Jun 18, 2026
Funding Resilience Without Federal Grants
Sustainable Funding
Holly Fowler
Client Services Manager
In This Article
BRIC is unreliable and FEMA is shrinking. Here's how cities fund climate resilience with dedicated revenue, blended finance, and a coordinating authority.
Funding Resilience Without Federal Grants
TL;DR
⚠️ The federal floor moved. BRIC was cancelled, then court-ordered back with no restart schedule; FEMA has lost roughly a third of its staff and the 2026 budget proposed a $646M cut.
🔁 It's a coordination problem, not a capital problem. The money exists across fees, bonds, state funds, and private capital — it just isn't braided together.
🏛️ The template already works. The Resilience Authority of Annapolis & Anne Arundel County — the first multi-jurisdictional one in the U.S. — secured nearly $20M in its first phase by coordinating, not by out-grant-writing peers.
💵 Dedicated revenue is the anchor. Resilience authorities can collect fees and issue bonds — a recurring local base that federal grants then amplify, instead of the reverse.
📉 The cost of waiting is rising. Mitigation returns $6–$13 per $1 spent, yet Anne Arundel alone carried a $200M resilience project backlog when it acted.
Funding Resilience Without Federal Grants
The federal money a city could once plan around is gone, frozen, or in court. FEMA terminated its flagship pre-disaster program, BRIC, in April 2025; a judge ruled the termination unlawful in December and ordered it restored, but FEMA has given no timetable and the program now staggers forward under litigation. You cannot build a ten-year capital plan on a funding source that changes status every quarter. That single fact is reorganizing how serious municipalities think about resilience finance.
Here's the reframe we bring to the cities and counties we advise: for most communities, this is a coordination problem, not a capital problem. The dollars to fund resilience exist — in stormwater fees, bonds, state programs, private capital, and philanthropy — but they sit in separate buckets, on separate timelines, governed by separate offices that don't talk.
The jurisdictions pulling ahead aren't the ones with the biggest grant. They're the ones that built a mechanism to braid those buckets together. The clearest working example of that mechanism is fifteen minutes from our office, in Annapolis.
What happened to federal climate resilience funding?
It became unreliable, which is worse for planners than being cut outright. FEMA announced on April 4, 2025 that it was ending BRIC — the largest competitively awarded pre-disaster mitigation program, which had made more than $4.6 billion available since 2020 — and cancelled the pending FY2024 funding round. A federal court ruled the termination unlawful on December 11, 2025 and issued a permanent injunction, but FEMA provided no timetable to restore the program. For a city, a program that exists on paper but can't be counted on for a NOFO date is not a planning input.
The agency administering these dollars is also shrinking. FEMA has lost roughly a third of its staff since early 2025, with its workforce falling from nearly 29,000 to about 23,000, and internal planning documents floated cutting the disaster-response workforce by 41% and the surge workforce by 85%. The President's 2026 budget proposed a $646 million cut to FEMA, eliminating several long-standing grant programs. The throughline is a deliberate shift of responsibility from Washington to states and localities. The money question lands on your desk now.
Is this really a funding problem, or a coordination problem?
For most communities, it's coordination. This is the distinction that changes what you do on Monday. A capital problem means the dollars don't exist and your job is to go find them. A coordination problem means the dollars exist in fragments — a stormwater utility fee here, unspent state revolving-loan capacity there, a foundation interested in nature-based solutions, a bond the county could float — but no single body is empowered to assemble them into a project pipeline.
In our municipal work, the second diagnosis is far more common than the first. Cities lose resilience money not because they're too poor but because the funding streams are siloed across public works, finance, planning, and emergency management, each on its own budget cycle, none mandated to braid them. The federal grant was the band-aid that let everyone avoid the harder coordination work. With the band-aid gone, the structural fix becomes unavoidable — and it turns out to be more durable than the grant ever was.
How does the Annapolis Resilience Authority model work?
It works by creating a single entity whose only job is to plan, fund, and deliver resilience projects across jurisdictional and budget-year lines. The Resilience Authority of Annapolis and Anne Arundel County is the first multi-jurisdictional resilience authority in the United States, built specifically to look beyond municipal boundaries and annual budget constraints — the two structural traps that strand resilience funding.
The results validate the coordination thesis. In its first phase the Authority secured nearly $20 million in combined federal, state, and local funding, and as recently as December 2025 it won a $1,007,500 National Coastal Resilience Fund grant paired with $2.9 million in matching funds for marsh restoration. County Executive Steuart Pittman framed the purpose plainly: the goal was to compete for public and private funding and take the burden off local taxpayers. The Authority didn't out-write its neighbors on grant applications. It built a standing structure that makes the city and county fundable.
Structural trap | What strands the money | How a resilience authority fixes it |
|---|---|---|
Jurisdictional silos | Flooding crosses city/county lines; budgets don't | A multi-jurisdictional body plans at the watershed scale |
Annual budget cycles | Resilience projects span years; appropriations reset yearly | A dedicated authority holds multi-year project pipelines |
Fragmented revenue | Fees, bonds, grants, private capital sit in separate offices | One entity braids all four into a single capital stack |
Grant dependence | Federal timing dictates local action | Local dedicated revenue anchors; grants amplify it |
What funding mechanisms can a city use instead of federal grants?
Stack several, anchored by a recurring local source. No single mechanism replaces a federal program — the strategy is a blended capital stack where each layer does a different job. The municipalities we work with assemble most resilience finance from five mechanisms.
Dedicated local revenue. Stormwater utility fees, resilience surcharges, or a dedicated portion of property tax create the recurring base. This is the anchor everything else builds on, and it's the part most cities underuse.
Bonds. Resilience authorities can issue bonds — though, importantly, not as a pledge of the jurisdiction's full faith and credit or taxing power — converting future fee revenue into present capital for shovel-ready projects.
State programs. State revolving funds, Maryland-style DNR resilience grants, and state climate appropriations are often under-tapped because no one owns the application calendar.
Blended and private finance. Green banks, private capital intermediaries, and impact investors fund nature-based and revenue-generating projects. Charles County's authority is developing a Private Capital Financial Intermediary with the Montgomery County Green Bank to pull private money into nature-based solutions.
Philanthropy and competitive grants. Still useful, but as a multiplier on top of a local base, not as the foundation. The marsh-restoration grant worked because local match and a coordinating body were already in place.
This is the structure behind our resilience funding-models and green-finance guide and our work helping municipalities identify and secure funding for climate resilience projects and fund adaptation through public-private partnerships.
Does the math actually justify the spend?
Yes, and the ratio is strong enough to anchor a bond case or a council vote. Hazard mitigation returns between $6 and $13 in benefits for every $1 invested, according to the National Institute of Building Sciences and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Anne Arundel County's own analysis put the benefit-cost ratio of climate-resilient infrastructure at about 6 to 1.
The cost of not acting compounds. When Anne Arundel created its Authority, it was already carrying a roughly $200 million backlog of resilience infrastructure projects. Backlogs like that don't hold steady — they grow with every storm season that passes without a delivery mechanism. The financial case for building the coordinating structure isn't only the return on the projects; it's the avoided cost of a backlog that gets more expensive the longer it sits. For the deeper version of this argument, see our breakdown of the ROI of climate adaptation and the resilience funding gap facing cities.
What's the catch with the resilience-authority model?
It isn't a magic wand, and pretending otherwise would do you a disservice. Resilience authorities have real limits: they typically lack taxation authority and eminent domain power, and their reliance on federal funding has created uncertainty over future resource availability — the same federal volatility this article opens with reaches them too. An authority reduces federal dependence; it doesn't eliminate it.
The model also takes real work to stand up: state enabling legislation, inter-jurisdictional agreements, a governance structure, and a credible project pipeline before the first dollar moves. That's precisely why it's a coordination problem — the hard part is the institutional design, not the existence of money. But the work is front-loaded and durable. A grant funds one project and ends; a well-built authority keeps assembling capital stacks for a decade. For governance design specifically, our guide on building resilience governance models and aligning local policy with state and federal climate goals covers the institutional mechanics.
Facing a resilience backlog and a shrinking pool of federal grants?
The fix is usually structural, and it's the work we do — helping municipalities design the coordinating mechanism that braids local revenue, bonds, state programs, and private capital into a fundable pipeline. Book a discovery call with Council Fire and we'll help you turn a coordination problem into a funded plan.
FAQs
How can cities fund climate resilience without federal grants?
By building a blended capital stack anchored in dedicated local revenue. The five core mechanisms are dedicated fees like stormwater utilities, bonds, state programs, blended and private finance, and competitive grants used as a multiplier rather than foundation. A coordinating body like a resilience authority assembles these streams into multi-year project pipelines that no single municipal office could manage alone.
What is a resilience authority?
A resilience authority is a dedicated public entity created to plan, fund, and deliver climate resilience infrastructure across jurisdictional and budget-year boundaries. The Resilience Authority of Annapolis and Anne Arundel County is the first multi-jurisdictional one in the U.S. Authorities can collect fees and issue bonds, but typically lack taxation authority and eminent domain power, so they coordinate funding rather than levy it.
Why is the Annapolis Resilience Authority considered a model?
Because it demonstrates the coordination thesis in practice. As the first multi-jurisdictional resilience authority in the U.S., it secured nearly $20 million in its first phase by braiding federal, state, and local funding rather than depending on any single grant. Its structure addresses the two traps that strand resilience money: jurisdictional silos and annual budget cycles. Other Maryland counties have since followed.
Is climate resilience a funding problem or a coordination problem?
For most communities, coordination. The dollars exist across stormwater fees, bonds, state revolving funds, private capital, and philanthropy, but they sit in separate offices on separate timelines with no body empowered to combine them. Federal grants masked this fragmentation. With that funding now unreliable, the structural fix of coordinating local streams becomes both necessary and more durable.
What happened to FEMA's BRIC program?
FEMA terminated BRIC, its largest pre-disaster mitigation program, in April 2025, cancelling the pending funding round. A federal court ruled the termination unlawful in December 2025 and ordered the program restored, but FEMA provided no timetable. The program now operates under litigation with uncertain forward scheduling, which makes it unreliable as a planning input for multi-year capital projects.
Does investing in climate resilience actually pay off?
Strongly. Hazard mitigation returns between $6 and $13 in benefits per $1 invested, per the National Institute of Building Sciences and U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and Anne Arundel County put the benefit-cost ratio of resilient infrastructure near 6 to 1. The cost of inaction compounds: project backlogs grow with every storm season that passes without a delivery mechanism in place.
What funding mechanisms can replace federal resilience grants?
No single mechanism replaces a federal program; the strategy is a blended stack. Dedicated local revenue such as stormwater fees provides the recurring anchor, bonds convert that into present capital, state programs add scale, and blended or private finance funds nature-based and revenue-generating projects. Competitive grants then build on the local base rather than serving as the foundation.
Related Resources
Fund the Work
Build the Structure
Make the Case
Latest Articles
©2025
FAQ
01
What does it really mean to “redefine profit”?
02
What makes Council Fire different?
03
Who does Council Fire you work with?
04
What does working with Council Fire actually look like?
05
How does Council Fire help organizations turn big goals into action?
06
How does Council Fire define and measure success?
Jun 18, 2026
Funding Resilience Without Federal Grants
Sustainable Funding
Holly Fowler
Client Services Manager
In This Article
BRIC is unreliable and FEMA is shrinking. Here's how cities fund climate resilience with dedicated revenue, blended finance, and a coordinating authority.
Funding Resilience Without Federal Grants
TL;DR
⚠️ The federal floor moved. BRIC was cancelled, then court-ordered back with no restart schedule; FEMA has lost roughly a third of its staff and the 2026 budget proposed a $646M cut.
🔁 It's a coordination problem, not a capital problem. The money exists across fees, bonds, state funds, and private capital — it just isn't braided together.
🏛️ The template already works. The Resilience Authority of Annapolis & Anne Arundel County — the first multi-jurisdictional one in the U.S. — secured nearly $20M in its first phase by coordinating, not by out-grant-writing peers.
💵 Dedicated revenue is the anchor. Resilience authorities can collect fees and issue bonds — a recurring local base that federal grants then amplify, instead of the reverse.
📉 The cost of waiting is rising. Mitigation returns $6–$13 per $1 spent, yet Anne Arundel alone carried a $200M resilience project backlog when it acted.
Funding Resilience Without Federal Grants
The federal money a city could once plan around is gone, frozen, or in court. FEMA terminated its flagship pre-disaster program, BRIC, in April 2025; a judge ruled the termination unlawful in December and ordered it restored, but FEMA has given no timetable and the program now staggers forward under litigation. You cannot build a ten-year capital plan on a funding source that changes status every quarter. That single fact is reorganizing how serious municipalities think about resilience finance.
Here's the reframe we bring to the cities and counties we advise: for most communities, this is a coordination problem, not a capital problem. The dollars to fund resilience exist — in stormwater fees, bonds, state programs, private capital, and philanthropy — but they sit in separate buckets, on separate timelines, governed by separate offices that don't talk.
The jurisdictions pulling ahead aren't the ones with the biggest grant. They're the ones that built a mechanism to braid those buckets together. The clearest working example of that mechanism is fifteen minutes from our office, in Annapolis.
What happened to federal climate resilience funding?
It became unreliable, which is worse for planners than being cut outright. FEMA announced on April 4, 2025 that it was ending BRIC — the largest competitively awarded pre-disaster mitigation program, which had made more than $4.6 billion available since 2020 — and cancelled the pending FY2024 funding round. A federal court ruled the termination unlawful on December 11, 2025 and issued a permanent injunction, but FEMA provided no timetable to restore the program. For a city, a program that exists on paper but can't be counted on for a NOFO date is not a planning input.
The agency administering these dollars is also shrinking. FEMA has lost roughly a third of its staff since early 2025, with its workforce falling from nearly 29,000 to about 23,000, and internal planning documents floated cutting the disaster-response workforce by 41% and the surge workforce by 85%. The President's 2026 budget proposed a $646 million cut to FEMA, eliminating several long-standing grant programs. The throughline is a deliberate shift of responsibility from Washington to states and localities. The money question lands on your desk now.
Is this really a funding problem, or a coordination problem?
For most communities, it's coordination. This is the distinction that changes what you do on Monday. A capital problem means the dollars don't exist and your job is to go find them. A coordination problem means the dollars exist in fragments — a stormwater utility fee here, unspent state revolving-loan capacity there, a foundation interested in nature-based solutions, a bond the county could float — but no single body is empowered to assemble them into a project pipeline.
In our municipal work, the second diagnosis is far more common than the first. Cities lose resilience money not because they're too poor but because the funding streams are siloed across public works, finance, planning, and emergency management, each on its own budget cycle, none mandated to braid them. The federal grant was the band-aid that let everyone avoid the harder coordination work. With the band-aid gone, the structural fix becomes unavoidable — and it turns out to be more durable than the grant ever was.
How does the Annapolis Resilience Authority model work?
It works by creating a single entity whose only job is to plan, fund, and deliver resilience projects across jurisdictional and budget-year lines. The Resilience Authority of Annapolis and Anne Arundel County is the first multi-jurisdictional resilience authority in the United States, built specifically to look beyond municipal boundaries and annual budget constraints — the two structural traps that strand resilience funding.
The results validate the coordination thesis. In its first phase the Authority secured nearly $20 million in combined federal, state, and local funding, and as recently as December 2025 it won a $1,007,500 National Coastal Resilience Fund grant paired with $2.9 million in matching funds for marsh restoration. County Executive Steuart Pittman framed the purpose plainly: the goal was to compete for public and private funding and take the burden off local taxpayers. The Authority didn't out-write its neighbors on grant applications. It built a standing structure that makes the city and county fundable.
Structural trap | What strands the money | How a resilience authority fixes it |
|---|---|---|
Jurisdictional silos | Flooding crosses city/county lines; budgets don't | A multi-jurisdictional body plans at the watershed scale |
Annual budget cycles | Resilience projects span years; appropriations reset yearly | A dedicated authority holds multi-year project pipelines |
Fragmented revenue | Fees, bonds, grants, private capital sit in separate offices | One entity braids all four into a single capital stack |
Grant dependence | Federal timing dictates local action | Local dedicated revenue anchors; grants amplify it |
What funding mechanisms can a city use instead of federal grants?
Stack several, anchored by a recurring local source. No single mechanism replaces a federal program — the strategy is a blended capital stack where each layer does a different job. The municipalities we work with assemble most resilience finance from five mechanisms.
Dedicated local revenue. Stormwater utility fees, resilience surcharges, or a dedicated portion of property tax create the recurring base. This is the anchor everything else builds on, and it's the part most cities underuse.
Bonds. Resilience authorities can issue bonds — though, importantly, not as a pledge of the jurisdiction's full faith and credit or taxing power — converting future fee revenue into present capital for shovel-ready projects.
State programs. State revolving funds, Maryland-style DNR resilience grants, and state climate appropriations are often under-tapped because no one owns the application calendar.
Blended and private finance. Green banks, private capital intermediaries, and impact investors fund nature-based and revenue-generating projects. Charles County's authority is developing a Private Capital Financial Intermediary with the Montgomery County Green Bank to pull private money into nature-based solutions.
Philanthropy and competitive grants. Still useful, but as a multiplier on top of a local base, not as the foundation. The marsh-restoration grant worked because local match and a coordinating body were already in place.
This is the structure behind our resilience funding-models and green-finance guide and our work helping municipalities identify and secure funding for climate resilience projects and fund adaptation through public-private partnerships.
Does the math actually justify the spend?
Yes, and the ratio is strong enough to anchor a bond case or a council vote. Hazard mitigation returns between $6 and $13 in benefits for every $1 invested, according to the National Institute of Building Sciences and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Anne Arundel County's own analysis put the benefit-cost ratio of climate-resilient infrastructure at about 6 to 1.
The cost of not acting compounds. When Anne Arundel created its Authority, it was already carrying a roughly $200 million backlog of resilience infrastructure projects. Backlogs like that don't hold steady — they grow with every storm season that passes without a delivery mechanism. The financial case for building the coordinating structure isn't only the return on the projects; it's the avoided cost of a backlog that gets more expensive the longer it sits. For the deeper version of this argument, see our breakdown of the ROI of climate adaptation and the resilience funding gap facing cities.
What's the catch with the resilience-authority model?
It isn't a magic wand, and pretending otherwise would do you a disservice. Resilience authorities have real limits: they typically lack taxation authority and eminent domain power, and their reliance on federal funding has created uncertainty over future resource availability — the same federal volatility this article opens with reaches them too. An authority reduces federal dependence; it doesn't eliminate it.
The model also takes real work to stand up: state enabling legislation, inter-jurisdictional agreements, a governance structure, and a credible project pipeline before the first dollar moves. That's precisely why it's a coordination problem — the hard part is the institutional design, not the existence of money. But the work is front-loaded and durable. A grant funds one project and ends; a well-built authority keeps assembling capital stacks for a decade. For governance design specifically, our guide on building resilience governance models and aligning local policy with state and federal climate goals covers the institutional mechanics.
Facing a resilience backlog and a shrinking pool of federal grants?
The fix is usually structural, and it's the work we do — helping municipalities design the coordinating mechanism that braids local revenue, bonds, state programs, and private capital into a fundable pipeline. Book a discovery call with Council Fire and we'll help you turn a coordination problem into a funded plan.
FAQs
How can cities fund climate resilience without federal grants?
By building a blended capital stack anchored in dedicated local revenue. The five core mechanisms are dedicated fees like stormwater utilities, bonds, state programs, blended and private finance, and competitive grants used as a multiplier rather than foundation. A coordinating body like a resilience authority assembles these streams into multi-year project pipelines that no single municipal office could manage alone.
What is a resilience authority?
A resilience authority is a dedicated public entity created to plan, fund, and deliver climate resilience infrastructure across jurisdictional and budget-year boundaries. The Resilience Authority of Annapolis and Anne Arundel County is the first multi-jurisdictional one in the U.S. Authorities can collect fees and issue bonds, but typically lack taxation authority and eminent domain power, so they coordinate funding rather than levy it.
Why is the Annapolis Resilience Authority considered a model?
Because it demonstrates the coordination thesis in practice. As the first multi-jurisdictional resilience authority in the U.S., it secured nearly $20 million in its first phase by braiding federal, state, and local funding rather than depending on any single grant. Its structure addresses the two traps that strand resilience money: jurisdictional silos and annual budget cycles. Other Maryland counties have since followed.
Is climate resilience a funding problem or a coordination problem?
For most communities, coordination. The dollars exist across stormwater fees, bonds, state revolving funds, private capital, and philanthropy, but they sit in separate offices on separate timelines with no body empowered to combine them. Federal grants masked this fragmentation. With that funding now unreliable, the structural fix of coordinating local streams becomes both necessary and more durable.
What happened to FEMA's BRIC program?
FEMA terminated BRIC, its largest pre-disaster mitigation program, in April 2025, cancelling the pending funding round. A federal court ruled the termination unlawful in December 2025 and ordered the program restored, but FEMA provided no timetable. The program now operates under litigation with uncertain forward scheduling, which makes it unreliable as a planning input for multi-year capital projects.
Does investing in climate resilience actually pay off?
Strongly. Hazard mitigation returns between $6 and $13 in benefits per $1 invested, per the National Institute of Building Sciences and U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and Anne Arundel County put the benefit-cost ratio of resilient infrastructure near 6 to 1. The cost of inaction compounds: project backlogs grow with every storm season that passes without a delivery mechanism in place.
What funding mechanisms can replace federal resilience grants?
No single mechanism replaces a federal program; the strategy is a blended stack. Dedicated local revenue such as stormwater fees provides the recurring anchor, bonds convert that into present capital, state programs add scale, and blended or private finance funds nature-based and revenue-generating projects. Competitive grants then build on the local base rather than serving as the foundation.
Related Resources
Fund the Work
Build the Structure
Make the Case
FAQ
01
What does it really mean to “redefine profit”?
02
What makes Council Fire different?
03
Who does Council Fire you work with?
04
What does working with Council Fire actually look like?
05
How does Council Fire help organizations turn big goals into action?
06
How does Council Fire define and measure success?
Jun 18, 2026
Funding Resilience Without Federal Grants
Sustainable Funding
Holly Fowler
Client Services Manager
In This Article
BRIC is unreliable and FEMA is shrinking. Here's how cities fund climate resilience with dedicated revenue, blended finance, and a coordinating authority.
Funding Resilience Without Federal Grants
TL;DR
⚠️ The federal floor moved. BRIC was cancelled, then court-ordered back with no restart schedule; FEMA has lost roughly a third of its staff and the 2026 budget proposed a $646M cut.
🔁 It's a coordination problem, not a capital problem. The money exists across fees, bonds, state funds, and private capital — it just isn't braided together.
🏛️ The template already works. The Resilience Authority of Annapolis & Anne Arundel County — the first multi-jurisdictional one in the U.S. — secured nearly $20M in its first phase by coordinating, not by out-grant-writing peers.
💵 Dedicated revenue is the anchor. Resilience authorities can collect fees and issue bonds — a recurring local base that federal grants then amplify, instead of the reverse.
📉 The cost of waiting is rising. Mitigation returns $6–$13 per $1 spent, yet Anne Arundel alone carried a $200M resilience project backlog when it acted.
Funding Resilience Without Federal Grants
The federal money a city could once plan around is gone, frozen, or in court. FEMA terminated its flagship pre-disaster program, BRIC, in April 2025; a judge ruled the termination unlawful in December and ordered it restored, but FEMA has given no timetable and the program now staggers forward under litigation. You cannot build a ten-year capital plan on a funding source that changes status every quarter. That single fact is reorganizing how serious municipalities think about resilience finance.
Here's the reframe we bring to the cities and counties we advise: for most communities, this is a coordination problem, not a capital problem. The dollars to fund resilience exist — in stormwater fees, bonds, state programs, private capital, and philanthropy — but they sit in separate buckets, on separate timelines, governed by separate offices that don't talk.
The jurisdictions pulling ahead aren't the ones with the biggest grant. They're the ones that built a mechanism to braid those buckets together. The clearest working example of that mechanism is fifteen minutes from our office, in Annapolis.
What happened to federal climate resilience funding?
It became unreliable, which is worse for planners than being cut outright. FEMA announced on April 4, 2025 that it was ending BRIC — the largest competitively awarded pre-disaster mitigation program, which had made more than $4.6 billion available since 2020 — and cancelled the pending FY2024 funding round. A federal court ruled the termination unlawful on December 11, 2025 and issued a permanent injunction, but FEMA provided no timetable to restore the program. For a city, a program that exists on paper but can't be counted on for a NOFO date is not a planning input.
The agency administering these dollars is also shrinking. FEMA has lost roughly a third of its staff since early 2025, with its workforce falling from nearly 29,000 to about 23,000, and internal planning documents floated cutting the disaster-response workforce by 41% and the surge workforce by 85%. The President's 2026 budget proposed a $646 million cut to FEMA, eliminating several long-standing grant programs. The throughline is a deliberate shift of responsibility from Washington to states and localities. The money question lands on your desk now.
Is this really a funding problem, or a coordination problem?
For most communities, it's coordination. This is the distinction that changes what you do on Monday. A capital problem means the dollars don't exist and your job is to go find them. A coordination problem means the dollars exist in fragments — a stormwater utility fee here, unspent state revolving-loan capacity there, a foundation interested in nature-based solutions, a bond the county could float — but no single body is empowered to assemble them into a project pipeline.
In our municipal work, the second diagnosis is far more common than the first. Cities lose resilience money not because they're too poor but because the funding streams are siloed across public works, finance, planning, and emergency management, each on its own budget cycle, none mandated to braid them. The federal grant was the band-aid that let everyone avoid the harder coordination work. With the band-aid gone, the structural fix becomes unavoidable — and it turns out to be more durable than the grant ever was.
How does the Annapolis Resilience Authority model work?
It works by creating a single entity whose only job is to plan, fund, and deliver resilience projects across jurisdictional and budget-year lines. The Resilience Authority of Annapolis and Anne Arundel County is the first multi-jurisdictional resilience authority in the United States, built specifically to look beyond municipal boundaries and annual budget constraints — the two structural traps that strand resilience funding.
The results validate the coordination thesis. In its first phase the Authority secured nearly $20 million in combined federal, state, and local funding, and as recently as December 2025 it won a $1,007,500 National Coastal Resilience Fund grant paired with $2.9 million in matching funds for marsh restoration. County Executive Steuart Pittman framed the purpose plainly: the goal was to compete for public and private funding and take the burden off local taxpayers. The Authority didn't out-write its neighbors on grant applications. It built a standing structure that makes the city and county fundable.
Structural trap | What strands the money | How a resilience authority fixes it |
|---|---|---|
Jurisdictional silos | Flooding crosses city/county lines; budgets don't | A multi-jurisdictional body plans at the watershed scale |
Annual budget cycles | Resilience projects span years; appropriations reset yearly | A dedicated authority holds multi-year project pipelines |
Fragmented revenue | Fees, bonds, grants, private capital sit in separate offices | One entity braids all four into a single capital stack |
Grant dependence | Federal timing dictates local action | Local dedicated revenue anchors; grants amplify it |
What funding mechanisms can a city use instead of federal grants?
Stack several, anchored by a recurring local source. No single mechanism replaces a federal program — the strategy is a blended capital stack where each layer does a different job. The municipalities we work with assemble most resilience finance from five mechanisms.
Dedicated local revenue. Stormwater utility fees, resilience surcharges, or a dedicated portion of property tax create the recurring base. This is the anchor everything else builds on, and it's the part most cities underuse.
Bonds. Resilience authorities can issue bonds — though, importantly, not as a pledge of the jurisdiction's full faith and credit or taxing power — converting future fee revenue into present capital for shovel-ready projects.
State programs. State revolving funds, Maryland-style DNR resilience grants, and state climate appropriations are often under-tapped because no one owns the application calendar.
Blended and private finance. Green banks, private capital intermediaries, and impact investors fund nature-based and revenue-generating projects. Charles County's authority is developing a Private Capital Financial Intermediary with the Montgomery County Green Bank to pull private money into nature-based solutions.
Philanthropy and competitive grants. Still useful, but as a multiplier on top of a local base, not as the foundation. The marsh-restoration grant worked because local match and a coordinating body were already in place.
This is the structure behind our resilience funding-models and green-finance guide and our work helping municipalities identify and secure funding for climate resilience projects and fund adaptation through public-private partnerships.
Does the math actually justify the spend?
Yes, and the ratio is strong enough to anchor a bond case or a council vote. Hazard mitigation returns between $6 and $13 in benefits for every $1 invested, according to the National Institute of Building Sciences and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Anne Arundel County's own analysis put the benefit-cost ratio of climate-resilient infrastructure at about 6 to 1.
The cost of not acting compounds. When Anne Arundel created its Authority, it was already carrying a roughly $200 million backlog of resilience infrastructure projects. Backlogs like that don't hold steady — they grow with every storm season that passes without a delivery mechanism. The financial case for building the coordinating structure isn't only the return on the projects; it's the avoided cost of a backlog that gets more expensive the longer it sits. For the deeper version of this argument, see our breakdown of the ROI of climate adaptation and the resilience funding gap facing cities.
What's the catch with the resilience-authority model?
It isn't a magic wand, and pretending otherwise would do you a disservice. Resilience authorities have real limits: they typically lack taxation authority and eminent domain power, and their reliance on federal funding has created uncertainty over future resource availability — the same federal volatility this article opens with reaches them too. An authority reduces federal dependence; it doesn't eliminate it.
The model also takes real work to stand up: state enabling legislation, inter-jurisdictional agreements, a governance structure, and a credible project pipeline before the first dollar moves. That's precisely why it's a coordination problem — the hard part is the institutional design, not the existence of money. But the work is front-loaded and durable. A grant funds one project and ends; a well-built authority keeps assembling capital stacks for a decade. For governance design specifically, our guide on building resilience governance models and aligning local policy with state and federal climate goals covers the institutional mechanics.
Facing a resilience backlog and a shrinking pool of federal grants?
The fix is usually structural, and it's the work we do — helping municipalities design the coordinating mechanism that braids local revenue, bonds, state programs, and private capital into a fundable pipeline. Book a discovery call with Council Fire and we'll help you turn a coordination problem into a funded plan.
FAQs
How can cities fund climate resilience without federal grants?
By building a blended capital stack anchored in dedicated local revenue. The five core mechanisms are dedicated fees like stormwater utilities, bonds, state programs, blended and private finance, and competitive grants used as a multiplier rather than foundation. A coordinating body like a resilience authority assembles these streams into multi-year project pipelines that no single municipal office could manage alone.
What is a resilience authority?
A resilience authority is a dedicated public entity created to plan, fund, and deliver climate resilience infrastructure across jurisdictional and budget-year boundaries. The Resilience Authority of Annapolis and Anne Arundel County is the first multi-jurisdictional one in the U.S. Authorities can collect fees and issue bonds, but typically lack taxation authority and eminent domain power, so they coordinate funding rather than levy it.
Why is the Annapolis Resilience Authority considered a model?
Because it demonstrates the coordination thesis in practice. As the first multi-jurisdictional resilience authority in the U.S., it secured nearly $20 million in its first phase by braiding federal, state, and local funding rather than depending on any single grant. Its structure addresses the two traps that strand resilience money: jurisdictional silos and annual budget cycles. Other Maryland counties have since followed.
Is climate resilience a funding problem or a coordination problem?
For most communities, coordination. The dollars exist across stormwater fees, bonds, state revolving funds, private capital, and philanthropy, but they sit in separate offices on separate timelines with no body empowered to combine them. Federal grants masked this fragmentation. With that funding now unreliable, the structural fix of coordinating local streams becomes both necessary and more durable.
What happened to FEMA's BRIC program?
FEMA terminated BRIC, its largest pre-disaster mitigation program, in April 2025, cancelling the pending funding round. A federal court ruled the termination unlawful in December 2025 and ordered the program restored, but FEMA provided no timetable. The program now operates under litigation with uncertain forward scheduling, which makes it unreliable as a planning input for multi-year capital projects.
Does investing in climate resilience actually pay off?
Strongly. Hazard mitigation returns between $6 and $13 in benefits per $1 invested, per the National Institute of Building Sciences and U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and Anne Arundel County put the benefit-cost ratio of resilient infrastructure near 6 to 1. The cost of inaction compounds: project backlogs grow with every storm season that passes without a delivery mechanism in place.
What funding mechanisms can replace federal resilience grants?
No single mechanism replaces a federal program; the strategy is a blended stack. Dedicated local revenue such as stormwater fees provides the recurring anchor, bonds convert that into present capital, state programs add scale, and blended or private finance funds nature-based and revenue-generating projects. Competitive grants then build on the local base rather than serving as the foundation.
Related Resources
Fund the Work
Build the Structure
Make the Case
FAQ
What does it really mean to “redefine profit”?
What makes Council Fire different?
Who does Council Fire you work with?
What does working with Council Fire actually look like?
How does Council Fire help organizations turn big goals into action?
How does Council Fire define and measure success?