Weather Bill Introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives

Yesterday, a bill was introduced in the House of Representatives by Oklahoma's Rep. Ralph Lucas regarding amendments and additions to the 2017 weather bill that passed Congress. Per the above graphic, it was already passed out of committee. You can find the bill here. 

The bill is extremely long and so "I went through it so you don't have to." 😏  Below, you will find brief summaries of the bill's features and my comments about each. Unfortunately, there is nothing about a National Disaster Review Board. 

The usual people were writing that this bill would prevent the public from getting public forecasts and storm warnings. Of course, it does the opposite. The very first item is to emphasize the NWS's public safety mission with the emphasis on "public." Agree 100%. The NWS sometimes strays too far from its core mission and I was glad to see that emphasized. 

With regard to the above, here are some specific items:

• There will be research money into general storm warning techniques available to 2030 (the duration of this bill). 
• There is a provision regarding the improvement of tornado warnings. My problem with these two items is that they are funding the same people and groups who have allowed the deterioration of the tornado warning system since 2010. There needs to be fresh thinking introduced into NWS decision-making. 
• They have allocated some money for an improvement to the Fujita Scale. 
• There are quite a few provisions to improve the quality of hurricane forecasts. That is a good idea because NOAA has made significant improvements in hurricane forecasts in recent years. 

There is a lengthy section regarding improvements in tsunami warnings. I don't know whether these provisions were drafted before or after last month's faulty tsunami warning. Interestingly, there is a requirement that the U.S. have two tsunami warning centers so there is redundancy. While I have no objection in theory, there is no backup to the NWS's Storm Prediction Center nor is there a backup to the National Hurricane Center. Perhaps Congress should consider backups for each of these centers, also.

• The U.S. Geological Service has an earthquake notification network that gives users are few seconds of warning when a major earthquake occurs so they can shelter before the major shaking arrives. Congress wants to add tsunami warnings to that service. Great idea!
• The Tsunami Warning Centers (there's one in Hawaii and one in Alaska) will be required to do outreach at coastal NWS Weather Forecast Offices. Good idea. 
• There is a provision that requires an evaluation of the effectiveness of tsunami warnings that requires outsiders (non-government) users to participate. Big step in the right direction!
• Then, a "Tsunami Advisory Panel" will be set up to advise the warning centers and NOAA as to future improvements to tsunami warnings. Provided there are enough outsiders, this is a good idea. 

The next area of the bill involves improving computing capabilities -- which is desperately needed. 

• In addition to better computing facilities, the bill calls for greater use of unmanned platforms in hazardous circumstances (hurricanes, near tornadoes, etc.). This has great potential to provide vital data without putting humans at risk. Generally, unmanned vehicles are less expensive than manned vehicles.
• The bill explicitly says we need these tools to "maintain leadership" in weather computing. It appears the people who drafted this bill are unaware that we have dropped to #4. Regardless, NOAA is required to report to Congress in this regard two years after the bill becomes law. 

There are provisions to improve landslide forecasting. 

It creates a radar test and evaluation group that will look into phased array radar, "commercial radar," (not sure if this means tapping into existing radars operated by the private sector or if it means purchasing off-the-shelf radars), et cetera. I have a real concern about this because it appears the same people who have been making the poor decisions the past 25 years will be involved. Congress wants a report on their progress but not for five years. They don't expect a new radar network to be in place until September 30, 2040! We need it at least ten years earlier. Worse, the bill does not include input from private sector meteorologists. 

• One good thing: The next provision in the bill regards filling radar data gaps and perhaps putting additional meteorological sensors in "highly vulnerable regions." 

There is a provision regarding the improvement of forecasts of coastal flooding and storm surge forecasts. 

There is a lengthy provision regarding the improvement of aviation weather forecasts (turbulence, icing, etc.). This is most welcome. A question I have: could this be contracted out? I'll explain below why I make that suggestion. 

The next provision is a difficult for this non-attorney and non-politician to follow. It appears to direct NOAA (with help from NASA) to design the next generation of weather satellites and to accept input from the private sector. If someone knows more about the intent of this section, please feel free to leave info in the comments. 

There are provisions regarding new NWS forecast data systems (AWIPS), additional state weather instrument networks, and similar systems. 

Next up, the bill wants to look at the effectiveness of tornado and hurricane hazard communications. However, this -- again -- is asking NWS/NOAA to evaluate itself which is far less than optimal. 

The final provisions involve updating NOAA Weather Radio (throwing good money after bad), improving ag weather forecasts and water management forecasts which are worthwhile. The drought program is mentioned but since those are made by the University of Nebraska the goal isn't clear to me. 

Give the size of NOAA, it seems this is a lot of heavy lifting. It seems that the R&D provisions for aviation forecasting and several other areas could be contracted out. NOAA needs as much fresh thinking as possible.