The Trump administration seems to be significantly cutting federal funding that assists states in preparing for natural disasters. This decision comes as the White House faces scrutiny over its response to the devastating floods in Texas.
In response to criticism regarding Texas’ flood management, the administration claims it’s working to “remake” the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to offer better support nationwide.
Yet, following the deadly floods around Independence Day, Texas was denied access to a tranche of FEMA funds designed to help mitigate future disasters. This funding is intended for initiatives like warning systems, tornado shelters, and measures to combat flooding.
Documents reviewed show that the administration has turned down requests for these “hazard mitigation” funds after 16 out of 18 flood disasters during Trump’s time in office, only approving two by mid-March.
For example, children at a Missouri school found shelter from a tornado in a safe room funded through a hazard mitigation grant from a prior tragedy in 2011.
While the Trump administration has backed Missouri’s disaster declaration, it has denied funds meant for safety improvements, such as purchasing generators and outdoor warning sirens, according to state officials. Missouri plans to contest this decision.
Contrastingly, the Biden administration recently approved hazard mitigation funds in Oklahoma for wildfire and wind damage recovery.
However, as wildfires worsened due to fierce winds earlier this year, President Trump issued a disaster declaration but withheld hazard mitigation funding. State emergency officials expressed that this was the first time in at least 15 years that Oklahoma was denied such funding.
This shift marks a departure from federal practices, as the Trump administration not only reduces FEMA budgets but has even suggested abolishing it entirely, alongside cuts to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Veterans from these agencies believe there’s a clear move to shift responsibilities onto states, which raises concerns. One former HUD director, Candice Valenzuela, likens the situation to surgical negligence: “Do you need an appendectomy? Well, let’s go to Garden Sears.”
Experts warn that abandoning the Hazard Mitigation Fund could signal a significant change in federal priorities regarding natural disaster management.
Historically, FEMA has allocated 15-20% of their disaster response budget to prevent future crises, a practice that yields returns of $5 to $8 for every dollar invested, according to the CBO.
The financial benefits of flood mitigation become even more critical as flooding has averaged an annual cost of $46 billion in the U.S. over the past decade, a figure expected to reach $60 billion by mid-century due to climate changes that enhance rainfall.
John Sokic from the National Weather Service union notes that storms of this magnitude are now more common than they were decades ago. Chad Berginis of the Association of Flood Plain Managers emphasizes that as extreme weather events increase, the need for adequate financial backing grows.
Additionally, the administration has halted key flood mitigation programs and redirected funds from ongoing flood control projects.
A coalition of 20 states recently filed a lawsuit against the federal government due to funding withdrawals for critical infrastructure programs initiated during the previous Trump administration.
The lawsuit suggests that the freezing of funds has far-reaching negative consequences, forcing communities to postpone or scale back essential mitigation projects. As a result, many areas find themselves at heightened risk of natural disasters.
Furthermore, the states argue that such cuts might breach laws that protect FEMA’s funding framework established in 1997.
Despite requests for comments on this shift in strategy, the administration has remained silent. Homeland Security Advisor Tricia McLaughlin stated the administration aims to enhance disaster funding efficiency, promising quicker recovery support.
Nonetheless, emergency managers are concerned that cutting off vital resources hinders the ability of states and local governments to effectively prepare for escalating disasters. As Berginis puts it, “Mitigation is a lifeline.” It provides an escape from a relentless cycle of disasters that disproportionately affects those with fewer resources.
Berginis recalls seeing how FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation funds transformed lives by granting states the means to buy properties in flood-prone areas, contrasting with FEMA’s “individual assistance” program that merely covers repairs for homes at risk of flooding again.
The current administration has also made subtle changes to FEMA’s standards that affect how flood-prone areas are addressed.
One pressing issue is that many builders, insurers, and emergency managers are often unaware of the actual flood risks, resulting in tragic situations like the recent flood in Texas, where a creek overflowed and claimed multiple lives. Experts like Berginis have noted that much of the country remains unmapped in terms of flood risks.
Comprehensive remapping could cost billions, a fraction of the yearly expenses related to flood damage. However, this isn’t where the current administration wants to allocate funds, opting instead to minimize investments in forecasting and preparedness.
Experts express concern that the administration’s cuts will disrupt crucial research necessary to understand emerging weather patterns in a warming climate. Alan Gerald, a former NOAA expert, highlights that such critical research is now at risk.
