Federal Grant Process is another Hurdle for Communities Facing Coastal Threats | Article

On October 15, the House Natural Resources Committee's Subcommittee on Water, Oceans, and Wildlife held a hearing titled Environmental Justice for Coastal Communities: Examining Inequities in Federal Grantmaking. Witnesses discussed the obstacles communities face when applying for federal funding for pre-disaster and disaster recovery projects, and how those obstacles can deepen inequality in historically underserved areas.

In his opening remarks, Subcommittee Chairman Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) connected the issues of climate change and structural inequities. He stated that worsening natural disasters and heat waves threaten the well-being of coastal residents and the natural resources they rely on, noting the communities most vulnerable to climate-related hazards were often neglected during the federal grant-making process. He pointed out that wealthier communities often receive more federal grant money following major storms because communities with fewer resources have difficulty navigating the grant application process, meeting federal matching requirements, or, in the case of Native peoples, meeting eligibility requirements.

Throughout the hearing, witnesses emphasized the importance of building local capacity to navigate the grant application process and characterized the challenges of meeting federal matching requirements. Ernesto L. Díaz-Velázquez, director of the Puerto Rico Coastal Management Program and the Puerto Rico Coral Reef Conservation and Management Program, highlighted that only about a quarter of the $61 billion in funds allocated for disaster recovery in Puerto Rico since Hurricane Maria in 2017 have been spent on projects. This delay is due in part to inadequate staffing levels at local agencies that must communicate with federal agencies to secure funds.

Díaz-Velázquez stated that capacity issues were a common problem for island territories like Puerto Rico, which has historically prioritized grants for health and education but has not been able to engage as effectively on coastal resilience issues. Dr. Holly Bamford, conservation director at the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF), a federally-backed grantmaking organization, explained that many of the communities seeking NFWF funds have an intimate knowledge of local needs, but limited proficiency in navigating the technical and complex grant application process.

Witnesses agreed that federal agencies working in closer partnership with communities would be one good way to overcome these challenges. Fawn Sharp, President of the Quinault Indian Nation and President of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), described how under current law Native nations must work through state offices to access federal resources, which can distort the nature of local needs by modifying grant requests to accord with state management plans.

Federal grant-matching requirements were another barrier to access that hearing panelists highlighted. As Díaz-Velázquez explained, with the exception of emergencies covered under a presidential disaster declaration, jurisdictions and entities applying for federal grants are often expected to provide 25 to 50 percent of project costs on their own in order to receive federal funds. Entities with limited ability to raise revenue can therefore struggle to secure grants. Bamford stated that matching was also a common obstacle faced by communities NFWF has collaborated with.

Sharp explained how the unique situation of Native American nations makes those obstacles even more daunting. In addition to possessing limited financial resources, Native American nations typically do not or cannot raise funds to match grants through taxes. Nations also have difficulty securing loans for projects because they are not permitted to use tribal property as collateral, and many U.S. financial institutions are reluctant to give out loans due to a mistaken fear that lending to Nations is especially risky because they can avoid repaying loans at will by invoking sovereign immunity.

Díaz-Velázquez also discussed the deficiencies in how the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) cost-benefit analysis models rate resiliency projects. The models favor a rapid return on investment, meaning cheaper short-term solutions are often rated as better investments than more durable solutions with higher upfront costs. Díaz-Velázquez emphasized that FEMA’s framework is especially detrimental to nature-based resilience projects like coral reef restoration because it tends to underestimate the multiple benefits healthy ecosystems provide to local communities. He noted that FEMA released new guidance urging the incorporation of “ecosystem services” into its cost-benefit analysis models in September, but how the guidance would work in practice remains unclear.

While witnesses brought a diverse array of perspectives to the hearing, two key themes were clear throughout: the accessibility of federal funding must be dramatically improved to prepare vulnerable coastal communities for the effects of the climate crisis, and much more must be done to tailor those grants to community needs.

Author: Joseph Glandorf