A BILL to direct the Department of Housing and Community Development to allow the Virginia Disaster Assistance Fund be used for post-disaster recovery projects aligned with state or local floodplain management standards.
HB904 directs the Department of Housing and Community Development to revise the criteria for the Virginia Disaster Assistance Fund so the fund may be used for post-disaster recovery projects that comply with applicable floodplain management standards. The bill specifies that projects must meet state floodplain standards for state-owned buildings or local floodplain standards, whichever are more stringent. It also directs the Department to prioritize projects that use nature-based solutions or green infrastructure when those options are available.
The bill further requires the Department to coordinate with the Interagency Resilience Management Team when reviewing new fund applications, with the goal of ensuring that funded projects align with the Commonwealth’s resilience principles. In practical terms, the measure would expand the types of recovery projects eligible for disaster assistance funding and tie those projects more closely to floodplain compliance and resilience planning.
If enacted, HB904 would amend the administrative criteria governing the Virginia Disaster Assistance Fund, affecting how the Department of Housing and Community Development awards recovery money after disasters. It would not appear to create a new standalone program, but would broaden eligible uses of existing fund dollars for post-disaster recovery projects that satisfy floodplain management requirements. The bill would also elevate nature-based and green infrastructure approaches within the funding process and formalize coordination with the state resilience team.
The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded votes, and the bill was left in the House Appropriations Committee. Based on the text alone, the measure appears policy-oriented and technical, with a focus on resilience, flood mitigation, and disaster recovery planning rather than a controversial program expansion. The lack of recorded debate suggests there is no documented public sentiment in the provided materials beyond the bill’s introduction and referral.
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials. Potential areas of debate, based on the bill text, could include whether the Disaster Assistance Fund should be used for broader recovery projects, whether state or local floodplain standards should control, and whether prioritizing nature-based solutions could limit flexibility or increase project costs. However, no legislator, committee member, or stakeholder objections are included in the record provided.