In 2016, a flood left the tiny community of Yarnell without water services for four days. Around that time, Yavapai County began assembling a drainage plan for the Yarnell area and finding ways to manage frequent flooding.
In 2024, the county applied for a federal grant to install a storm drainage system that would protect Yarnell’s water system. But that application is now in limbo after the Federal Emergency Management Agency canceled the relevant grant program on April 4, calling it “wasteful” and “politicized.”
The Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program has become one of the latest in a series of government programs shuttered by President Donald Trump’s administration. While local and state governments seek alternative funding for disaster-related projects, the reasons for the program’s termination remain unclear.
Federal officials have not specified cases of waste or politicization in the program, which state officials have characterized as “critical.” Meanwhile, a bipartisan pair of legislators, including one from Arizona, is trying to restore the program, arguing that communities in their districts, Republican and Democratic, cannot pay for necessary disaster mitigation projects on their own.
The BRIC program, managed by FEMA, was created by the first Trump administration in 2020 at the suggestion of Congress. The program was meant to help local governments with “cost-effective” pre-disaster mitigation projects designed to “reduce injuries, loss of life, and damage and destruction of property, including damage to critical services.”
The program has distributed $133 million since 2020, according to FEMA, with about $1.5 billion more that has been obligated to be spent as projects progress. The funds have gone to communities planning for wildfires, floods, extreme heat events, earthquakes, droughts and other disasters.
Feds describe program as ‘wasteful and ineffective’
Arizona communities have submitted 26 applications for BRIC funding between 2020 and 2023, asking for help with mapping earthquake and landslide risks, flood mitigation, flood warning and siren systems and urban heat education. The vast majority of the dollars requested by Arizona communities, 81%, were for flood mitigation or planning. The University of Arizona and Yavapai County jave been the state’s most frequent applicants.
According to FEMA officials, these projects, or at least others sponsored by BRIC, had somehow veered away from their intended goal.
“The BRIC program was yet another example of a wasteful and ineffective FEMA program,” a spokesperson said on April 4. “It was more concerned with political agendas than helping Americans affected by natural disasters. Under Secretary Noem’s leadership, we are committed to ensuring that Americans in crisis can get the help and resources they need.”
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has stated that the Trump administration plans to “eliminate” FEMA altogether, though the agency was created by Congress and the executive’s authority to terminate it is unclear.
FEMA said that ending BRIC is part of implementing Trump’s March 19 executive order, which stated that “preparedness is most effectively owned and managed at the State, local, and even individual levels, supported by a competent, accessible, and efficient Federal Government.”
The order does not specify how that ideal is different from the existing BRIC structure, in which state and local governments lead and execute mitigation projects, relying on FEMA for funding and some technical support.
A spokesperson for the Arizona Department of Emergency and Military Affairs, which coordinates the grants for local communities, said the agency is still communicating with FEMA about which funds will be clawed back. The agency is confident that any applications submitted in 2024, likely including Yavapai County’s application for Yarnell’s water system, will not move forward.
“We are working closely with our FEMA Region 9 partners to understand the parameters of the cancelation decision and which projects will be impacted,” the spokesperson said.
Stanton: Cancelling the program was a ‘self-defeating move’
So far, FEMA has obligated $2.9 million for Arizona applicants. Arizona’s emergency department could not immediately compile the total amount that has been disbursed. The remaining dollars may never reach Arizona, since FEMA ended the program and mandated that all undisbursed funds would be withheld. Of the $1.6 billion obligated through the program so far, FEMA estimates that roughly 10% has been disbursed (obligated dollars are disbursed on a timeline as projects move forward).
Rep. Greg Stanton, D-Ariz., and Rep. Robert Bresnahan, R-Penn., introduced a bill in the U.S. House on April 14 to restore the program.
“I can’t imagine a more self-defeating move,” Stanton said of the move to terminate the BRIC program. “BRIC grants are a small up-front investment in resilience to save lives and taxpayer dollars long-term.”
Rep. Greg Stanton speaks to the crowd gathered during a town hall at Dobson Community Center on April 3, 2025, in Mesa.
Bresnahan wrote a letter to FEMA leadership on April 9 explaining that communities in his district could not pay for the flood mitigation projects they hoped to fund through BRIC.
“The city of Scranton, PA was awaiting $2.5 million for buyouts of 21 flood-prone properties that were destroyed by flash floods … Now, the city is left holding the bag,” Bresnahan wrote. “The median household income of my district is $61,000. Sadly, the tax base for a number of municipalities in my district is not always sufficient to complete buyout programs without Federal assistance.”
The Arizona agency spokesperson said the program was “critical” for implementing parts of its statewide hazard mitigation plan, which involves state-coordinated, locally led projects to defend communities against natural disasters. The difference between that objective and Trump’s stated goal of local- and state-led disaster preparedness is not addressed in FEMA’s press release regarding BRIC.
The Arizona Republic reached out to FEMA on April 11 with several questions, but has not received a response:
Can FEMA provide more detail on how this program has been politicized?
Are there any cases the agency can point to in which this program has been wasteful?
If cases of politicization and waste were present, why didn’t the agency address those cases specifically, rather than ending the entire program?
In the release, the agency states: “Ending this program will help ensure that grant funding aligns with the President’s Executive Orders and Secretary Noem’s direction and best support states and local communities in disaster planning, response and recovery.” Why was this program not an effective means of supporting states in disaster planning?
Was one of the goals of terminating this program to reduce overall government spending or reach a balanced federal budget? If so, why was that not referenced directly in the release?
Why was this program ended, but not other, similar programs like Flood Mitigation Assistance? What makes BRIC uniquely wasteful or politicized compared with those programs?
The state spokesperson said the agency is working to help communities complete their projects without BRIC funding.
“DEMA will continue advising local communities on alternative funding sources,” the spokersperson said in an email.
Austin Corona covers environmental issues for The Arizona Republic and azcentral. Send tips or questions to austin.corona@arizonarepublic.com.
Environmental coverage on azcentral.com and in The Arizona Republic is supported by a grant from the Nina Mason Pulliam Charitable Trust.
Sign up for AZ Climate, our weekly environment newsletter, and follow The Republic environmental reporting team at environment.azcentral.com and @azcenvironment on Facebook and Instagram.
This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: FEMA ends disaster program. Arizona officials say it’s ‘critical’