New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and more than a dozen other states have initiated a lawsuit against the Trump administration concerning its recent decision to cut the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) grant program.
This program was intended to help communities enhance their preparedness for various disasters including flooding, storms, and wildfires.
The lawsuit, filed on Wednesday, claims the cancellation of the BRIC program will significantly hinder disaster resilience in the Philadelphia region, where numerous projects were planned to strengthen local infrastructure.
According to the lawsuit, projects that would have received funding include dam reinforcement in New Jersey, stormwater management initiatives in Delaware, and the buyout of flood-prone homes in Pennsylvania.
Randy Padfield, the director of emergency management for Pennsylvania, emphasized that the loss of this grant program will make the state less equipped to handle disasters.
“[It will] potentially expose residents across the state to more harm and potentially prolong their suffering, should they be impacted by a disaster,” Padfield stated.
In April, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) announced the cancelation of the BRIC grant program, mentioning that any unspent funds would be redirected to the Disaster Relief Fund or the U.S. Treasury.
FEMA’s press release, which has since been removed, criticized the BRIC program as a wasteful and ineffective initiative, claiming it prioritized political objectives over genuine assistance to Americans affected by natural disasters.
Amidst this controversy, reports surfaced indicating that the Trump administration had contemplated eliminating FEMA altogether, although plans appear to be shifting.
In their legal action, the involved states argue that FEMA’s decision to terminate the BRIC program is unlawful, contradicting congressional directives and violating key principles of separation of powers.
The lawsuit points out that the cancellation has forced communities nationwide to delay or cancel hundreds of projects reliant upon this federal funding source.
Delaware’s beach towns are among the most impacted by these funding cuts.
Officials from the state’s Emergency Management Agency revealed that Delaware has had to cancel 11 projects, totaling over $4 million in investment, more than $3 million of which was anticipated to come from federal funding.
One significant project would have improved stormwater management in Lewes, aimed at preventing floodwaters from inundating residential streets and properties.
Other communities in Delaware—including Slaughter Beach, Ocean View, Fenwick Island, Millsboro, Seaford, Greenwood, and South Bethany—are similarly affected.
The lawsuit states, “The cancellation of the BRIC program is devastating for Delaware.”
It continues to warn that many essential BRIC projects in the state cannot proceed without the expected federal funding, thus leaving Delaware vulnerable to greater risks related to loss of life, property damage, and overall public safety.
In Pennsylvania, the impact of the program’s cancellation is equally severe.
According to the lawsuit, more than 40 projects slated for funding through the BRIC program are now no longer viable, entailing an estimated total loss of over $130 million in federal funding.
These projects included the acquisition and demolition of 21 flood-prone properties in Scranton, flood control initiatives in York and Allegheny counties, and upgrades to a drinking water pumping station in Philadelphia to improve flood resilience.
The federal grants were also intended to support the Philadelphia Water Department in constructing new sewers designed to alleviate flooding risks for approximately 1,000 basements in several neighborhoods, including Northern Liberties, South Kensington, and Ludlow.
Although it is possible for these projects to proceed without federal contributions, the financial burden may fall solely on local ratepayers, according to a spokesperson for the Philadelphia Water Department.
Padfield voiced concern that rural and suburban areas in Pennsylvania may be particularly disadvantaged by the funding cuts.
“I think the loss of this funding is a deal breaker for a lot of other areas of the state,” he remarked.
“The projects are beneficial, but communities just are not going to have the funding, absent the federal support.”
In New Jersey, state officials have expressed that the grants were critical for various initiatives, particularly to enhance disaster resilience.
New Jersey faced severe flooding earlier this week that resulted in the loss of two lives, adding urgency to calls for restored funding.
The lawsuit highlights the use of BRIC funds in New Jersey for a dam reinforcement project in Hunterdon County—an initiative intended to safeguard the lives of around 249,000 residents.
Another project was aimed at floodproofing infrastructure at a critical fire pump station, which protects the vital Port Newark-Elizabeth Marine Terminal.
According to Shawn LaTourette, New Jersey’s environmental protection commissioner, the threats posed by climate change are becoming increasingly apparent, especially with the recent devastating flooding events.
He stated, “Funding from the BRIC program supports critical initiatives that enhance resilience and protect lives and property.”
In conclusion, the states involved stand united in their commitment to advocate for the restoration of this essential federal program, emphasizing the immediate need for action in light of the climate crisis.
image source from：whyy
