HR-8810-116
Became Public Law No: 116-323.
Sponsored by Suzan DelBene (D-WA)
What it does
This bill directs the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to create a National Landslide Hazards Reduction Program. The program would develop a national landslide risk strategy, build a public database of landslide hazards, expand early warning systems for debris flows, and set up rapid federal response procedures for major landslide events. The bill also authorizes grants for landslide research and mapping, and establishes a 3D Elevation Program to improve nationwide terrain data collection.
Who benefits
Residents of landslide-prone areas, particularly in mountainous and coastal states such as California, Washington, Oregon, Alaska, Colorado, and Appalachian states. Local and state emergency management agencies would gain access to better hazard data and federal support. Researchers and universities would benefit from new grant funding. Communities in U.S. territories (e.g., Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands) prone to debris flows would also benefit. Farmers and water managers in drought-affected areas would benefit from improved groundwater and subsidence monitoring.
Who is hurt
Taxpayers broadly would bear the cost of funding the program, grants, and database infrastructure. Federal agencies and USGS staff would face new administrative and reporting mandates. Property developers or landowners in areas newly identified as high-risk by the hazard inventory database could see reduced property values or increased regulatory scrutiny. Competing federal science programs could face indirect budget pressure if appropriations are constrained.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that landslides cause an average of 25–50 deaths and over $1 billion in damages annually in the United States, yet the country lacks a coordinated federal strategy to track, predict, or respond to these hazards. They contend that a centralized national database and early warning system would give communities the information they need to protect lives and property before disasters strike. Proponents also argue that the 3D Elevation Program would produce high-value terrain data with broad applications beyond landslide preparedness, including flood mapping, infrastructure planning, and agricultural management, multiplying the return on federal spending. They further note that the bill passed with bipartisan support and was signed into law, reflecting broad agreement that this is a core, appropriate function of federal science agencies.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that landslide hazard mapping and emergency preparedness are primarily local and state responsibilities, and that creating a new federal program risks duplicating efforts already underway at the state level while adding federal bureaucracy. They contend that the bill authorizes spending without a guaranteed funding stream, meaning the program's effectiveness depends entirely on future appropriations that may never materialize. Critics also raise concerns that a federally maintained hazard inventory database could be used to impose land-use restrictions or trigger regulatory consequences for property owners without adequate due process protections. Some argue that limited federal science budgets would be better directed toward hazards with broader national reach, and that the bill's scope — covering mapping, research, grants, elevation data, and groundwater monitoring — is too diffuse to be effective.