WaterWired

Kris Stepenuck Article “A Pretty Good Lake”: Community Stewardship of Lake Champlain

In AWRA's March-April 2022 issue of Water Resources IMPACT The Lakes Sampler is a wonderful piece by Kris Stepenuck:

Download A Pretty Good Lake: Community Stewardship of Lake Champlain Water Resources IMPACT March:April 2022

The first paragraph:

Communities change, nations rise and fall, but the need to care for water resources remains. For some 11,000 years—since long before Europeans and others arrived in North America—the indigenous Abenaki people have lived along the shores of the lake they call “Pitawbagw.” This ancient name is roughly translated as “waters between,” denoting the lake’s place in the daily life of the Abenaki and its role as a natural boundary between them and their Iroquois neighbors. For millennia the Abenaki have fished on its waters and served as stewards of its watershed. Today Pitawbagw is more commonly known as Lake Champlain, a name that serves as testament to its place within the history of European colonization and the displacement of indigenous peoples Pitawbagw was renamed in 1609, when the French colonist and founder of Quebec, Samuel de Champlain, explored the area, claiming it for France. Through all these political and social transformations, the health of the lake and its watershed have remained linked to the well-being and livelihood of the surrounding communities.

Kris Stepenuck (kstepenu@uvm.edu) is extension program leader for Lake Champlain Sea Grant and extension associate professor of watershed science, policy, and education in the Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources at the University of Vermont.

Enjoy!

“You can't keep trouble from coming, but you don't have to give it a chair to sit on." - Vermont saying

J. AWWA Article: 'Collaborate to Protect Vital Source Waters and Mitigate Climate Change'

Once again, friend and colleague G. Tracy Mehan III, Executive Director for Government Affairs at the American Water Works Association, just sent me and others something very worthwhile - an article from the AWWA journal, Collaborate to Protect Vital Source Waters and Mitigate Climate Change   

Here is the message he included in his email:

Dave White, former chief of USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service and AWWA consultant, and my colleague Adam Carpenter authored the attached article for Journal AWWA on how protection of source water protection and mitigation of climate change can be furthered in partnership with agriculture utilizing resources from the Conservation Title of the new Farm Bill.

Download Journal AWWA - 2022 - White - Collaborate to Protect Vital Source Waters and Mitigate Climate Change

The first few paragraphs:

From the environment to our forests, to agriculture, and the water we drink, climate change continues to adversely affect many sectors of our lives. Once rare and extreme weather events are becoming commonplace. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) tracks natural disasters, and since 1980 the United States has experienced 291 weather and climate disasters that each exceeded $1 billion (NOAA NCEI 2021). The cumulative cost is staggering: more than 14,000 lives lost and in excess of $1.9 trillion to pay for disaster relief. Between 2016 and 2020, there were 81 severe disasters that caused nearly 4,000 deaths and whose total cost was more than $600 billion. Figure 1 shows the billion-dollar disasters that occurred just in 2020.

Climate Change and Source Waters
In the western United States, wildfires are happening with increasing frequency and severity as well (Photo 1). The National Association of State Foresters documents that the fire season today is 78 days longer than it was in the 1970s and projects that fire seasons will become hotter, more unpredictable, and more expensive (NASF n.d.). The amount dedicated to fire suppression in the Forest Service budget has grown from 20% of the total to more than 50%, and in 2018 the US government spent more than $3 billion fighting wildfires.

Agriculture and Water
In addition to these many challenges is the uneven increase in world population. The United Nations projects that there will be 9.7 billion humans on Earth by 2050, many of whom will be in water-poor areas (UN DESA 2019). To feed this many people, worldwide food production will need to substantially increase. In 2012, the World Wildlife Fund’s 2050 Criteria report stated that in the next 40 years, humanity would have to produce more food than we have in the last 8,000 years combined (WWF 2012).

At the same time, agricultural issues increasingly affect drinking water. A 2021 study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (Thaler et al. 2021) found that over the years, some one-third of the cropland in the US Corn Belt has lost its carbon-rich topsoil to erosion (Photo 2, parts A and B). While farm production has kept up with the loss of topsoil through advanced genetics and additional fertilizer, agricultural runoff has accelerated water quality problems in many US lakes and waterways.

For example, the City of Toledo had to issue a “do not drink” order for three days in 2014 because of a harmful algal bloom in Lake Erie caused by phosphorus runoff, primarily from agricultural lands. Today, harmful algal blooms commonly occur around the world, and excessive nutrients and chemicals often increase costs to water utilities to ensure safe drinking water for their customers.

The challenge is clear—the world must find a way to work together to increase food production to meet all human needs while also safeguarding our environment, addressing climate change, and ensuring overall economic vitality. And we must do that in the face of increasingly erratic weather patterns.

More to read - see the PDF - go to page 37:
Download Journal AWWA - 2022 - White - Collaborate to Protect Vital Source Waters and Mitigate Climate Change

Key Takeaways
Climate-friendly agricultural conservation practices can protect and restore drinking water sources.

As US water utilities consider how to better protect their source waters, working with the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and agricultural producers offers great promise. 

Collaboration between water utilities and USDA can also strike a blow against climate change effects—and maybe even save some money in the process.

Enjoy!

“Farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil, and you’re a thousand miles from the corn field.” - Dwight D. Eisenhower

Thursday Twofer - CRS Reports on Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: 1)'Structure and Activities'; 2) 'Structural Features and Function'

1) I've often been curious about US regional commissions. Here is an overview of the seven entities by Julie M. Lawhorn, who authored this CRS InFocus report (updated 20 December 2021): 'Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Overview of Structure and Activities'.

Download CRS_InFocus_Fed_Reg_Commiss_Authorities_Structure_Activities_20Dec2021

Summary
Federal regional commissions and authorities address perceived regional economic underdevelopment. These organizations generally accommodate multileveled and multijurisdictional participation and implementation, which Congress could utilize to address growing interest in broad-based and intensive economic development efforts. Current commissions and authorities represent some regions; other regions could adopt similar entities. This In Focus outlines each organization’s structure, activities, and recent funding. For this report, FY2022 appropriated funding amounts are from P.L. 117-58. FY2022 amounts do not include funding provided through the annual appropriations process, as annual appropriations had not been enacted as of the date of publication.

Next up - more detail.

2) Here is more detail: Julie M. Lawhorn authored this CRS report (updated 22 December 2021) that sheds more light on these entities: 'Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function'.

Download CRS_Report_Federal_RegComm_Authorites-Structural_Features_Functions_22Dec2021

Summary
This report describes the structure, activities, legislative history, and funding history of the seven federal regional commissions and authorities:

 the Appalachian Regional Commission;

 the Delta Regional Authority;

 the Denali Commission;

 the Northern Border Regional Commission;

 the Northern Great Plains Regional Authority;

 the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission; and the

 Southwest Border Regional Commission.

All seven regional commissions and authorities are modeled after the Appalachian Regional Commission structure, which is composed of a federal co-chair appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, and the member state governors, of which one is appointed the state co-chair. This structure is broadly replicated in the other commissions and authorities, albeit with notable variations and exceptions to local contexts. In addition, the service areas for all of the federal regional commissions and authorities are defined in statute and thus can only be amended or modified through congressional action. While the service areas for the federal regional commissions and authorities have shifted over time, those jurisdictions have not changed radically in their respective service lives.

Of the seven federal regional commissions and authorities, four could be considered active: the Appalachian Regional Commission; the Delta Regional Authority; the Denali Commission; and the Northern Border Regional Commission. In December 2021, the U.S. Senate confirmed the first federal co-chairperson for the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission, thereby allowing it to convene and begin other activities.

The four currently active regional commissions and authority received $15 million to $180 million in appropriations in FY2021 for their various activities. Each of the four functioning regional commissions and authority engage in economic development to varying extents, and address multiple programmatic activities in their respective service areas. These activities may include, but are not limited, to basic infrastructure; energy; ecology/environment and natural resources; workforce/labor; and business development.

Though they are federally chartered, receive congressional appropriations for their administration and activities, and include an appointed federal representative in their respective leadership structures (the federal co-chair and his/her alternate, as applicable), the federal regional commissions and authorities are quasi-governmental partnerships between the federal government and the constituent state(s) of a given authority or commission. This partnership structure, which also typically includes substantial input and efforts at the sub-state level, represents a unique federal approach to economic development and a potentially flexible mechanism for coordinating strategic economic development goals and aligning them with local, state, and multi-state/regional priorities and contexts.

Congress has expressed interest in the federal regional commissions and authorities pursuant to its appropriations and oversight authority, as well as its interest in facilitating economic development programming. Given relevant congressional interest, the federal regional commissions and authorities provide a model of functioning economic development approaches that are place-based, intergovernmental, and multifaceted in their programmatic orientation (e.g., infrastructure, energy, environment/ecology, workforce, business development).  

Introduction
Congress authorized seven federal regional commissions and authorities to address instances of major economic distress in certain defined socio-economic regions (Table A-1):

 the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC);

 the Delta Regional Authority (DRA);

 the Denali Commission;

 the Northern Border Regional Commission (NBRC);

 the Northern Great Plains Regional Authority (NGPRA);

 the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission (SCRC); and

 the Southwest Border Regional Commission (SBRC).

Four of the seven entities are currently active and receive regular annual appropriations: ARC, DRA, the Denali Commission, and the NBRC. The SCRC has received regular annual appropriations since FY2010, but lacked a Senate-confirmed federal co-chair until December 2021. All but one (Alaska’s Denali Commission) serve multi-state regions (Figure B-1).

The federal regional commissions are functioning examples of place-based and intergovernmental approaches to economic development, which receive regular congressional interest. The federal regional commissions and authorities integrate federal and state economic development priorities alongside regional and local considerations (Figure A-1). As federally chartered agencies created by acts of Congress, the federal regional commissions and authorities depend on congressional appropriations for their activities and administration, and are subject to congressional oversight.

The first such federal regional commission, the Appalachian Regional Commission, was founded in 1965. The other commissions and authorities may have roots in the intervening decades, but were not founded until 1998 (Denali), 2000 (Delta Regional Authority), and 2002 (the Northern Great Plains Regional Authority). The most recent commissions—Northern Border Regional Commission, Southeast Crescent Regional Commission, and Southwest Border Regional Commission—were authorized in 2008.

Certain strategic emphases and programs have evolved over time in each of the functioning federal regional commissions and authorities. However, their overarching missions to address economic distress have not changed, and their associated activities have broadly remained consistent to those goals as funding has allowed. In practice, the functioning federal regional commissions and authorities engage in their respective economic development efforts through multiple program areas, which may include, but are not limited to basic infrastructure; energy; ecology/environment and natural resources; workforce/labor; and business development. This report describes the structure, activities, legislative history, and funding history of seven federally chartered regional commissions and authorities.

Concluding Notes
Given their geographic reach, broad activities, and integrated intergovernmental structures, the federal regional commissions and authorities are a significant element of federal economic development efforts. At the same time, as organizations that are largely governed by the respective state-based commissioners, the federal regional commissions and authorities are not typical federal agencies but federally chartered entities that integrate federal funding and direction with state and local economic development priorities.

This structure provides Congress with a flexible platform to support economic development efforts. The intergovernmental structure allows for strategic-level economic development initiatives to be launched at the federal level and implemented across multi-state jurisdictions with extensive state and local input, and more adaptable to regional needs.

The federal regional commissions and authorities reflect an emphasis by the federal government on place-based economic development strategies sensitive to regional and local contexts. However, the geographic specificity and varying functionality of the statutorily authorized federal regional commissions and authorities, both active and inactive, potentially raise questions about the efficacy and equity of federal economic development policies.

Enjoy!

“The measure of intelligence is the ability to change” - Albert Einstein

CRS InFocus Report: 'U.S. Forest Ownership and Management'

Katie Hoover and Anne A. Riddle produced (16 December 2021) this CRS InFocus Report: 'U.S. Forest Ownership and Management'.

I have pasted the entire report below. Click on the graphics to enlarge them.

Download CRS_InFocus_Report_US_Forest_Ownership_Mgmt_16Dec2021

Summary
The United States contains 765 million acres of forestland. The potential scope of congressional involvement in U.S. forest resources varies, based primarily on ownership. The majority (69%) of U.S. forests are nonfederal forests: forests that are owned by private entities or state and local governments. The remaining 31% of U.S. forests are federally owned. The distribution of forest ownership varies nationwide and across the four major regions as defined in the Forest Resources of the United States report prepared by the U.S. Forest Service; see Figure 1 and Figure 2. Most of the forests in the North and South regions are nonfederal, whereas most of the forests in the Rocky Mountain (Rockies) and Pacific Coast (Pacific) regions are federal. The variation in ownership patterns arises in part from the historic pattern of land settlement across the United States. For a more in-depth discussion, see CRS Report R46976, U.S. Forest Ownership and Management: Background and Issues for Congress.

Role of Congress
Congress has a direct role in the management of forests owned by the federal government but an indirect role in the management of forests in nonfederal ownership. Congress’s role in nonfederal forest management generally relates to authorizing and appropriating funding for programs to provide financial, technical, or other resources to states, individuals, or other entities for forest ownership, stewardship, or management.

The U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress to acquire, dispose of, and manage federal property. As such, Congress has the authority to enact laws that address all aspects of managing federal forests and their resources. Much of Congress’s legislative activity has focused on authorizing federal forests to be managed and used for specific purposes, and appropriating funding for those purposes/

Nonfederal Forests
Most of the 527 million acres of nonfederal forests in the United States are classified as privately owned (443 million acres); the other 84 million acres are publicly owned by state and local governments. Most private forests are in family ownership (272 million acres), followed by corporate ownership (156 million acres). See Table 1 for a description of nonfederal ownership types.

 

Forest management objectives vary considerably across and within nonfederal forest ownership types. Private forests are generally managed according to the goals of their owners. Private forest owners engage in varying levels of forest management, ranging from passive to active to intensive management, based on constraints such as knowledge or financial resources. Among the estimated nearly 11 million different owners, family forest owners most often manage their lands for nonmonetized amenities, such as scenery, wildlife, or privacy, and many do not actively manage their forests. Corporate forest owners generally manage their lands to optimize financial returns, usually (but not exclusively) from timber production.

Other public forest management is stipulated by relevant state, county, and local laws. State and local forests vary across nearly all measures and do not support many generalizations about the management of these forests. An exception is for state forests that are state trust lands. State trust lands are specific parcels of land granted by Congress to states with the requirement that revenue generated from the sale or lease of the land benefit specific public purposes (primarily education). State trust lands have an explicit fiduciary responsibility to generate revenue, though the states vary in how the responsibility is fulfilled.

Federal Forests
The federal government owns 238 million acres (31%) of U.S. forests, most of which are managed by the U.S. Forest Service (FS)—as part of the National Forest System (NFS)—and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM); see Figure 3. The remaining federal forests are managed by the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, other agencies in the Department of the Interior, the Department of the Defense, and others.

The FS and BLM manage most of their lands under similar multiple use and sustained yield statutory missions. Multiple use management means considering the relative values of the various resources and the combination of uses that best meets the needs of the American people. The multiple uses include livestock grazing; energy and mineral development; recreation; timber production; watershed protection; wildlife and fish habitat; and natural scenic, scientific, and historical values. Managing for a sustained yield means ensuring a high level of resource outputs are maintained in perpetuity without impairing the land’s productivity. Both the FS and the BLM engage in long-term land use and resource management planning to inform and guide their decisionmaking processes for balancing multiple uses and ensuring a sustained yield of resources.

Timberlands
Two-thirds of the forests in the United States are classified as timberlands (514 million acres). Timberlands are a subset of forestland, consisting of forests producing or capable of producing crops of industrial wood that are not prohibited from timber use by statute or regulation. Forests classified as timberlands include areas where timber production is not logistically or financially viable. Private forests are more likely to contain timberlands. Less than half of the federal forests contain timberlands (108 million acres), most of which are located within the NFS (89%).

Enjoy!

"When one burns one's bridges, what a very nice fire it makes." - Dylan Thomas

Thursday Tornado Twofer! CRS Tornado Reports: 1) 'Tornadoes: Background and Forecasting; 2) 'Southeastern Tornado Outbreak: Brief Overview of FEMA Programs and Resources'

1) Eva Lipiec authored (13 December 2021) this CRS Insight report: 'Tornadoes: Background and Forecasting'.

Insight reports have embedded URLs that may not be displayed on a PDF. If not, access the online version to see them. I have pasted the entire report below. 

Download CRS_Insight_Tornadoes_Background_Forecasting_13Dec2021

Background
Severe thunderstorms and tornadoes affect communities across the United States every year, causing fatalities, destroying property and crops, and disrupting businesses. Tornadoes are narrow, violently rotating columns of air that extend from the base of a thunderstorm to the ground, sometimes producing winds that exceed 300 miles per hour. Tornadoes have been reported on all continents except Antarctica; however, they occur most commonly in North America and particularly in the United States, which reports approximately 1,200 tornadoes per year. Tornadoes occur across the United States but form most commonly in three regions, shifting seasonally: (1) southern Plains (e.g., Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas), (2) Gulf Coast, and (3) northern Plains and upper Midwest (e.g., North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota). Depending on geographic location, tornadoes occur mostly during spring and summer (Figure 1) and usually during the late afternoon or early evening. However, tornadoes can occur at any time. For example, a deadly storm system with several reported tornadoes, including a “significant long track tornado,” touched ground overnight in Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, Mississippi, and Tennessee between December 10 and 11, 2021. Preliminary estimates report that peak winds of the long-track tornado reached between 158 and 206 miles per hour. Aspects of the event were rare, such as its timing, potential track length, and geographic location. 

Classification
Experts estimate the strength or wind speed of a tornado by examining the damage it caused rather than by measuring actual wind speeds during an event. The Fujita, or F-scale, estimation method, developed in 1971, was used for over three decades, but its limitations prompted the development and adoption of a new scale in 2007, called the enhanced F-scale, or EF-scale (Table 1). The EF-scale is intended to be a more robust and precise method of assessing a tornado’s strength, and it uses 28 different types of damage indicators, such as building type, structures, and trees. 

Forecasting, Detection, and Communication
Exactly how and why tornadoes form is not completely understood. Tornado formation is believed to be dictated mainly by storm-scale conditions in and around rotating thunderstorms with well-defined circulation. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) National Weather Service (NWS), at the discretion of the Secretary of Commerce, has statutory authority for weather forecasting and for issuing storm warnings (15 U.S.C. §313). NWS provides weather, water, and climate forecasts and warnings for the United States, its territories, adjacent waters, and ocean areas. In addition, several NOAA programs, including the National Severe Storm Laboratory, focus on research to improve observations, modeling, and instrument development, among other activities.

Forecasting and Detection
Severe thunderstorm and tornado forecasts are made by the NWS Storm Prediction Center (SPC) and by local weather forecast offices (WFOs). SPC forecasters use weather observations, numerical weather prediction models, and ensemble forecasting (running several models at one time) to determine if atmospheric conditions, temperature, and wind flow patterns may lead to the formation of severe weather. SPC issues three-day forecasts (convective outlooks) on a daily basis and mesoscale discussions of severe thunderstorm potential for the next six hours, with an emphasis on the next one to three hours, as warranted.

If conditions favorable for either multiple tornadoes or a single intense tornado continue to develop, SPC issues a tornado watch that typically lasts six to eight hours. Such watches alert the public, emergency managers, storm spotters, broadcast media, and local WFOs that conditions have become favorable for the development of tornadoes. SPC aims to issue watches at least two hours before the first tornado event.

Forecasters and storm spotters recognize certain storm features from visual cues, such as the rear-flank downdraft, and particular patterns in Doppler radar images, such as the tornadic vortex signature (a region of intense concentrated rotation). WFOs issue tornado warnings when a tornado has been sighted or indicated by weather radar. The warning contains specific language about areas at risk, time frames, specific hazards, recommended safety precautions for those at risk, and the WFO issuing the warning.

Communication
Several methods exist to communicate warnings to the public, including outdoor warning sirens, local television and radio stations, cable television systems, cell phone applications, and NOAA Weather Radio All Hazards (NWR). NWS maintains and operates NWR, a nationwide network of radio stations broadcasting continuous weather information directly from the nearest WFO 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. NWR works with the Emergency Alert System, an automated system that allows NWS warnings to be disseminated over broadcasters, satellite digital audio services, direct broadcast satellite providers, cable television systems, and wireless cable systems.

Considerations
It is not clear whether the average number of tornadoes each year has changed over time, due to reporting issues, and if climate change has, or may, impact tornado frequency or intensity overall or in certain circumstances (see here for more about the differences between weather and climate). Congress may consider whether and how federal agencies should continue research into potential connections between climate change and tornado activity and whether there are ways to mitigate any climate change impacts. Additional considerations for Congress may include how social, behavioral, and demographic factors play a role in tornado-related fatalities and federal responsibilities in preventing and responding to damages from windstorms, such as tornadoes.

2) Lauren R. Stienstra coordinated (updated 17 December 2021) this CRS Insight report: 'Southeastern Tornado Outbreak: Brief Overview of FEMA Programs and Resources'.

Download CRS_Insight_Report_SE_Tornado_Outbreak_FEMA_Pgms_Resources_17Dec2021

Insight reports have embedded URLs that may not be displayed on a PDF. If not, access the online version to see them. I have pasted the entire report below. 

Introduction
A late-season tornado outbreak produced significant damage and numerous fatalities across portions of the southeastern United States and Ohio Valley from the evening of December 10 to the early morning of December 11, 2021. This Insight briefly overviews emergency and major disaster declarations and federal assistance programs relevant to those affected by the storm. It also provides selected Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports on federal emergency management policy.

President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. signed an emergency declaration for Kentucky (December 11) under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (P.L. 93-288, as amended; 42 U.S.C. §§5121 et seq.), to support state and local efforts to save lives, protect property, and avert the incident from becoming a major disaster. Under the declaration, Public Assistance (PA) for emergency protective measures is available for 16 counties. Subsequently, President Biden declared a major disaster forKentucky (December 12), making available a broader range of federal assistance programs to state, local, and territorial governments, private nonprofit organizations, and individuals through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and other federal agencies, including PA for emergency work (e.g., debris removal and emergency protective measures) and IndividualAssistance (IA) for eight counties. The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) is available throughout the entire commonwealth.

On December 13, 2021, President Biden approved emergency declarations authorizing PAemergency protective measures for nine counties in Tennessee and 13 counties in Illinois.

Additional declarations for other states (or additional forms of assistance for existing declarations) may be forthcoming if the President determines that federal assistance is necessary to support state and local recovery. This information will be published in FEMA’s declaration database.

FEMA’s website provides additional information on federal response efforts related to the tornado outbreak.

FEMA Emergency and Major Disaster Assistance

FEMA provides three major categories of assistance, some of which may be available pursuant to an emergency declaration and/or a major disaster declaration:

•   Public Assistance (PA) provides grants and direct assistance to state, tribal, territorial, and local governments, and certain private nonprofit organizations, for emergency work (can be authorized pursuant to either an emergency or major disaster declaration), and permanent work (can only be authorized pursuant to a major disaster declaration).

•   Individual Assistance (IA) provides financial and/or direct assistance to affected individuals and households, and can take the form of housing assistance and assistance for other needs (can be authorized pursuant to either an emergency or major disaster declaration), as well as crisis counseling, case management services, legal services, and disaster unemployment assistance (can only be authorized pursuant to a major disaster dec laration).

•   Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) funds mitigation and resiliency projects and programs, typically across the entire state or territory. States which receive a major disaster declaration are awarded Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) funding.

  The forms of assistance authorized by a declaration may vary by the designated areas, per the declaration (subject to amendment). The President can also amend emergency and major disaster declarations to decrease the cost-share requirements for PA.

  Federal Funding for Disaster Response and Recovery
  Typically, Congress also expresses interest in funding following a disaster declaration. FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) is the primary source of federal government resources for response and recovery activities. It is often used as an indicator of the overall availability of federal resources for response and recovery.

  As a result of historically high levels of annual and supplemental appropriations provided in recent fiscal years associated with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) response, the balance in the DRF stood at more than $40 billion in unobligated funds for major disasters before the tornadoes struck, more than a third of which was from the FY2022 continuing resolution. These resources are available to support the elements of the federal response and recovery effort authorized under the StaffordAct. DRF funds do not expire at the end of the fiscal year, and are to remain available until expended.

  Additional Recovery Resources

  FEMA Programs and Resources:

•   Public Assistance Program Overview

•   Individual Assistance Program Overview

•   Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Overview

•   FEMA Blog

  CRS Resources

  Tornado Resources

•   CRS Report R46438, Natural Disasters and Hazards: CRS Experts

•   CRS Report R44977, Preliminary Damage Assessments for Major Disasters: Overview, Analysis, and Policy Observations

•   CRS Report R44941, Disaster Debris Management: Requirements, Challenges, and Federal Agency Roles

  Federal Disaster Assistance—Process and Programs

•   CRS Report WMR10001, CRS Guide to Federal Emergency Management

•   CRS Report RL31734, Federal Disaster Assistance Response and Recovery Programs: Brief Summaries

•   CRS Report R41981, Congressional Primer on Responding to and Recovering from

  Major Disasters and Emergencies, by Bruce R. Lindsay and Elizabeth M. Webster.

•   CRS Report R46749, FEMA’s Public Assistance Program: A Primer and Considerations for Congress, by Erica A. Lee

•   CRS Report R46014, FEMA Individual Assistance Programs: An Overview

•   CRS Insight IN11187, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Assistance

•   CRS Report R45238, FEMA and SBA Disaster Assistance for Individuals and Households: Application Processes, Determinations, and Appeals

•   CRS Report R43537, FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund: Overview and Selected Issues

You can search for these CRS reports here.

Enjoy!

"Inside every silver lining there's a dark cloud." - George Carlin (as Al Sleet, the Hippy Dippy Weatherman)