Summary#
This bill tells the Secretary of Defense to make sure the Department of Defense keeps collecting regular data on how extreme weather and gradual environmental change affect military installations. It also requires that the data collection be expanded to cover all types of natural disasters that affect installations. The stated goal is to improve information on costs and effects so the military can better understand risks to bases.
- Main change: Continue and expand regular data collection by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment so it covers all natural disasters, not just extreme weather and incremental change.
- Who carries it out: The Secretary of Defense through the Under Secretary for Acquisition and Sustainment.
- Policy goal: Better data on costs and operational effects of disasters and changing conditions at military installations.
- Timing and detail: The bill does not set deadlines, data methods, or reporting formats.
- Status: Introduced in the House and referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.
What it means for you#
- Military installations and base managers: This would likely lead to more systematic tracking of damage, repair costs, mission impacts, and related effects when a base is hit by storms, floods, wildfires, earthquakes, or other natural disasters.
- DoD planners and program offices: They could get broader data to use for readiness planning, maintenance priorities, resilience upgrades, and budgeting.
- Congress and budget offices: More or different data could be available to justify spending requests for repairs, hardening, or relocation.
- Contractors and firms that work on bases: If the DoD uses the data to plan more resilience projects, some contractors may see more opportunities for design, construction, or repair work. This is a possible effect, not a promise.
- Local communities near bases: Better data may influence how installations manage risk and coordinate with local emergency response. This could mean more attention to shared infrastructure risks, but the bill does not require local actions.
Expenses#
No publicly available information.
- The bill text and supplied material do not include a cost estimate or fiscal note.
- Likely cost areas (not quantified here) could include staff time, data systems, analysis, reporting, and coordination across installations.
- It is unclear whether existing DoD resources would cover these tasks or whether additional funding would be requested.
Proponents' View#
- The bill appears intended to provide a clearer, broader picture of how natural hazards affect military readiness and installation costs.
- Supporters may argue this could improve planning and help prioritize investments to protect missions and property.
- Better data could make spending requests to Congress more evidence-based and targeted.
- Expanding the scope to all natural disasters aims to capture events beyond storms, such as earthquakes, wildfires, or drought-related impacts.
Opponents' View#
- One concern is the lack of detail on how often data must be collected, what standards or methods to use, and how results must be reported.
- The bill does not provide a cost estimate or say who will pay for expanded data collection. This raises questions about added administrative burden.
- There may be overlap with existing DoD, federal, or state data collection efforts; the bill does not explain how duplication will be avoided.
- It is unclear how the data will be used to change policy, funding, or operations, or whether the data will be publicly available.