Project Funding
Judge Won't Dismiss Atlanta's Suit Over $1M FEMA Appeal
A district court judge denied a motion from FEMA to dismiss Atlanta's suit on the grounds that the city did not file its appeal in a timely manner.
Photo Courtesy Federal Emergency Management Agency
A U.S. district court judge in Atlanta denied the Federal Emergency Management Agency's move to dismiss a lawsuit from that city regarding more than $1 million it spent to repair a water treatment plant that the agency agreed to reimburse.
On March 31, U.S. District Court Judge Steven D. Grimberg denied FEMA’s dismissal motion, giving it until April 14 to answer Atlanta’s complaint after the agency claimed the city missed the deadline to appeal a decision to drastically reduce the amount it would pay the city.
The suit stems from repairs Atlanta made to its Robert M. Clayton Water Reclamation Center following severe flooding in September 2009 at a cost of more than $1.2 million, according to the filing. In December of that year, FEMA approved estimated costs of about $1.1 million, but it did not obligate the funding at that time. Two years later, the agency reduced the estimated costs to less than $37,000.
Atlanta appealed that reduction in April 2011 through Georgia’s state grantee, the Georgia Emergency Management Agency, it says, but that agency failed to forward that appeal to FEMA until Aug. 17, 2011, after a 60-day appeals deadline had passed. FEMA then did not render a decision on the appeal or request more information within 90 days, as regulations require, “According to Atlanta, this was not alarming because FEMA regularly ignored its own deadline to rule on appeals, sometimes taking years to issue a decision,” Grimberg’s filing says,
While the appeal was still pending, Atlanta learned in November 2014 that FEMA had reiterated its less-than-$37,000 decision and then deducted anticipated flood insurance proceeds, concluding that Atlanta was only entitled to receive $200.61 of the $1.2 million it requested for plant repairs. Atlanta appealed again, reiterating the points in its first appeal and challenging FEMA’s calculation of flood insurance proceeds, after which the agency did not request information or render a decision within the 90-day period.
The filing says FEMA took until Aug. 31, 2017—more than six years after Atlanta’s initial appeal—to request more information, raising concerns about timeliness of the city’s 2011 appeal, and asserting that it did not show documentation that the Georgia agency submitted the appeal in the required 60-day period.
Based on that, FEMA denied Atlanta’s appeals in January 2018, saying “it lacked the ability to consider the appeal because it was not timely filed.” Atlanta appealed again, and in May 2018, FEMA denied that one as well, reiterating the claim that the city’s appeal rights had lapsed because the Georgia agency failed to timely forward the first appeal.
That led to Atlanta bringing suit in May 2024, seeking judicial review of “FEMA’s refusal to substantively consider its appeals.”
Grimberg writes that the dispute ultimately boils down to whether the initial appeal was untimely because the Georgia agency failed to forward it within 60 days. It was not, per law, he notes, as all that is required by that deadline is filing the appeal with the grantee, not the forwarding the appeal from the grantee to FEMA.
“All the [law] requires an applicant to do is file the appeal within 60 days after receiving notice of the action it is appealing,” the ruling says. “Under the regulation, the applicant must file the appeal with the State Grantee within that timeframe. That’s it.”
