November 5, 2026 · Government, Military and Veterans Affairs · 6,933 words · 2 speakers · 16 segments
Welcome to the government, military and veteran affairs Committee.
I am Senator andersen from omaha, representing the best district, 49th district, and I serve as the vice chair of the Committee. The chair Senator sanders will not be able to be with us this morning. The Committee will take up the resolutions in the order posted. For those of you who may be joining us for the first time. Interim study resolutions are introduced by senators who believe that the Legislature should investigate a certain topic that may be subject to future legislation. The government Committee is here today to receive information about these topics. This public hearing is your opportunity to be part of the legislative process. We will begin with the introducing senators opening statement, followed by testifiers, and then the senators closing remarks if they wish to give them. If you're applying to testify today, please fill out one of the testifier sheets on the table in the back of the room. Be sure to print clearly and fill it out completely when it's your turn to come forward to testify. Give the testifier sheet to the page or to the Committee clerk. When you come to testify, please speak clearly into the microphone. Tell us your name and spell your first name and last name to ensure we have an accurate record. We will not be using the light system today. Questions from the Committee may follow. Also, Committee members may come and go during during the hearings has nothing to do with the importance of the resolution. It's just part of the process as senators may have other business in different committees to attend to. A few final items facilitate today's hearing. If you have any handouts or copies of your testimony, please bring at least 12 copies and give them to the page. If you do not have enough copies, the page will make sufficient copies for you. Please silence or turn off your cell phones. You may see Committee members using their electronic devices to access more information. Verbal outburst or applause are not permitted in the hearing room. Such behavior may be cause for you to be asked to leave the hearing. Finally, Committee procedures for all committees state that written comments on resolution must be posted by 8 a.m. On the day of the hearing. The only acceptable method of submission is via the Legislature's website. I will now have the Committee members introduce themselves. Starting to my right. Good morning. Senator john cavanaugh, district nine, midtown omaha. The best district in Nebraska. Senator dan lonowski, district 33, which is adams county, kearney county and rural. Phelps county. Senator dave wordekemper, district 15, dodge county. Western douglas county. Also assisting the Committee today. To my left is legal counsel kenneth pancake, and to my far left is Committee clerk rebecca bartunek. Is that correct? Okay. And page julie cash. With Senator sanders not being here today. The resolution will be introduced by mr. Dick clerk.
Miss clerk is up to you. Thank you, vice chair andersen and members of the government, military and veterans affairs Committee. My name is dick clerk. Dickclark, and I am one of your two Committee legal counsels for this Committee. I'm here today to introduce LR 384. A little background in 2018, the Nebraska Legislature passed Senator laura ibach occupational board reform act, or what I will call obra in my testimony. And among other things, obra requires that legislative committees like this one regularly review occupational regulations that are on the books and subject to the jurisdiction of that Committee. We were supposed to cycle through all of our occupational regs every five years and just on a rolling basis, see how well they seem to be working. Then this Committee is supposed to make any recommendations for changes that we may need to make in order for these regulations to employ the least restrictive means necessary for achieving their policy objectives. Obra includes a set of principles that are very much about opening up labor markets and allowing people to work, and not having to get a permission slip from the government unless there's a strong policy reason to do it. And sometimes there is, and there are some elaboration of those principles in the statute, actually. So obra is supposed to be a tool to help committees know when and how to update occupational regulations, and sometimes when to get rid of those regulations altogether, like we've seen happen with a few licenses, including notably locksmiths a few years back. Over the last seven years, our government Committee staff has prepared these reports under the law. And this year we are for a second time looking at how Nebraska regulates truth and deception examiners, and that includes polygraph and analyst and voice stress analysts, computer voice stress analysts. So this licensing program is housed in the secretary of state's office. And as part of the obra review process, I, as the Committee legal counsel, requested program information from the secretary of state, and they have responded. There's a handout in front of you, which includes the data they provided in their response, and we thank them for their timely response. I do understand there's somebody from the secretary of state's office here to testify in our hearing today. We were hoping to hear from some members of our law enforcement community who have kind of run into some friction with the current version of the licensing law, but I understand whether they're able to attend or not. There may be some updates to the regs coming from the secretary of state's office that can help reduce those friction points. So you have another handout as well in front of you. And that is a policy brief that was prepared by former Senator laura ibach, who's now a fellow at the platte institute.
She expresses her regret for missing the hearing due to illness, but she provides her comments and the official position of the platte institute in that second handout. That should be before you. With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Clerk. Are there any questions? Thank you. Are there additional testifiers on LR 385384 or. Good morning, vice chair. Andersen Committee. My name is david wilson, dav I'd wilson. I am the licensing director and associate general counsel at the secretary of state's office. And the truth and deception examiners. Licensing is my purview or part of my purview at that position. I've been there for 12 years now, so I appeared before this Committee five years ago for the first over report, and I'm here today to talk about the second one. Everyone was given a copy of the most recent submission, and two items on there that I will point out at this time, just so I can talk about them later, are the number of hearings that we've had and the change in the budget. And the first one is the number of hearings for the advisory board that the secretary has created through regulation, to assist him or her with reviewing new applicants. And the budget information was updated from the last time. If you look at the prior report, our budget was something like several tens of thousands of dollars, and this time it is just several thousands of dollars. That's just because back in 2021, the secretary of state's licensing division budget was just one bucket. And we couldn't differentiate between the different license types that we have. Truth and deception, collection agency, private detective, things like that. Between 2021 and 2026, we've changed our budgeting practices and now we can so we can more accurately reflect the amount of time and money we spend on administering these licenses. So that isn't a typo. That is just more accurate information for the board. We've been regulating truth and deception licenses since 1980. We currently have 41 licensed professionals in the state. All of them are current or former law enforcement members. And we have licensed just seven. We've issued seven new licenses in the last five years. That's a little deceptive, because four of those were issued to two individuals who had been licensed for well over 15 years. They just, through various circumstances, need to be relicensed. And they got licensed again as a public examiner and a private examiner, and briefly, a public examiner is a law enforcement officer who operates these machines. And then a private examiner is someone who can do it on their own time, not as a member of a public body. And it is quite common for law enforcement officers to have both a public and a private license.
So while the number of licenses we've issued in the last five years is seven, we've only issued licenses to three new individuals. The general nature of the regulation hasn't changed in the last five years. However, as alluded to by mr. Clerk, we are looking at changing our regulations to allow for an equivalence to the current requirement of an internship for new licenses. I will speak briefly about that, but I can answer more questions if you have right now. If you are new to the polygraph or voice stress world to get license in Nebraska, you have to attend a school for that instrument and then undergo a one year internship under a licensed supervisor here in the state. During the internship, you are required to get a certain number of exams completed, and my entire tenure with this board and with this license, that internship has always proved problematic because while they can get the total number of exams done, which is 40, they have trouble getting the number of workload specific issue exams done in the internship period. Specific issue exams are where they are trying to find the truth of a specific matter. Think of it as your typical police investigation. Did you rob that grocery store? The other exams that they do are pre-employment exams and they have no trouble getting those. It's the specific issue exams that are troubling or trouble for the licensees and the interns to get. This is particularly a problem for voice stress examiners. There are currently a small number of them licensed throughout the state, but really only one active licensee. He is a member of the lincoln county sheriff's office, and they've spoken to our office several times, including this year, about the difficulty they are having with getting a second member of their office to be licensed as a boisterous examiner, just because they do not have the ability to meet those exams. The specific issue exams are not up to them. They can't set up a scenario where they can perform one. It is entirely at the whim of the public, essentially whether or not they can meet these exams for an internship requirement. Speaking with them and the difficulties that even our larger agencies have had, omaha police, douglas county sheriff lincoln and lancaster and the state patrol, we've decided to create an equivalency to an internship where they can propose one to us, where it doesn't have to meet the exact internship requirements, but we feel confident that they are able to train this person and can verify that at the end of the internship, they will be a qualified examiner. Like I said, that's in the works, but it is something that we are trying to do to alleviate the stress. And frankly, inability of some agencies to get their officers licensed. So. I don't really have any written comments. So I just kind of trailed off there.
I can end my testimony now, but I will field any questions you may have. Any questions from the Committee? Senator cavanaugh? Thank you, vice chair. Mr. Olson, this is interesting. I just surprised I'm talking about lie detectors and things, but just on the specific question of the budget. So it's on the second page and I'm looking at maybe operations. It's fy222120. Is that $2,900? Is that. Yes. That's correct. And so then it's basically you're estimating or no, I guess. Well, we're all the way up through 318. What is what are the costs that the state is bearing? Like what is. So we're not administering a test of any kind, are we? Yes. We do have a written exam. That one. However, it can be performed with a proctor. We can just send it out if they want to or they can come to our office. We don't have a specific exam site. I can just go over the general operations and that might answer more questions. So in the licensing division there is myself, the director, and I have one assistant, the licensing assistant, and and they handle most of the most of the work for licensing. They'll receive the new applications, review them, work with the applicant to get everything in order, and then send it to me for approval. Once a person is licensed, then we really don't have much interaction with them other than yearly renewals, which are a one page application where they submit it and submit their fee. So there's very little work on our end. When someone is licensed getting the license, we do have to have the internship license, which comes first. That does take a little bit of time from our office because like I said, we do have to administer the exam if they want to take it in our office. But again, they come to us. My, my assistant will proctor the exam and all grade it. It's not that much time. And then we have to set a board meeting with the advisory board. Now that's an unpaid position. So we don't have any expenses there. It does take some time out of my work to arrange that. But you know, it's not something that happens frequently. Like I said, we had one meeting in the last five years that has gone down quite significantly. When I first started, we had a meeting or two every year, and I was speaking with our general counsel, who was in my position prior to me. She said when she started, they'd have 2 or 3 meetings a year. So you can see how it's gone down. So the the budget estimate is just what I estimated my and my assistant's time throughout our day over the year to be. And it's, I think it's set at like 3 to 5% of our. Gotcha. And what are the fees? Like? What does it bring in.
Renewals are, I believe, $25 a year. And that would be our biggest source of funding. And since there's 40 of them, that would be what. Yeah, yeah, it's it's minimal. What's a new application fee? 50. Yeah. And the internship is. 15 I believe with an extension possible the you know, the fees are very low. It's this is not something that our office, you know, really generates a lot of revenue with. That doesn't cost that much. No, it doesn't it really is. I mean, right now, with the minimal amount of new licenses that we issue, the only time we have any real work is during the renewal period, which is happening right now, which is one of. Three licenses that we have renewal periods during this period. And I can tell you that it is the smallest amount of work for us at this time. So in terms of why those budget numbers are so small, it really is just a reflection of how. How little time it takes our office to manage our current license load. Gotcha. And do we need any statutory changes or. In terms of need? No, everything is is in order. We are making that change for through regulations or attempting to. We have to do it because there is a requirement for new applicants to undergo an internship or equivalent. That is the barrier to entry for all of the new licenses. Either you are licensed in another state and have worked there for several years and come here, which is a problem because only 24, 23, 24 states actually licensed polygraph examiners. And there's only Nebraska that licenses voice stress examiners in the same way. Or you have this internship. And another wrinkle in that is because all of our applicants are law enforcement officials, they're almost all Nebraska born and bred, you know, working for the state. So the internship is the only way to get a license if you haven't been licensed previously, which is, again, all of our applicants. So that is, like I said, the barrier to entry is this internship or the equivalent. And it has proved difficult in the last several years for new applicants. But you don't need us to change the statute to change to that equivalency. No. We can create the equivalency through regulation. It's just required because of the statute. Okay. So. Are there any other questions? Thank you. Chair. Just for clarification on my and I was looking at the statute. And to follow up on Senator cavanaugh, 81-1921, which is in our packet. I think the renewal is $100. Once you've established the licensing and it's every two years. But for what you're talking about, the internship, you're correct. It is $50 and it's yearly. Am I reading that correctly? I just want to be clear on that. It's 18 or I'm sorry, 81, 1921 and 1922.
Because before you started speaking, I was actually curious on how often they had to get a license. If it was one time. And during that period of having the license, do they have to do like ceus or ongoing training to get the renewal? I think the statute looking at is for supervisors. Is that correct? It was in our packet. It just says 384 statute. I apologize if I misspoke. I can look into that. And well. I think you were. Correct on your fees. And that was for the internship, which is what we were talking about. But once you are licensed, I guess the way I was reading this, it was every two years it was good for. And it was $100. But I. You know, not to I don't I don't have those in front of me, so I can't speak to that in terms of continuing education. No, that is not required by statute. The equivalency that we are considering would require some continuing education, just because it's a way to confirm that they are still able to perform these exams competently. We don't have that as is supervisors who will. Supervise. Interns do have to go to additional training, but that is only if you choose to become a supervisor. It is not required for your license. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Seeing none, mr. Wilson, thank you for your time. Are there any other testifiers? Seeing none. Then we'll close this hearing on LR 384 and move to the opening of LR 385, mr. Clerk. Give the floor. Thank you, vice chair andersen. Members of the government, military and veterans affairs Committee. My name is dick clerk, dickclark, and I am one of your two Committee legal counsels for this Committee. Today, I'm here to introduce LR 385. This lr is the interim study equivalent of a shell bill. Sometimes things come up after session that need the attention of the Committee and this miscellaneous subjects interim study resolution provides a platform for such matters. Chairwoman sanders was made aware by the league of Nebraska municipalities that some issues had come up relating to emergency management, and I guess there's some interplay with the municipalities there that draws their interest. But we have asked mr. Erv portis, who is the assistant director of the Nebraska emergency management agency or fema, to address the Committee today. I also see that we have our adjutant general here and are grateful for his attending this hearing as well. And we do have miss lynn rex from the league of Nebraska municipalities. Finally, as a point of personal privilege, I'd like to relate to this Committee that after nine years as a Committee, legal counsel and almost 16 years working in this building, this will be my final public hearing in the Legislature as a staffer.
So thanks to all of you and to your past colleagues for allowing me to participate in the important work of this body. For so long. It's been fascinating and enriching for me, and it's been a joy to raise my three kids at least partly in these hallways. So thank you. Happy to answer any questions. Mr. Clerk, on behalf of the Committee and myself, I want to thank you for all your time the outstanding counsel that you provided to myself, the Committee, and many of the members, deeply valued and greatly appreciated. So we wish you all the best and godspeed in your future endeavors. Thank you sir. And with that, are there any questions for mr. Clerk? Senator cavanaugh? Thank you, vice chair. I'll just add to that to really appreciate you, mr. Clerk. And I've always said you're the best legal counsel in the building. So there's big shoes to fill in this Committee. And you've had some really important work you've done here. I really appreciate you and we're going to miss you. Thank you sir. Any other questions or comments? Thank you, mr. Clerk, sir. The floor is yours. Thank you, Senator andersen, members of the Committee. My name is lynn rex, lynnrex, representing the league of Nebraska municipalities. We really appreciate the Committee holding this hearing. First of all, I'd like to start off by saying we think that the Nebraska emergency management association and agency has done just an outstanding job and continues to do an outstanding job with municipalities, counties and others across the state in dealing with situations whether it's flooding, wildfires, tornadoes, whatever it may be. We do have a couple of things that we would like to just bring to the attention of the Committee, and also, we appreciate being here today to kind of also elaborate on some of these. First and foremost, in terms of the funding for making sure that the state of Nebraska and the Legislature has the funds available to assist local governments, whether it's volunteer fire departments, paid fire departments and other emergency squads across the state of Nebraska. In these types of situations, how do we go about making sure that those funds are there? And then secondly, and I think it's really important because we're the league is hearing from the national league of cities and other state leagues all across the country are being are also holding these types of hearings to discuss what what kind of fema reforms are happening. In other words, what is the current fema relationship? Nima has done an amazing job. We are concerned about fema reforms. What is the current role of nema and fema working together in partnership to assist local governments and others? And what do we anticipate it's going to be based on what some of the news reports have been in terms of fema.
So we just so appreciate folks being here from nema and can't commend them enough. They're just outstanding individuals and do a great job. So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have. Thank you, miss rex. Are there any questions? Thank you for your consideration. Thank you very much. Thank you. Welcome to government military veteran affairs Committee. Well, thank you, Senator, mr. Chairman, and good morning to all. Of you. And mr. Chairman, senators, Committee members, my name is ervin ervin. Last name portis, portis. I'm the assistant director for Nebraska emergency management agency and cinema. And thank you for the opportunity. And I'm here testifying on behalf of the adjutant general, major general craig strong, who is the director of of nema. It's my pleasure to work for him. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss a topic central to Nebraska's ability to prepare for respond, to recover from disaster, the evolving role of and the evolving role of the federal emergency management agency, fema. Over the past year, fema has been the subject of substantial national discussion. Proposals have ranged from significant organizational reforms. Let's get rid of fema. That's not my proposal to more fundamental changes in the federal role in emergency management. While it's impossible to predict exactly what actions may ultimately be taken, it's important we focus on what we know today and what those developments may mean for Nebraska. Famous local authorities have been shaped over several decades through legislation, including the homeland security act of 2002, the robert t stafford disaster relief and emergency assistance act, the disaster mitigation act, the post-katrina emergency management reform act, and the disaster recovery reform act, some of which I would say have created mission creep for fema. These laws have created a complex framework of programs that support disaster preparedness, response, recovery mitigation and resilience. Nationwide, many observers, including us, agree that some aspects of this framework should be improved and modernized, but the scope and direction of future reforms remains uncertain. As of last month, we've noted we've identified more than 250 proposals that have been developed over the last 18 months, and recommendations affecting fema from dozens of official public sources, including legislation, agency memoranda, audits, congressional oversight reports. These proposals address a wide range of issues, but several common themes have emerged, particularly in an increased emphasis on state and local capability states. Assuming burden more the burden, greater accountability for federal disaster assistance, and a reevaluation of how hazard mitigation programs are administered and funded. So let me discuss briefly the fema programs in which we're most significantly involved, and four principal areas. First, pm administers or fema, nema. This would be nema administers grant programs, preparedness grant programs that support emergency management, law enforcement, cybersecurity, and nonprofit security across the state.
These are the homeland state homeland security grant program, emergency management performance grant, nonprofit security grant, state and local cybersecurity grant program, and flood mitigation assistance program, which we do cooperatively with the Nebraska department of water, environment and energy. Nema serves as the state administrative agency for most of these programs and administers approximately 16 million annually in preparedness grant funding, emergency management performance grant funding, supports local emergency management personnel capabilities, and at the state level, homeland security grant funding supports planning, training exercises, equipment, information sharing capabilities, think bomb squad, hazardous materials teams included in there, homeland. Homeland security grant program also supports planning, training, exercises, equipment and information sharing. Federal requirements directed. The majority of these funds are passed through to local jurisdictions, ensuring that communities across Nebraska benefit from. Directly from these investments, we spread the money around. Second, fema provides disaster assistance and hazard mitigation funding through programs such as the individual assistance, public assistance, fire management assistance and hazard mitigation grant program, and building resilient infrastructure and communities. These programs support disaster survivors, reimburse public agencies political subdivisions for eligible recovery costs, and fund projects that reduce future risk. Fema administers the national flood insurance program and fip, which remains a critical component of community resilience and economic recovery for many Nebraska communities. Fema supports radiological emergency preparedness activities to ensure that state and local partners can effectively prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from radiological incidents. Our biggest partner in that is includes cooper nuclear station, Nebraska public power district. Across all of these programs, fema works through partnerships with fema, numerous state, local, tribal, and private or private sector stakeholders. These partnerships and partnerships with various stakeholder engagement are central to Nebraska's emergency management system. Turning to current conditions, several trends are becoming increasingly apparent. Preparedness programs remain largely focused on building capacity at the state and local levels. Discussions around surrounding these programs increasingly emphasize reducing long term reliance on federal resources and strengthening and increasing local capability. While there's not yet a definitive federal policy describing how this transition may occur, the direction of the conversation is clear states do more. States and locals assume more and broader responsibility for disaster planning, preparedness and response. On the disaster side, Nebraska currently has 11 open, federally declared disasters. The oldest is the 2019 floods bomb cyclone. In addition, Nebraska has one pending request related to flooding that occurred between september 30th and october 6th. I think there's eight counties involved in that, most of them in the east end of the state. And we have one disaster declaration that was denied currently under appeal. For public assistance declarations. Nebraska's current eligibility threshold is $2.01 per capita, roughly, or just under $4 million, although this represents only a modest increase from the previous year, which we were $1.90 four. Fema has recently approved fewer events than narrowly meet minimum thresholds.
We had two such denials within the past year, reinforcing the need for realistic planning regarding future federal funding, federal disaster assistance hazard mitigation represents the area where we've seen the most significant change. Approvals have become increasingly limited, creating greater uncertainty for states seeking to implement long term risk reduction. Similarly, Nebraska previously received a minimum annual allocation of approximately 3 million, which doesn't go very far in hazard mitigation. Under the bric program. Those resources help communities address failure before disasters occur, avoid repetitive damages from disasters, with mitigation funding becoming more constrained, it's increasingly difficult to undertake large projects of consequence. The value hazard mitigation is very well established in Nebraska. Let's use beatrice. They used mitigation funding, complete comprehensive flood studies, acquire flood prone, flood prone properties. Get those properties out of. Out of danger. Following the 2011 missouri river flood, blair investigated invested mitigation funding to protect critical drinking water and wastewater infrastructure. Those investments paid dividends in 2019 floods where blair had minimal damage. Likewise, the city of lincoln lori platte south natural resources district have invested invested millions of dollars on over many years to reduce flood risks and improve community resilience. And we saw very clear impacts of that with the september, october, september, october flood event. These examples demonstrate mitigations not merely an expense, and it's an investment that reduces future losses, protects critical infrastructure and strengthens communities. Fema programs support emergency management personnel, disaster recovery efforts, cybersecurity initiatives, floodplain management, hazard mitigation, and other essential capabilities throughout Nebraska. While the structure of fema remains subject to ongoing national debate, one conclusion is increasingly clear states and local governments will be expected to assume a larger role in preparedness, resilience and recovery. Nemaha will continue to monitor federal developments more closely with our local and state partners and fema, and ensure that Nebraska remains prepared to adapt to whatever changes may ultimately occur before close. I'll just. Where mr. Clerk is going around you a long time, congratulate you, commend. You should have asked so with that, mr. Chairman, and thank you for your time and consideration. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you, mr. Portis. Are there any questions? Senator? Thank you, vice chair. Thank you for being here. So I have a couple questions. As fema reduces their role, are we are we receiving more funding from the federal level or we expected to pick that up ourselves? Or is it a combination of that? I think it's unclear at this point. I would expect that over time, we will see a reduction in in fema funding. We will we have already seen, and it is highly likely we will see fewer disasters declared. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Senator wordekemper, thank you for being here. You stated there's 11 open disasters, not just do we get funding for, I'll say, the 2019 floods, do we get part of the funding?
And then we're waiting on more funding? Or how are those funds paid out by the federal government? Wonderful question. Thank you for that. Let's use 2019 floods as an example. It's our oldest disaster. We're approaching eight years. At the end of when we're all done, the final estimate, just on damage to public infrastructure and the cost of repairing or returning that damaged infrastructure to pre-disaster condition is going to be about $600 million. And that 600 million, that disaster was declared originally, with at a 75% federal share. And it will. But then shortly after, it was redetermined at a 90% federal share. So the state and local political subdivisions split that 10%, that 10% non-fed share equally. Nobody receives the money up front. You have to repair the infrastructure and provide proof that you've complied with the rules, evidence of your payments. And then we will draw down the funds from from fema and pass those funds on to the local political subdivision. Does that answer your question? Yes, sir. Thank you. Any other questions, sir? I have a couple for you. You said the expectation is that the funding will decrease, right? Yes. What historically was the allocation? Was that $1.94 per person per capita. So and now that's increased up to $2.01. The the. Per capita threshold for the state of Nebraska last year was $1.94, which was an increase, increased small percentage point in the last several years. I would anticipate larger increases in the years. Okay. You're familiar with the wildfire wildfires we had this year? Very. Can you maybe. Maybe more than I want to. Be, I'm sure. Can you handle fire on. Just provide a little background on what actually was done afterwards and the recovery. And if there's anything that could have been done in advance to prevent the wildfires. To prevent wildfires, let me start there. Nebraska's experienced, as you all everybody here knows, significant drought. And then last year, the previous year, at some point we had rainfall green up. So the the fine grass fuels grew. But then we had no snow cover, no snow cover, particularly in western Nebraska. So on march 10th. We received and we communicated high risk. We received notice of high risk, high fire risk from national weather service and other other partners communicated that to. Across the state with stakeholders, including local fire departments, emergency management, Nebraska forest service, fire marshal and others. And then did the same thing on march 11th, the march 12th. Frankly, what happened then is a storm came out of wyoming, into western Nebraska, and hallstrom included sustained wind gusts of 65 to 68mph for about 12 hours. Fire was was ignited. That fire spread 70 miles in about 12 hours. Nothing was going to stop that fire at that time. That's the moral fire.
The cottonwood fire, which is north platte, north, north platte, lincoln county, brady area, similar circumstances, much difficult, much more difficult and challenging terrain, but initiated by that storm event. Caused a spark and burning very tough terrain to those two fires. Collectively, about 829,000 acres. The response cost on those fires, about $20 million. We were able to secure a fire management assistance grant, which you have to obtain while the fire is active. You get one chance to make that request. So we were able to secure that. With that, I'll call it refer to that as an f mag with that f mag, we will get a 75% federal share of that 20 million, which is eligible costs under the f mag rules. So we're building right now the. We're paying those costs and then we'll recapture that 75% fed share. We'll repay that to the governor's emergency fund. And that's about a year long process. Similar event with the ash b minor fire out of the ash b minor fire, which was arthur keith county, I believe. And we've got about $6 million in fire response costs. One of the disaster declaration on that. And we'll capture about 75% of federal funding on that. And the south fork fire. Crawford chadron harrison area, 36,000 acres in june, april, kind of losing track of the dates that one, about $10 million, also with an f mag. So we'll pay those costs out, get about 75% over the course of the next year. So that's that's the fight the wildfire, right? Yeah. What about what about the damage done. What about the the cattle that were lost, the land that is scorched that's unproductive. Yeah. Is that been found by the individual or is it an insurance responsibility. Is it from the state. How's that. Insurance is always the first the first dollar in on any disaster recovery under the emergency management act. Now we are limited in providing assistance to private property. So the bulk of the recovery on to farmers, ranchers affected by that is going to be us department of agriculture and their their programs. There's also small business administration and declaration that provides. Low interest loans to private property owners. Thank you. You mentioned couple times in your statement your testimony about cybersecurity program is that run. How is that compare and contrast with what the. The chief information officer office does briese does. The state and local cybersecurity program is it's a grant program of fema, the us department of homeland security, the program rules written by Congress require cooperation between the emergency management agency and the office of the chief information officer. So we collectively manage and administer the program, solicit applications from from local political subdivisions, and pass that funding through pursuant to guidelines established in the notice of funding opportunity, the program rules and advisory Committee, which the congressional legislation required, we establish.
And it's a five year program with diminishing. Resources over that five year period. And we're approaching the third year of that. Great. Last question, for me at least. Are there any recommended changes to the program that would be done by statute, by this Committee, recommended by this Committee? I think it's premature because right now we're really speculative on what's what the outcome of changes to fema will be. In regards to budget. You know, a healthy governor's emergency fund is absolutely necessary. And that's just that's just the initial paying of the bill before it's backfilled from the feds. It's two it's two pieces to that. One is we have to have enough funding in the governor's emergency fund to cover those those response costs. Use the wildfires as an example, $32 million going out relatively quickly. And then if we. Get achieve a fire management assistance grant or some other disaster declaration over time that those funds come back in. But the other piece of that is with those 11 open disasters is the state share of that 90% on 4 to 4, or that 10% on the 2019 floods, or the 25% share on those other open disasters and managing cash flow to pay those out over time. Thank you. Any other questions? Mr. You. Thank you, vice chair. So when we have one that's open since 2019, do we know that money's coming? Are they deciding on what percentage they should give us? Or like, what's the holdup? The holdup is the process and it's the process. Again, all fema grant programs are reimbursement based programs. First thing is, you know, let's use any flood event. You have damaged infrastructure and then you make a claim. If you have a disaster declaration, you apply for funding. And that application is to fema through the Nebraska emergency management agency or the pass through entity or the agency that signs all the legal agreements that helps with fema administer those program rules. Then you have to. Repair your damaged infrastructure, which sometimes requires engineering, design and construction. Build your documentation, provide your supporting documentation, some of those small projects, those can go relatively quickly, large projects. In that disaster, we had very large 4420. We had very large projects. It's it's just a matter of getting all that done. The environmental reviews. And then when you're done comes time to pay the bills, pay the bills, seek reimbursement, and then we will work with fema on getting that reimbursement and providing all the documentation, crossing all the eye, crossing all the t's, dotting all the I's, making everything a lot of proof. It's a time consuming process. With. Of eyes on on that to assure compliance and appropriate use of public funds. Now let's use 4420 as a good illustration in that we had 84 of 93 counties affected, 414 political subdivisions acted as applicants. They had damaged infrastructure, 2000 projects.
We're down to about 260 of those projects should be able to close 200 and all but 240 of those in about the next three months. We seek to one year period of performance timeline extension on the 16, which are really the big ones, the most expensive ones. Thank you. Any other questions? Mr. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Are there any other testifiers? Seeing none. Then we'll close today's hearing on LR 385. Thank you very much.