SNOW Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Kennedy, Timothy M. [D-NY-26]
- Committees
- Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jan 16, 2025
Bottom line
The SNOW Act aims to make federal disaster aid more accessible and financially supportive for communities, particularly those with lower incomes or in non-urban settings, when responding to and recovering from severe winter weather.
What it actually does
This bill expands the types of federal assistance available for winter storms under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, including hazard mitigation and emergency work. It establishes a new process for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to waive certain declaration requirements for winter storms. Crucially, it increases the federal cost share for disaster assistance from 75% to 90% for 'rural or disadvantaged areas' across several key Stafford Act programs.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that current disaster relief frameworks do not adequately address the unique challenges and costs associated with severe winter storms, especially in vulnerable communities. They contend that increasing the federal cost share for rural and disadvantaged areas will alleviate financial burdens on state and local governments, enabling faster and more comprehensive recovery and mitigation efforts.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that expanding the scope of eligible disasters and increasing federal cost shares could significantly increase federal spending and potentially strain the national disaster relief fund. They may also raise concerns about the broad definition of 'winter storm' and the potential for moral hazard, where states and localities might rely more on federal aid rather than investing in their own preparedness.
The bill is short and relatively straightforward, allowing for a quick and informed evaluation by interested readers.
Section 2(a), amending Section 404 of the Stafford Act (42 U.S.C. 5170c)
Winter Storm Hazard Mitigation Eligibility
This provision allows states and localities receiving federal hazard mitigation assistance to use these funds specifically for activities that reduce the risk of future damage from winter storms. This explicitly includes acquiring equipment for snow removal, broadening the types of eligible mitigation projects under the Stafford Act.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that proactive mitigation, including snow removal equipment, is essential for reducing long-term costs and community disruption from winter storms, and this provision ensures federal funds can be used for these critical needs.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against expanding hazard mitigation eligibility, as it is generally seen as a cost-effective approach to disaster preparedness.
Tradeoffs
The tradeoff involves prioritizing winter storm mitigation within existing hazard mitigation budgets, potentially shifting resources from other types of disaster mitigation.
Section 2(b)
Streamlined Winter Storm Major Disaster Declarations
This section directs FEMA to create a process to waive the usual snowfall amount and statewide total damages requirements for a major disaster declaration related to a winter storm. This waiver is triggered if at least two specific conditions are met, such as a state's own damage threshold being exceeded, severe weather conditions (high winds/low wind chill or prolonged lake-effect snow), or the affected area being economically disadvantaged or non-urban.
Section 2(c)(1)(A) and (B)
Broadened Federal Aid Categories for Winter Storms
This provision mandates FEMA to issue regulations to provide assistance for winter storms under a wide range of Stafford Act sections. This includes public assistance categories like debris removal, roads and bridges, public buildings, and utilities, as well as individual assistance and emergency work, particularly when state or local capacity is overwhelmed.
Section 3, amending Sections 403, 404, 407, and 503 of the Stafford Act
Enhanced Federal Funding for Disaster Relief in Vulnerable Communities
This section significantly increases the federal share of disaster assistance from 75% to 90% for 'rural or disadvantaged areas' across several key Stafford Act programs: Essential Assistance (403), Hazard Mitigation (404), Debris Removal (407), and Emergency Work (503). A 'rural or disadvantaged area' is defined as one with a real median household income below the national median or an area that is not urban.
Defines 'rural or disadvantaged area' as an area where the real median household income is below the real median household income in the United States, or an area that is not urban, as determined by the Bureau of the Census. This definition is then applied to eligibility for increased federal cost share across multiple Stafford Act programs.
Section 3(1)(B), adding Section 403(e) to the Stafford Act
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to define terms once and reference them, ensuring consistency across the act.
Case for: Proponents argue this precise definition ensures that increased federal support is directed specifically to communities most likely to struggle with disaster recovery costs due to economic vulnerability or lack of urban resources.
Case against: Critics might argue that the definition could be too broad or too narrow, potentially including areas that are not truly 'disadvantaged' or excluding others that are. The reliance on Bureau of the Census data might also be debated for its timeliness or granularity.
Estimated impact: This definition underpins potentially billions of dollars in increased federal contributions to disaster recovery and mitigation in specific geographic areas over time.
Outlines three specific conditions, at least two of which must be met, for FEMA to waive snowfall methodology and statewide damages requirements for a major disaster declaration related to a winter storm. These include state-level damage declarations, specific severe weather metrics (wind speeds > 58 mph and wind chill < 0°F, or prolonged lake-effect snow), and the affected area being economically disadvantaged or non-urban.
Section 2(b)(1)-(3)
Why it matters:These are technical criteria necessary for administrative implementation, not intended for broad policy debate in their granular detail.
Case for: Proponents argue these specific, objective criteria provide clear guidance for FEMA, ensuring that waivers are granted based on demonstrable need and severe impact, rather than arbitrary decisions.
Case against: Critics might argue that the specificity could still lead to edge cases where communities are severely impacted but narrowly miss the criteria, or that the criteria might not fully capture all forms of winter storm impact.
Estimated impact: These conditions will directly determine which winter storm events qualify for federal major disaster declarations, potentially increasing the number of such declarations and associated federal spending.