates are FEMA’s accountability mechanisms, but the bill sets no deadline for completing regulations beyond the statutory direction to promulgate them.
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 and local emergency management agencies and grant administrators—They can close buyouts and carry out demolition or relocation projects faster because FEMA may bypass lengthy environmental or historic-preservation reviews that typically delay grant execution.
- Residents and communities in high-risk floodplain or disaster-affected areas—Faster buyouts and demolitions can speed relocation from hazardous areas and reduce exposure to future disasters if projects proceed more quickly.
- FEMA program managers—The Administrator gains discretion to prioritize rapid hazard mitigation delivery, potentially improving measurable project throughput and short-term program metrics.
Who Bears the Cost
- Historic preservation officers (SHPOs/THPOs) and preservation advocates—Shortened consultation and waiver authority reduce their ability to influence outcomes and could result in loss of historically significant structures without full review.
- Environmental regulators and resource agencies (state EPA equivalents, U.S. Fish & Wildlife, Army Corps of Engineers)—They may see reduced input into project-level decisions and bear increased litigation or remediation burdens if environmental harms ensue.
- FEMA and the federal government—Granting broad waiver discretion raises legal risk exposure and potential downstream cleanup or mitigation costs; FEMA will also need to allocate staff and resources to document waiver decisions and produce the required reports and regulations.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is speed versus safeguard: SB378 aims to accelerate hazard-mitigation buyouts and demolitions so people can move out of harm’s way faster, but doing so by waiving established environmental and historic-protection reviews risks irreversible ecological and cultural loss and may shift liability and remediation costs onto taxpayers and downstream communities.
The bill transfers significant discretionary power to the FEMA Administrator to decide when longstanding environmental and historic-preservation processes are unnecessary. That concentration of authority shortens timelines but leaves open who ultimately bears the risk of missed harms: FEMA, grant recipients, or affected communities.
The consultation window is limited to 30 days, which may be sufficient for routine coordination but is brief when projects touch sensitive historic sites, listed species, wetlands, or complex water resources.
Legally, the bill purports to authorize waivers of many federal statutes, but it does not resolve whether all named authorities are in fact waivable under existing case law or whether other statute-specific constraints survive. The provision permitting FEMA to waive 'any other relevant' requirement creates an open-ended delegation that could generate interagency conflict or litigation.
The bill’s accountability measures—annual reports and required regulations—provide transparency on paper but include no independent review, quantitative thresholds for ‘expedited’ performance, or deadlines for regulations, leaving implementation choices wide open and subject to administrative capacity and political priorities.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.