Judge Blocks FEMA From Diverting Funds From Landmark Disaster Preparedness Program

A district judge in Massachusetts has granted a request from California Attorney General Rob Bonta temporarily barring the Federal Emergency Management Agency from redirecting money from a landmark program designed to help states prepare for and avoid disasters.

The court order [PDF] issued Tuesday approves a preliminary injunction against the Trump administration’s FEMA. The agency is seeking to end a program known as Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities, or BRIC, without approval from Congress.

Bonta, along with attorneys general and governors of 19 other states, filed a lawsuit on July 16 contending that this is an illegal shuttering of a much-needed program. While the ruling doesn’t release the funds, it does stop them from being used for other purposes until a final ruling is reached in the case.

“The President keeps breaking the law, and we keep holding him accountable in court,” Bonta said in a statement. “Shuttering this program would do nothing to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse or improve government efficiency.”

In California, this program is helping to fund projects to reduce risks from landslides, flooding, fires and earthquakes.

“I’m pleased the District Court has ensured this funding will not be redirected and misspent while our litigation continues,” Bonta said.

While FEMA officials said in public statements and advisories last April that they were concluding the program, they later said in court documents that they have not formally terminated the program, that they have the discretion to reallocate funds from the BRIC‌ account and that the states lacked standing to sue because they hadn’t yet suffered harm.

The judge rejected these arguments and ruled in favor of the states, saying the threat of harm hung overhead like the “Sword of Damocles” and that states didn’t have to wait until the sword dropped before seeking relief.

The judge wrote: “The BRIC program is designed to protect against natural disasters and save lives. The potential hardship to the Government, in contrast, is minimal.”

A FEMA spokesperson didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on Tuesday.

While FEMA has said previously that the program is wasteful and has become politicized, states say it is highly effective and has saved money and lives during disasters.

The creation of BRIC after Hurricane Katrina was a milestone in foresight, Jeffrey Schlegelmilch, associate professor at the Columbia Climate School and director of the National Center for Disaster Preparedness, told KQED in July.

It has historically been very difficult for states to fund infrastructure projects, but a dollar spent in pre-planning can save many more post-disaster. Indeed, FEMA’s own fact sheets say every $1 spent on federal mitigation grants saves $6.

“What the BRIC funding did was it created a standing mechanism where states and localities — through the states — could get funding for these really sort of large, kind of expensive infrastructure projects that would actually build resilience and prevent the loss of lives and loss of livelihood,” Schlegelmilch said. “So it marked a really important turning point. It was actually a very forward-looking achievement.”

According to the July lawsuit, in recent years, four states — Louisiana, New Jersey, New York and Texas — have each avoided at least $10 billion in post-disaster costs thanks to BRIC grants.