Committee hears bill to create Nevada hazard mitigation revolving loan fund under federal STORM Act

The Nevada Senate Committee on Government Affairs heard testimony on Senate Bill 39, which would authorize the Nevada Division of Emergency Management to apply for and administer a hazard mitigation revolving loan fund under the federal Safeguarding Tomorrow through Ongoing Risk Mitigation (STORM) Act.

The bill would let the state seek FEMA capitalization grants that seed a revolving loan account. Brett Comston, administrator for the Nevada Division of Emergency Management, told the committee the program is intended to give local and tribal jurisdictions access to low-interest loans to finance mitigation activities such as wildfire fuels reduction, culverts and flood diversion work. "This program offers capitalization grants to state agencies responsible for emergency management enabling them to create revolving loan funds for mitigation projects and activities to increase resilience," Comston said.

Committee members and witnesses stressed why the policy matters. The nut graf: supporters said SB 39 would reduce long-term risk to life and property across Nevada by helping smaller jurisdictions that lack cash on hand to meet grant match requirements and complete mitigation projects before disasters strike.

In the hearing, senators pressed presenters on the programlimits and how federal rules would apply locally. Senator Ellison asked, "Is there a cap on that money that a county or an agency can fund by?" Comston and other division officials answered that any cap would depend on the amount FEMA allocates to states and on how Nevada chooses to apply; witnesses noted FEMA provided $150 million in capitalization grants last year distributed across applicants nationwide.

Committee members also asked whether tribal governments could use the loans; Comston said tribes could apply either directly to FEMA or use the state loan fund as an option. Senators raised procurement and wage concerns: some members asked whether jurisdictions receiving the loans could avoid state public-works bidding requirements or prevailing-wage rules. A division official responded that recipients would still be subject to all federal mitigation-grant requirements, including federal or state prevailing-wage rules where applicable, because the larger portion of project funding remains a FEMA mitigation grant.

Local officials and water utilities testified in support. Taylor Allison, Lyon County Emergency Management and Government Affairs director, said Lyon County recently completed a FEMA-approved multijurisdictional hazard mitigation plan with projects including wildfire fuels reduction and stormwater improvements and urged the committee to enable financing options for local projects. Wesley Harper, director of government affairs for the City of North Las Vegas, and a representative of the Southern Nevada Water Authority also voiced support, saying the bill would benefit smaller and rural water systems.

Officials described basic program mechanics discussed at the hearing: an initial state seed contribution (witnesses said the state typically would provide a 10% seed contribution while FEMA would provide 90% of capitalization for the initial fund) and the loan fundauthority to make low-interest loans that could be used to cover the local match (commonly 25% on mitigation grants) that jurisdictions struggle to finance upfront.

No formal vote was recorded at the committee hearing. Senators closed public testimony after support statements and the committee chair closed the hearing on SB 39.

What was not decided: the committee did not set a funding cap, adopt specific rules for loan terms, or change procurement law. Several senators said they want to ensure federal and state procurement and wage laws apply to projects funded through the loan fund.