The Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program has been a cornerstone of the federal government’s efforts to address the impacts of climate change. Administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), BRIC has provided $4.5 billion in grants to help states and cities prepare for future disasters. Projects such as wildfire retrofits in Washington State, safe rooms in Oklahoma, and sewer systems in Detroit have all benefited from the program.
Despite bipartisan support for BRIC, the Trump Administration announced its intent to shut down the program in April. However, in December, a federal judge ordered FEMA to restore the program’s funding and reverse the termination. The agency had two months to appeal the decision, but as of now, the Trump administration has not taken any steps to revive BRIC in compliance with the court order.
State and local governments across the country are now facing uncertainty as critical projects funded by BRIC remain in limbo. FEMA officials, speaking anonymously to avoid retaliation, confirmed that the agency has not made any apparent efforts to comply with the court order. A coalition of state attorneys general representing the states involved in the original lawsuit over BRIC has accused the Trump administration of dragging its feet on compliance.
BRIC, which was primarily funded by the Biden-era Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, launched during the first Trump administration. However, FEMA labeled the program as wasteful and ineffective in an April memo that announced its termination. The freeze on BRIC is part of a broader halt on FEMA’s disaster mitigation spending, with the Department of Homeland Security imposing a spending moratorium that requires Secretary Kristi Noem’s approval for expenses over $100,000.
The failure to revive BRIC funding has left numerous projects across the country in jeopardy. States have not received any new information about the future of the program or the release of suspended funding. The delay in restoring BRIC funding has put projects at risk, with some states reporting that FEMA has refused to provide updates on stalled projects, including critical infrastructure and disaster mitigation efforts.
One such project affected by the pause in BRIC funding is a flood protection initiative in the Massachusetts cities of Chelsea and Everett. The $50 million project, aimed at building a flood barrier and storm surge control system to prevent tidal flooding, has been on hold since the April memo. The cities had relied on BRIC funding to match state funds for the project, but the pause has put the initiative in jeopardy.
As state attorneys general continue to push for FEMA to comply with the court order and restore BRIC funding, the future of critical infrastructure and disaster preparedness projects hangs in the balance. The lack of action from the Trump administration has left state and local governments in a state of uncertainty as they await a resolution to the BRIC funding crisis. Local officials are facing a tough decision after a year of stagnation on a crucial project. The project, which includes a storm surge system among other components, has been put on hold due to lack of funding and essential information. Emily Granoff, the deputy director of housing and community development for the city of Chelsea, is leading the project and is considering splitting it into separate stages.
Granoff highlighted the urgency of the project, emphasizing the need for action. However, without the necessary information and funding, progress has been stalled. President Trump and Secretary Noem have expressed a desire for the federal government to play a smaller role in disaster recovery. Still, experts warn that abandoning projects like BRIC (Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities) could compromise this goal.
Disaster experts argue that investing in resilient infrastructure now can significantly reduce the costs associated with disaster recovery in the long run. Leo Martinez-Diaz, the director of the climate and sustainability program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, stressed the importance of prioritizing resilience to mitigate losses from natural disasters.
The decision to split the project into phases is a strategic move to ensure progress despite the lack of federal funding. By focusing on the storm surge system first, officials can address immediate threats and prioritize the most critical components of the project. This approach allows for flexibility and adaptability in the face of uncertain funding sources.
In conclusion, the project must move forward to protect the community from future disasters. By breaking it into stages and prioritizing resilience, local officials can ensure that essential infrastructure is in place to mitigate the impact of natural disasters. The need for action is clear, and it is essential to find creative solutions to overcome funding challenges and move the project towards completion.
