Government
FEMA Can't Repurpose Billions in Hazard Mitigation Funds, Judge Rules
BRIC supports hazard mitigation works like the Island End River Flood Resilience Project in Chelsea and Everett, Mass., where topography and hydrology have contributed to flooding.
Billions of dollars in federal infrastructure hazard mitigation funds can't be diverted from the Federal Emergency Management Agency until a lawsuit by states plays out, said a U.S. district court judge in a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration move.
The action halts the eyed funding grab from FEMA's Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program (BRIC), a hazard mitigation grant program established during the first Trump administration and expanded during the Biden term to support state, local and tribal government infrastructure projects to reduce risks associated with natural disasters.
Twenty states jointly filed the lawsuit in federal district court in Boston last month after FEMA officials announced in April they were “ending” the program. They canceled the $750-million fiscal 2024 notice of funding opportunity for the program, moved to rescind $882 million in yet-to-be-spent funding and transferred more than $4 billion from the BRIC account to the Disaster Relief Fund, which FEMA uses to pay for recovery efforts following major emergency events.
Since the program’s launch, FEMA has selected close to 2,000 projects across the country to receive about $4.5 billion in funding. Ending BRIC would force state and local officials to delay, shrink or cancel hundreds of disaster mitigation projects, some of which have already gone through extensive planning and permitting, the states argue in their complaint.
“FEMA’s termination of this bipartisan program defies both law and logic,” Washington Attorney General Nick Brown said in a statement. “Congress created this fund because America’s towns are already struggling with mounting challenges from climate change.”
Judge Richard Stearns wrote in his preliminary injunction Aug. 5 that the public interest favors the states in part because the funds, if spent on other items, would be “lost forever,” adding that “states have shown a realistic existence of irreparable harm.”
The judge also found the administration’s positions were not persuasive. The government argued that its actions did not rise to the level of a claim under the Administrative Procedures Act, and should not be subject to a judicial review since they fall under agency discretion through the act.
Looking for quick answers on construction and engineering topics?
Try Ask ENR, our new smart AI search tool.
Ask ENR →
“The BRIC program is designed to protect against natural disasters and save lives,” Stearns wrote. “The potential hardship to the government, in contrast, is minimal.”
The U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security declined to comment on ongoing litigation.
States involved in the suit include Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.
“This ruling is an important step in safeguarding the BRIC program and stopping the Trump administration from unlawfully diverting these critical resources for unrelated purposes,” Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel said in a statement. “It preserves funding that would have otherwise been lost, ensuring it remains available to help communities prepare for and withstand natural disasters.”
