Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fema Policy And Local Resilience topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
New FEMA policy shifts could shift disaster costs to local governments, county emergency manager warns
Summary
The county’s new emergency management director briefed council on recent federal FEMA changes that could raise the state disaster threshold, pause preparedness grants and reduce federal mitigation funding; council unanimously empowered the administrator to pursue a set of preparedness and financial resilience actions.
Justin Pierce, Charleston County’s new director of Emergency Management, told council May 8 that recent federal policy changes and administrative actions have the potential to shift a larger share of disaster recovery and preparedness costs to state and local governments.
Pierce described three core federal shifts: (1) the federal government is proposing to push more responsibility for preparedness and recovery to state and local governments, (2) the administration is aligning and pausing preparedness grants while reevaluating priorities, and (3) FEMA is refocusing on what it calls “catastrophic” disasters, which could raise the cost threshold for a federal major disaster declaration. Pierce said the Robert T. Stafford Act governs major disaster declarations and that current discussions could move the state threshold well above the existing $9.6 million benchmark — participants estimated possible increases into the hundreds of millions or higher — which would leave counties to cover smaller and more frequent disasters.
Pierce warned that in the past decade Charleston County received roughly $30 million in federal disaster reimbursements that could be at risk under a higher threshold. He also said FEMA has paused or canceled some preparedness grants (including the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities grant) and that internal FEMA guidance has already scaled back some field operations such as door‑to‑door canvassing and disaster recovery centers.
The director laid out nine recommended county actions, including updating the county Emergency Operations Plan, building financial reserves or a disaster reserve fund, accelerating shovel‑ready resilience projects funded by federal grants, reassessing the county’s disaster insurance coverage and deepening partnerships with private‑sector and nongovernmental organizations. Council member Mister (first name not provided) moved to direct the administrator to pursue Pierce’s recommendations and to empower staff to implement them; the motion passed unanimously.
Why it matters: If the federal cost threshold for disaster declarations increases, smaller disasters that previously triggered federal assistance could require county or state funding. Pierce said that would increase pressure on reserves, force local response gaps and potentially leave some recovery needs unmet without local funding or new state programs.
Next steps: Council unanimously approved a motion to authorize the county administrator to advance the emergency management recommendations; staff will proceed with updating plans, reviewing insurance, evaluating funding reserves and accelerating eligible mitigation projects where feasible.
