A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION reestablishing the Disaster Prevention and Resiliency Task Force to study preparedness, mitigation, response, recovery, risk assessment, infrastructure resilience, and planning for natural disasters that impact the Commonwealth.
SCR 96 is a concurrent resolution that reestablishes Kentucky’s Disaster Prevention and Resiliency Task Force for the 2026 Interim. The task force is directed to study and make recommendations on disaster preparedness, mitigation, response, recovery, risk assessment, infrastructure resilience, temporary housing, and long-term planning for natural disasters and other disaster threats affecting the Commonwealth. Its work is broad enough to include flooding, tornadoes, drought, wildfires, extreme heat, hazardous materials incidents, infectious diseases, and man-made disasters.
The resolution gives the task force a detailed agenda: compare Kentucky’s approaches with other states, review governance and agency structures, analyze funding and cost-sharing, examine data gaps, and assess the role of state, federal, and local governments. It also specifically asks the task force to consider impacts on transportation, critical infrastructure, stormwater management, insurance availability and affordability, affordable housing, economic development, labor force issues, and compliance with existing laws. The task force must meet monthly during the 2026 Interim and report recommendations, including possible legislation or administrative action, by December 1, 2026.
The bill’s practical impact is procedural rather than regulatory. It does not itself change substantive law or create new mandates for agencies or private parties; instead, it reauthorizes a legislative study body through the Legislative Research Commission and sets its membership, duties, and reporting deadline. Any legal or policy changes would come later, if the task force’s recommendations are adopted in future legislation or administrative action.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly supportive of continued disaster-resilience planning. The resolution emphasizes Kentucky’s high exposure to major disasters, the value of mitigation spending, and the need to build on prior interim work and past recovery efforts, including the response to the 2022 eastern Kentucky flooding. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no evidence in the record of organized opposition or debate; the measure appears framed as a consensus-oriented study resolution.
Any likely contention would center on policy scope and implementation rather than the concept of studying disaster resilience itself. The resolution asks the task force to examine broad governance models, funding mechanisms, insurance, housing, infrastructure, and potential compliance issues, which could raise questions about cost, overlap with existing agencies, and whether a task force is the best vehicle for action. However, those concerns are only implicit in the resolution’s expansive charge and are not documented in the provided discussion or voting history.
SCR 96 does not amend Kentucky statutes or create new substantive duties; it reestablishes an interim legislative task force under the Legislative Research Commission. Its effect is to continue a formal study process that may lead to future legislation, administrative changes, or recommendations affecting disaster preparedness, mitigation, infrastructure resilience, housing, insurance, and emergency management policy across state and local government.
The bill’s tone is generally favorable and proactive, reflecting bipartisan or at least institutional support for disaster preparedness and resilience planning. The resolution cites Kentucky’s repeated exposure to major disasters and the economic value of mitigation, suggesting a shared view that continued study is necessary. No votes or committee testimony are included, so there is no recorded opposition in the provided materials.
No specific contention is documented in the provided record, but the resolution’s broad scope suggests possible areas of debate: whether the task force duplicates existing emergency-management functions, whether it should focus on governance reform versus technical resilience issues, and how recommendations might affect funding, insurance markets, housing policy, and compliance burdens. If contested, those concerns would likely come from stakeholders worried about cost, administrative overlap, or the reach of any future policy proposals rather than from disagreement over the need for disaster planning itself.