Committee hears testimony on bill to recreate Montana disaster resiliency fund and authorize state matching dollars

Representative Larry Brewster, the sponsor of House Bill 34, told the House Appropriations Committee the bill would re-create a state disaster resiliency fund and provide seed money to attract federal mitigation grants. “The bill before you today authorizes up to a … $15,000,000 appropriation per year and recreates the $100,000,000 fund,” Representative Larry Brewster said, describing transfers of $50 million in 2025 and another $50 million in 2027.

The bill’s supporters told the committee the program so far has leveraged federal grants and paid for hazard-mitigation projects across Montana. “For every state dollar we put on the barrel head, it’s typically matched with three to six federal dollars,” Ryan Evans, assistant budget director in the Governor’s Budget Office, said. He urged the committee to focus testimony on the fiscal note and recommended a do-pass vote.

Why it matters

Proponents said the measure pays for preventative infrastructure upgrades — flood mitigation, grid hardening and wildfire-risk reduction — that lower long-term recovery costs and reduce pressure on local property tax bases. They described past funding rounds as successful: officials told the committee that seed dollars from an earlier appropriation supported roughly 22 projects, produced a large federal match and favored construction-heavy mitigation work.

What testimony covered

Representatives of state emergency-management and mitigation programs described how the fund is administered and what types of projects qualify. Delila Bruneau, administrator for Disaster and Emergency Services, said projects must follow statewide hazard mitigation plans and are community-driven; eligible applicants include local governments, tribal governments and some nonprofits. Bruneau said the state’s prior seed money offset the typical 25 percent local cost share so communities could access FEMA grants and that the program’s mix of state and federal funds produced a roughly 3-to-1 federal match on average, with some projects achieving a 9-to-1 match in specific circumstances.

Military and emergency-management officials framed the program as a prevention strategy. Major General Pete Ronek, director of the Department of Military Affairs and Adjutant General, testified that investing in mitigation “is much cheaper than having to go to war,” drawing an analogy between military preparation and disaster preparedness.

Utility and local-government witnesses described specific uses. Kiely Montalban, assistant general manager and chief risk officer for Missoula Electric Cooperative, described a Rock Creek Wildfire Mitigation Project that will relocate nearly three miles of high-risk overhead line; that project combined an approximate $900,000 FEMA BRIC award with roughly $300,000 from the state resiliency fund, she said. Ryan Hall of the Montana Electric Cooperatives Association and Ron Catlett of Flathead Electric Cooperative also urged support, saying cooperative utilities face infrastructure costs their member-owners could not absorb without assistance.

Questions from legislators

Committee members pressed staff on eligibility, timing and overlap with other state funds. Representative Fitzpatrick asked whether private utilities were eligible; Delila Bruneau replied that private utilities are ineligible under the federal grant rules used to leverage these projects. Representative Crow asked whether the fund’s projects were recovery work or forward-looking mitigation; staff explained the program is mitigation-focused, not a recovery pot to rebuild what already failed, though federally funded mitigation programs may follow an event to reduce future risk. Sarah Hartley, the state hazard mitigation officer, said FEMA grants the projects with a typical period of performance of 36 months and large awards can extend to 60 months, with options to extend in special circumstances.

Budget mechanics and transfers

Budget office staff walked the committee through the fiscal assumptions: the bill would allow two transfers of $50 million each (one in 2025 and one in 2027) into a state special fund, and it would statutorily appropriate up to $15 million per year out of that fund. Ryan Evans noted that a prior statutory appropriation of $4 million a year remains in present law and that the new transfers and appropriations would replace that present-law appropriation.

No formal action recorded

The committee closed the hearing on House Bill 34 after testimony and questions. There was no committee vote on the bill during the hearing recorded in the transcript.

Ending

Proponents asked the committee to advance the bill so the state can continue to pair modest state seed money with larger federal mitigation grants. Representative Brewster closed by urging the committee to pass the measure, saying it is “cheaper to fix things first before they fail completely.”