Maine Legislature approves bill to prepare for severe weather fueled by climate change
Apr. 22—AUGUSTA — Lawmakers on Tuesday passed a bill to help Maine communities prepare for and respond to severe weather and the long-term impacts of climate change.
Gov. Janet Mills introduced the bill and is expected to sign it into law Tuesday afternoon.
It was approved 32-0 in the Senate on Tuesday after being approved in the House of Representatives last week.
The bill includes a grant program that would help residents make investments to safeguard their homes against extreme weather. It makes one-time investments in the Maine Emergency Management Agency and utilizes federal funds to establish a new state office to reduce storm damage and protect infrastructure.
The legislation, LD 1, responds to recommendations from the Infrastructure Rebuilding and Resilience Commission, which Mills established last year following a series of winter storms that caused an estimated $90 million in damage to public infrastructure across the state. It is an emergency bill, which means it will take effect immediately if signed by the governor.
The bill comes with a $39 million price tag but will be funded with surplus state funds and federal funds and does not rely on general funds from the state budget.
It includes several key initiatives, the first of which would provide $15 million in one-time funding to establish the Home Resiliency Program to provide grants of up to $15,000 to homeowners to make investments to safeguard their homes against future storms.
The program would be operated by Maine's Bureau of Insurance and would focus on reducing roof damage, basement flooding and other targeted interventions to minimize storm damage and insurance losses.
One-time funding from the Bureau of Insurance would be used to invest $10 million in the State Disaster Recovery Fund to provide matching funds to secure federal funding to respond to natural disasters, establish a new state fund to provide required matching dollars to secure federal loan funds for storm mitigation, improve emergency communications systems and to invest in two new staff members at MEMA.
The proposal would also establish a new State Resilience Office funded through a five-year federal grant from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to support planning that reduces flood and storm damage, protects public and private infrastructure and supports public safety.
Finally, the legislation would launch a Flood-Ready Maine Program to modernize data on flood risk and make it accessible to municipal leaders and Mainers online. The program would work to improve communication to communities, businesses and residents about flood risk, and to increase the number of flood insurance policies in use in Maine.
This story will be updated.
Copy the Story Link
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
British investors face £5bn blow from Trump's ‘big, beautiful bill'
British investors are facing a $7bn (£5bn) tax blow from Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill', analysts have warned. The UK Government alone could have to pay $400m a year as part of the 'revenge' tax outlined in the Republican tax and spending bill that has recently been passed by the House of Representatives. Mr Trump's bill is set to charge a retaliatory tax on some foreign investments made by entities from countries that the US deems to have 'unfair' tax systems – which includes the UK. The tax, known as Section 899, would levy a 5pc rate on gains made by UK investors – a rate that will increase by five percentage points each year up to a maximum rate of 20pc. Crucially, analysts have warned the wording of the policy documents open the door to taxing interest earned on holdings of US Treasuries, which are usually tax-exempt. The UK will be hit particularly hard if America starts charging a new tax on yields from US Treasuries because of its vast ownership of this debt. Britain recently overtook China as the world's second largest holder of US Treasuries, behind only Japan. UK entities, such as pension funds and private investors, hold a total of $779bn in US government bonds. The UK receives about $35bn a year in earnings, assuming an average interest rate of 4.5pc, according to analysis by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (Niesr). If these yields are taxed at 5pc, this will cost $1.8bn – rising to $7.2bn as the tax rate increases to 20pc in the fourth year. Duncan Hardell, international tax specialist at NYU's Tax Law Centre, said that although it was unclear whether exemptions on Treasuries would still apply, there is a risk the tax rate will go up. 'The statute itself is not clear on this point,' he said. Section 899 has triggered widespread fear across Wall Street and prompted a huge lobbying drive, with dozens of international executives travelling to Washington DC to meet with members of Congress earlier this month to discuss the measure. The UK Government alone holds $55bn in US Treasuries. Niesr estimates yields on these holdings would be liable for a $100m tax charge in the first year, rising to $400m in the fourth year. Stephen Millard, Niesr's deputy director, warned that if this measure was imposed it would likely trigger a fire sale. He said: 'The big thing, of course, is how people would respond if it becomes clear that this income was taxable. You might expect to see holders of US Treasuries try to get out of them as much as they possibly can.' This would mean market turmoil, as a sell-off would drive down the value of the bonds dramatically. In turn, this would trigger a surge in US government borrowing costs as investors demanded higher returns to cover their costs. 'That whole idea of the US as being a safe currency or US Treasuries as being safe assets suddenly changes,' Mr Millard said. Even if Section 899 does not apply to holdings of US Treasuries, economists have warned the measure risks turning the president's trade war into a capital war and would trigger enormous market disruption. Mr Hardell added: 'It could cause chaos. The risk is you're creating a new front in the ongoing tariff war and extending that to taxes and investment. 'There's a real possibility that the US will be fighting the rest of the world all at once, on multiple fronts. Investment, business and talent could just flee to other countries.' Kim Clausing, a tax academic at the UCLA School of Law, said: 'What we're going to do is tax foreign investors at an accelerating rate based on things beyond their control, and we're going to be doing that in a context where we're issuing a lot of debt, erecting trade barriers and eroding a lot of sources of US strength. 'I find it deeply disturbing. It's a big overreach, and it's one that will backfire. We're basically going to shoot ourselves in the foot by making the US a much less attractive place to invest.' The bill is being scrutinised by the Senate and Mr Trump has set a deadline of July 4 to get a finalised version. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more. Sign in to access your portfolio
Axios
39 minutes ago
- Axios
The most important Democratic primary endorsements: poll
Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), two progressive powerhouses, hold the most influential endorsements in Democratic primaries, according to new polling shared with Axios. Why it matters: Democratic figures have already started firing off endorsements for the 2026 midterms. But new data reveals only a fraction of those endorsements motivate primary voters. 60% of likely Democratic primary voters are more likely to support a politician endorsed by Sanders, according to recent polling by Data for Progress. That figure is 56% for Warren. The endorsements of top Democratic leaders like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries aren't as powerful as the endorsements of other prominent Democrats, according to the poll. The big picture: There are several high-stakes primaries for Democrats next year. Progressives and moderates will try to put their thumbs on the scales of those contests. Senate Democrats are preparing for open primaries in Michigan, Illinois, Texas, Florida and North Carolina. Zoom in: These are how political figures polled among Democratic primary voters. Sen. Bernie Sanders — Net +48 (More likely: 60%, Less likely: 12%) Sen. Elizabeth Warren — Net +46 (More likely: 56%, Less likely: 10%) Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg — Net +44 (More likely: 53%, Less likely: 9%) Gov. Tim Walz — Net +44 (More likely: 54%, Less likely: 10%) Sen. Cory Booker — Net +38 (More likely: 51%, Less likely: 13%) House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries — Net +37 (More likely: 47%, Less likely: 10%) Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — Net +31 (More likely: 44%, Less likely: 13%) Gov. Gretchen Whitmer — Net +31 (More likely: 39%, Less likely: 8%) Gov. Josh Shapiro — Net +29 (More likely: 40%, Less likely: 11%) Sen. Amy Klobuchar — Net +29 (More likely: 40%, Less likely: 11%) Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer — Net +27 (More likely: 43%, Less likely: 16%) Rep. Jasmine Crockett — Net +26 (More likely: 33%, Less likely: 7%) Gov. Gavin Newsom — Net +25 (More likely: 38%, Less likely: 13%) Gov. Andy Beshear — Net +23 (More likely: 32%, Less likely: 9%) Businessman Mark Cuban — Net +23 (More likely: 35%, Less likely: 12%) Gov. J.B. Pritzker — Net +21 (More likely: 29%, Less likely: 8%) Sen. Chris Murphy — Net +19 (More likely: 26%, Less likely: 7%) Gov. Wes Moore — Net +17 (More likely: 25%, Less likely: 8%) Sen. Tim Kaine — Net +17 (More likely: 28%, Less likely: 11%) Former Ambassador Rahm Emanuel — Net +14 (More likely: 25%, Less likely: 11%)
Axios
39 minutes ago
- Axios
The intra-GOP fight over Israel's strikes on Iran
Some Hill Republicans view the past 24 hours as a battle lost for MAGA's isolationist camp. Why it matters: GOP Hill leaders united in support of Israel's targeted attack on Iran — in spite of MAGA media's monthslong warnings against such strikes. Major MAGA figures from Tucker Carlson to Charlie Kirk to Jack Posobiec tried for months to rally the Trump base against the U.S. backing direct attacks on Iran. Non-interventionism is a core pillar of the "America First" movement — arguably as important to the MAGA base as immigration and trade. But elected Republicans' public support of Israel's action indicates the more traditional national security hawks still have some ground to stand on, for now. What they're saying: "Two months ago I gave Iran a 60 day ultimatum to "make a deal." They should have done it," Trump posted on Truth Social on Friday. Israeli officials told Axios that despite the administration's official distancing from the strikes, the U.S. had given Israel the green light. "The United States Senate stands ready to work with President Trump and with our allies in Israel to restore peace in the region and, first and foremost, to defend the American people from Iranian aggression," Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said in a statement. "Israel decided it needed to take action to defend itself. They were clearly within their right to do so," Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said. What we're hearing: Top GOP congressional staffers told Axios the limits of the MAGA isolationists' influence — particularly with lawmakers — is clear. One chief of staff described the online personalities as "in a bubble," arguing they have almost no real influence on Capitol Hill. Another said they felt that when it comes to Israel, most Republicans are not all that in line with voices like Carlson. One aide argued that Trump is not all that different than in his first term, when he took out Qasem Soleiman i or ordered strikes on Syria in response to a chemical weapons attack — despite new voices in his inner circle. Standing with allies is foreign policy 101, said another, calling it "remarkable" how some in the administration's isolationist wing pretends otherwise. What to watch: Some Republicans are taking it a step further than approval of Israeli actions, encouraging more direct U.S. involvement while not yet advocating for troops on the ground. "Again, I applaud President Trump for urging Iran back to the negotiating table," Sen Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) posted on X on Friday. "However, if Iran refuses this offer, I strongly believe it is in America's national security interest to go all-in to help Israel finish the job." "President Donald J. Trump does not bluff. If the Iranians attack Americans— there will be hell to pay," Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), a close Trump ally, posted. Between the lines: The MAGAverse's influence could have been diluted by its own division over the issue of Israel and Iran. Some in MAGA, led by older voters and evangelicals, want to continue Washington's historic Israel bearhug even while avoiding other foreign entanglements. Others don't have such an Israel-sized carveout in their non-interventionist instincts. A slice of MAGA promoting antisemitism is openly hostile to the country. The bottom line: Those divisions were on full display Friday. "How is it not AMERICA FIRST to congratulate those who just made sure Islamists who chant "DEATH TO AMERICA" and who openly plotted to assassinate President @realDonaldTrump never have an opportunity to have a nuke?" right-wing provocateur Laura Loomer posted on X. "They should be Israel first. But we have to be America first," Steve Bannon said on his "War Room" podcast Friday. "The bottom line is, we cannot be inexorably dragged into a war on the Eurasian land mass or in the Middle East or in Eastern Europe."
