In recent years, many states have experienced natural disasters, such as hurricanes, floods, and storms, which have caused catastrophic damage to transportation infrastructure and overwhelmed the capacity of state and local governments to respond and recover. Reconstruction after these events can cost taxpayers billions of dollars. As part of the continuing federal role in responding to and recovering from natural disasters and similar events, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), within the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), administers the Emergency Relief Program which provides funding to repair or reconstruct federal-aid highways and roads on federal lands damaged or destroyed by natural disasters and other catastrophic events. This book provides an overview of emergency relief programs for U.S. highways and roads with a focus on strengthening oversight of project eligibility decisions.

Considers. S. 1638, to increase limit on emergency relief for repair or reconstruction of highways. S. 327, to provide assistance to Oregon, Washington, California, and Idaho for reconstruction of areas damaged by floods and high waters.

The Federal Highway Administration(FHWA), within the U.S. Department ofTransportation (DOT), administers theEmergency Relief Program to providefunds to states to repair roadsdamaged by natural disasters andcatastrophic failures. In 2007, GAOreported that in recent years states?annual demand for emergency relieffunds often exceeded the program?s$100 million annual authorization fromthe Highway Trust Fund and requiredsupplemental appropriations fromgeneral revenues to address a backlogof funding requests from states. GAOrecommended that FHWA tighteneligibility standards and coordinate withstates to withdraw unneededemergency relief funds, among otheractions. For this report, GAO reviewed(1) Emergency Relief Program fundingtrends since 2007, (2) key programchanges made in response to GAO?s2007 report, and (3) the extent towhich selected emergency reliefprojects were approved in compliancewith program eligibility requirements.GAO reviewed projects in New York, Texas, and Washington state, statesselected based on the amount andfrequency of funding allocations since2007, among other factors