Local governments react to push in legislation to prevent FEMA claw-backs
BAY COUNTY, Fla. (WMBB) – Congressman Neal Dunn introduced his legislation Thursday called 'Streamlined FEMA Cost Exemption Act.'
The bill would prevent FEMA 'Claw-backs' of public assistance grants for disaster recovery projects. Both Bay and Washington counties have experience with this issue.
'They awarded the funds. And then they've come back and said, well, we shouldn't have done that, but they did. So, from that, our position is we should not be penalized for that. But again, based on how our staff works and with the ability of having the surtax, we've started reserving to make sure we're able to cover this claw-back in the event that they are successful in pursuing those funds,' Bay County Commissioner Doug Moore said.
Rural areas like Washington County are not as equipped to handle a claw-back.
'You know, you can't do that to rural counties, especially rural fiscally constrained counties. Washington County is one of the counties involved in this. Can you imagine them coming up with $100 million? Not in a thousand years,' U.S. Congressman Neal Dunn said.
Dunn says approving funds for any community's disaster recovery and then taking it back is unacceptable. There was existing legislation that was supposed to strengthen FEMA regulations in 2018.
U.S. Congressman introduces bill to hold FEMA accountable
Dunn says his bill will go further, limiting the opportunity for excuses or mistakes, requiring the FEMA administrator to develop and establish an 'Acceptable error ratio' for allocations during eligibility negotiations. It would also prohibit FEMA from rescinding certain public assistance grants by adjusting the statute of limitations from three years to two.
Dunn believes the bill has a good chance of passing.
'It turns out there's a lot of people in Congress who are upset with FEMA right now. As you can imagine. I think it's going to be a very popular bill, frankly. On both sides of the aisle,' Dunn said.
The bill would be popular with local governments as well.
'It would be wonderful if there was legislation that was able to pass that would be set up in a way that, once FEMA awarded a project, that if everything was done correctly and we followed the requirements of that contract, that they could not come back afterwards and go, 'oops', Moore said.
Commissioner Moore says even though Bay County is prepared, the potential threat of returning that money has created a ripple effect, slowing and even halting several county projects.
'It would be a marvelous thing for us to know that going forward, we would be able to be set up in place to know that we wouldn't get the rug pulled out from under us after we were doing work for recovery for our citizens,' Moore added.
With the 2025 hurricane season underway, many Floridians are worried about FEMA's ability to help.
Dunn says FEMA has the budget to do what's necessary.
'FEMA gets a very, very rich budget from Congress, and I could show you over the years how it's increased, but it has been a prodigious amount of money in the last few years that they've gotten in emergency, what we call disaster supplemental money. And they have literally gotten tens and tens of billions of dollars. And there's no excuse for them hoarding that money and no excuse for them clawing back money,' Dunn continued.
For a full rundown on this bill, click here.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
If we want NC to be a great place to live, we all have to pay for it with taxes
Richard Bostic's May 29 editorial hit the nail on the head. The truth is you get what you pay for. If North Carolina Republicans, Independents and Democrats want good schools, highways and government services that benefit individuals and society (including housing assistance, environmental protection and disaster preparedness) and make our state a great place to live, we all have to pay for it. If we don't, we will reap what we sow. I am glad to pay my fair share in income taxes not just to get what I pay for but to benefit fellow citizens and build a future we can be proud of. John Saxon, Hillsborough The 100% tariff on Chinese electric vehicles and any additional tariffs Donald Trump may impose are hurting Americans and U.S. climate goals. We must eliminate these tariffs as soon as possible. Chinese EVs cost much less than American ones because of government subsidies and cheaper production. These tariffs force us to pay inflated prices for domestic EVs or stick with gas cars. How are Americans supposed to contribute to the fight against climate change when they can't afford low-emission vehicles? Chinese companies like BYD offer longer battery life, faster charging and hybrid systems that outlast most American models. Protectionist policy proponents fear that without these tariffs, American workers and automakers will be harmed. A solution would be to require Chinese automakers to establish plants in the United States. Workers will have even more job opportunities in a future-proof car market. Congress must end these tariffs. Americans deserve access to innovative, affordable electric vehicles while we fight climate change and strengthen our economy. Holton Mody, Chapel Hill Thank you for the May 29 edition's article on Scott Pelley's (CBS 60 Minutes) commencement address at Wake Forest University. I was inspired to stream it on C-Span and found it eloquent, inspirational, dynamic and reassuring. He wasn't afraid to voice the truth of what is happening today, unlike many who have compromised their integrity in fear. He supported his statements with facts, not in support of any political party, but for democracy. Wanda Easley, Cary We are deeply concerned about the proposed $2.7 billion cut — nearly 40% — to the National Cancer Institute's budget. As representatives of the American Cancer Society in Central and Eastern North Carolina, we know firsthand this funding saves lives. Federal investment in cancer research has led to every major treatment breakthrough over the last 50 years. Because of this support, more than 18 million cancer survivors are alive today in the U.S. Slashing funding would delay progress, limit innovation and hurt patients and families. Cancer doesn't discriminate. Cutting lifesaving research is a step backward we cannot afford. We urge people to contact their lawmakers. Protect cancer research. Richard Averitte, executive director American Cancer Society – Central & Eastern North Carolina, Raleigh Studies approximate that 18 per 100,000 people people are intersex, meaning they have male and female sex characteristics, and about 1.7% of people are born with some intersex traits, which can put them in a gray area of sexual identification and gender conformity. As newborns, many are, intentionally or unintentionally, falsely classified as male or female (some are correctly listed as intersex). Intersex has been documented throughout history. How does this fit in with many Christian institutions stating that there are only two sexes, and supporting policies that recognize only two sexes? T This is important to not only for LGBTQ+ communities, athletic and marriage issues but to all of us who care about discrimination. Marnie Cooper Priest, Raleigh Our don't confuse me with the facts president has done it again; chickening out on tariffs as markets deliver their verdict and chickening out with Putin every time. Trump is unable to stand his ground, let alone lead. All talk and no action, withering in every interaction with Putin. Instead of leading, Trump enables China to win the innovation race. By attacking our own academic institutions, drivers of innovation gave us the edge, Trump is following Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy's model to bully those in the U.S. It's no longer a place for the best and brightest. China seems to be benefiting from Trump's policies. Jacqueline Allen, Carrboro
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Gov. Stein is making the conservative case for FEMA
It's a classic Trump-era irony: The president's polarizing voice has triggered a burst of bipartisan agreement. When President Donald Trump floated the notion of scrapping FEMA entirely after Hurricane Helene, it sounded like the start of another bare-knuckle partisan fight. Instead, it sparked a rare consensus: FEMA is flawed, but it's also essential. Right now, the surprisingly high-profile defender of that notion is North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein. And in another ironic twist, the most liberal governor North Carolina has ever elected is sounding . . . conservative. Over the past two weeks, Stein has launched a media blitz to rescue FEMA from its own dysfunction — and from the president's crosshairs. He's appeared on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, penned an op-ed in USA Today, lobbied Republican U.S. Sens. Thom Tillis and Ted Budd and written directly to the Trump administration with proposed reforms. His argument is simple: Disaster response is a core function of the federal government, and it saves money and gets better results if states don't go it alone. 'It's about streamlining and reforming and improving FEMA, not eliminating it,' Stein said in a recent podcast interview with Spectrum News. That may not sound revolutionary, but in today's political climate, it's a noteworthy response. Where many Democrats, like former Gov. Roy Cooper, may have used Trump's comments to raise money or fire up the base, Stein is taking a different tack. He's responding thoughtfully, and with a message that Republicans might actually hear. FEMA makes for a convenient punching bag. After any disaster, emotions are raw as survivors try to make sense of their losses. When calls go to voicemail or a form gets rejected on a technicality, the natural response is anger. Police officers often talk about trying to give people grace because they recognize they're meeting everyone on the worst day of their life. FEMA workers are in the same position but may not always realize it, or be equipped to respond. That doesn't mean FEMA gets a pass, of course, and there were plenty of problems with its response to Hurricane Helene. Red tape kept people waiting for temporary housing. It took multiple calls from elected officials to get FEMA to extend hotel vouchers to keep people from being turned out into a snowstorm. North Carolina's own shortcomings made matters worse. An after-action report from the state's Emergency Management Division showed deep cracks in the response to Helene — unclear communications, insufficient coordination with counties and a lack of planning around debris and housing. FEMA may have failed in some areas, but so did the state. Still, it would've been easy — even expected — for Stein to point fingers or escalate the fight as President Trump continues down the path toward eliminating FEMA. Instead, he's lowering the temperature. Trump's proposal to eliminate FEMA might be a negotiation tactic rather than a policy plan. He's known for throwing rhetorical grenades to draw people to the table. Some see that as bluster, while others see leverage. Either way, if the goal is to force FEMA to improve, there's plenty of common ground. And Stein is proving to be an effective messenger. He's called for FEMA to be faster, more flexible, and less redundant. He wants a single application process, more upfront money for permanent repairs and greater use of block grants to give states more discretion. This isn't the burn-it-down approach of the MAGA right, nor is it a progressive defense of bureaucracy. It's something rarer these days: a sober, statesmanlike argument for targeted federal responsibility and reform. As a conservative, I've long believed in limiting federal power. I've written before that North Carolina should stop waiting on Washington and take control of its own future. So I sympathize with Trump's instinct to scrap FEMA entirely. There's philosophical merit to the idea. The federal government tries to do too much. State governments are more nimble, more accountable. Pushing power down is almost always the right move. But not in every case. President Reagan famously said the nine scariest words in the English language were: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' And yet Reagan also signed the Stafford Act — the law that governs FEMA to this day. That law has real flaws, and some of them are exactly what we're grappling with now. That's another classic Trump-era irony. The liberal governor of North Carolina is defending FEMA with a Reaganesque argument, to preserve a program the Gipper helped create. I still believe in federalism. But on this one, Stein has convinced me. FEMA needs to stay.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Changes at FEMA raise local worries as hurricane season begins in North Carolina
The start of hurricane season can send a shiver through eastern North Carolina, a region pounded in the last decade by two supposedly once-in-a-century storms — Matthew and Florence. But as the six-month season officially opened on June 1, there's reason to fear not just the coming of devastating winds and flooding, but also the lack of federal help. Staffing at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has been reduced through terminations and voluntary retirements and the Trump administration is considering reducing the share of recovery costs the federal government will pay. But the clearest cause for worry is in western North Carolina, where the Trump administration is balking at providing expected funding to support recovery from Hurricane Helene. North Carolina's Rep. Deborah Ross (D-2nd) led a bipartisan group of House members from the Southeast who wrote to the Trump administration urging it to replenish FEMA's disaster relief fund, which is about to run out of money months before the end of the fiscal year. The lawmakers have received no reply Ross said in a statement: 'Donald Trump visited western North Carolina during his first week in office, looked hurricane victims in the eye, and promised them his full support. His administration has abandoned communities hit hard by Hurricane Helene.' In the small town of River Bend on the Trent River near New Bern, Town Manager Delane Jackson said the uncertainty around federal disaster relief has given this hurricane season a sharper edge of anxiety. 'We are really on high alert because of what is happening at FEMA,' he said. 'It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when a hurricane is going to strike.' River Bend knows what hurricanes can do. When Hurricane Florence hit in 2018, flooding from the Trent River damaged a third of the town's 1,500 homes. Jackson added, 'I don't have confidence that if something were to happen, the federal government would be there to hold hands along the way.' In Shallotte, a western Brunswick County town of 5,000 about five miles from the coast, Mayor Walter Eccard said less federal support would leave his town in 'a very difficult situation.'bHe said, 'It's an area of worry for me because they're a valuable partner in our (recovery) efforts.' In Wilmington, a city cut off by Florence for four days, Mayor Bill Saffo said he is nervously watching the problems with disaster relief in western North Carolina and FEMA's changes in Washington. 'You get around hurricane season and you don't know if one of your main agencies is going to be around for you,' he said. 'We're very concerned about it. Everybody should be.' Some at FEMA acknowledge that the agency enters this hurricane season with a hindered ability to respond. CNN recently reported on an internal report that said, 'As FEMA transforms to a smaller footprint, the intent for this hurricane season is not well understood. Thus FEMA is not ready.' But Rep. Greg Murphy (R-3rd), whose district covers much of the state's coastal area, welcomes the shakeup at FEMA. He said in a statement: 'FEMA has become an overly bureaucratic and unreliable agency that has shown a failure of getting resources to the people who need it in a timely manner. The system needs reform.' Murphy said changing FEMA will not restrict a full response. He said he and his team are 'working to ensure manpower and funding will be ready to meet any disaster that may afflict our state.' As the federal government steps back from disaster relief, the potential damage from hurricanes grows. Stan Riggs, a retired East Carolina University professor and one of the state's leading experts on coastal geology, said increased building in vulnerable areas means devastating damage is inevitable. 'It's like having a picnic on the interstate,' he said. Providing hurricane relief funding is essential, he said, but the government should also be investing more in making the state less vulnerable. Instead, the risk is rising, the response is fading and this hurricane season is becoming increasingly anxious. Associate opinion editor Ned Barnett can be reached at 919-404-7583, or nbarnett@
