By Jeff Dunsavage, Head of Research Publications and Insights, Triple-I
The restoration of FEMA’s Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program after its sudden cancellation a year ago is good news for communities that will benefit from the program.
Congress established BRIC through the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 to ensure a stable funding source to support mitigation projects annually. Before its cancellation on April 4, 2025, the program had allocated more than $5 billion for investment in mitigation projects to alleviate human suffering and avoid economic losses from floods, wildfires, and other disasters.
At the time the program was cancelled, Chad Berginnis, executive director of the Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM), was critical of the decision.
“Although ASFPM has had some qualms about how FEMA’s BRIC program was implemented, it was still a cornerstone of our nation’s hazard mitigation strategy, and the agency has worked to make improvements each year,” Berginnis said.
A coalition of 23 states challenged the cancellation and secured a court order requiring FEMA to restore billions in funding to communities that rely on the hazard-mitigation program. In a March 6 ruling, a U.S. district judge Richard G. Stearns gave FEMA 21days to unfreeze the approximately $750 million in grants that have been in limbo since the cancellation, which it did on March 31.
Tighter scrutiny
The restored BRIC program is largely the same statutory program, but now it operates under tighter judicial and congressional scrutiny. FEMA also explicitly states that the restored program:
- Prioritizes infrastructure and construction projects that deliver immediate, measurable risk reduction;
- Limits capability‑ and capacity‑building activities to those directly tied to infrastructure; and
- Excludes stand‑alone planning activities not connected to physical mitigation outcomes
“BRIC isn’t a perfect program, but it’s a necessary one,” said Daniel Kaniewski, CEO of Northstar Risk & Resilience, a former FEMA deputy administrator, and a Triple-I non-resident scholar. “It was formed to help drive investment in creating disaster-resilient communities – a very real need.”
Kaniewski drew comparisons with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) “Risk Rating 2.0” reforms, which aligned NFIP premiums more closely with the risk characteristics of insured properties. Before the reforms, lower-risk property owners frequently subsidized the coverage of higher-risk homes. Risk Rating 2.0 made rates fairer and the program more fiscally sound. But further reforms to NFIP are necessary, just as BRIC may need to be updated based on lessons learned from the first few years of the program’s implementation.
Kaniewski offered a final caution.
“BRIC alone – or any federal program on its own – isn’t going to close the nation’s disaster resilience gap,” he said. “It’s going to take community leaders, emergency managers, businesses, nonprofits – and, of course, the insurance industry – pulling in the same direction. The burden can’t exclusively fall on the property owners and federal taxpayers.”
Learn More:
BRIC Funding Loss Underscores Need for Collective Action on Climate Resilience
Convective Storm Losses: Historic 3-Year Streak
Flash Floods Set Records in 2025, Inland Risk Surges
Claims Leaders Take Charge on Climate-Resilient Rebuilding
Climate Nonprofits Take Responsibility for Terminated U.S. Databases
Resilience Investment Payoffs Outpace Future Costs More Than 30 Times