Beacon Energy & Environment: The Big Story of FEMA and Flood Funding

In recent years, the United States has experienced an increasing number of natural disasters, from hurricanes and wildfires to floods and tornadoes. The impact of these disasters has been devastating, not only to the environment but also to the lives and livelihoods of those affected. As a result, the federal government has a crucial role to play in providing support and aid to those in need.

However, a recent report by The Hill has shed light on a concerning trend – FEMA denying funding for hazard mitigation after flood disasters during the Trump presidency. Out of 18 flood disasters, only 2 received approval for funding, with the remaining 16 being denied. This revelation has raised serious questions about the priorities of the administration when it comes to the environment and the well-being of its citizens.

Hazard mitigation funds, also known as 404 programs, provide financial assistance to states to implement measures that prevent or reduce the impact of future disasters. These could include flood-proofing homes, building levees and seawalls, or relocating homes and businesses to safer areas. However, with the denial of such funds, states are left to bear the burden of these costs on their own.

While FEMA has cited various reasons for denying these funds, including lack of cost-effectiveness and state government’s inaction, critics argue that this is a blatant disregard for the safety and protection of communities. The timing of these denials is also concerning, with the majority of them happening after mid-March, just when the COVID-19 pandemic was sweeping through the country. This has only added to the challenges faced by these states, as they struggle to recover from natural disasters while also dealing with the impacts of the pandemic.

One of the most significant denials of funding was after the floods in Louisiana in 2016, where the state requested $3.3 billion in aid but was only granted $1.6 billion. This decision had a severe impact on the state, where over 100,000 homes and businesses were affected by the floods, and many were left without proper assistance to rebuild and recover. The denial of funding also had a domino effect, with other states who were also affected by the floods, such as Texas, not receiving any federal aid either.

The consequences of these denials are far-reaching, not only for the affected communities but also for the environment. By denying hazard mitigation funds, the government is essentially choosing to ignore a critical aspect of disaster prevention and preparedness. Building seawalls and levees, relocating homes and businesses, and other measures help mitigate the impact of flooding and protect the environment from further damage. By not investing in these measures, the government is putting both people and the environment at risk.

Moreover, these denials of funding also highlight significant disparities in how the government handles natural disasters. Historically, communities of color and low-income communities have borne the brunt of these disasters and have received inadequate support and aid. This trend is only exacerbated by the denial of hazard mitigation funds, further perpetuating environmental injustice.

In response to The Hill’s report, FEMA stated that it is continually evaluating and improving its programs and processes and that the Trump administration has provided record levels of disaster assistance. However, these statements do not justify the denial of much-needed funds for hazard mitigation, especially in the face of increasing climate change impacts.

As we continue to grapple with the devastating consequences of natural disasters, it is crucial to address these issues and hold our government accountable for its actions. The denial of hazard mitigation funds by FEMA is not only denying communities necessary resources but also sending a dangerous message about the government’s lack of regard for the environment and its people. It is time for a shift in priorities, where the well-being and protection of our communities and the environment take precedence over short-term cost-saving measures.

In conclusion, the denial of hazard mitigation funds by FEMA after flood disasters during the Trump presidency is a concerning issue that needs to be addressed. This trend not only puts communities at risk but also disregards the importance of environmental protection and disaster prevention. It is time for our government to prioritize the safety and well-being of its citizens and take meaningful action towards mitigating the impacts of natural disasters. Together, we can create a more resilient and sustainable future for all.