Us Congress House Bill HB243

Us Congress 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/10/23
• Refer: 1/10/23

Caption

Emergency and Disaster Preparedness for Farm Animals Act This bill requires producers to develop disaster preparedness plans that include adverse weather plans to be eligible for livestock indemnity payments and emergency loans due to adverse weather under certain agricultural disaster assistance programs.

Impact

If enacted, HB 243 would introduce significant amendments to the Agricultural Act of 2014 and the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act. Notably, the bill stipulates that in order to receive livestock indemnity payments or emergency loans, producers must submit disaster preparedness plans that outline actions related to various adverse weather scenarios specific to their region and livestock types. This change is intended to not only prepare farmers but also to optimize federal disaster assistance resources, ensuring that funds are allocated to those who have proactively prepared for extreme conditions.

Summary

House Bill 243, known as the Emergency and Disaster Preparedness for Farm Animals Act, seeks to amend existing agricultural laws by requiring producers to establish comprehensive disaster preparedness plans to qualify for disaster assistance programs. This initiative arises from increased awareness of the severe impacts of extreme weather on agriculture, as highlighted by the substantial losses experienced in recent years due to hurricanes, droughts, and other climate-related events. Supporters argue that mandated planning will better equip farmers to mitigate losses and protect livestock during disasters.

Contention

Although the bill is rooted in the spirit of enhancing disaster resilience in the agricultural sector, it has also sparked debates regarding the feasibility and implementation of such requirements. Concerns have been raised about the potential burden on smaller producers who may struggle to develop comprehensive plans due to limited resources or expertise. Critics argue that while the intent to protect livestock and aid recovery is commendable, the feasibility of imposing such planning obligations might adversely affect those least equipped to comply.