Summary#
HB 6431 would amend Michigan’s Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act by adding a predisaster flood resilience grant program run by the Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy. Its stated goal is to help identify flood risks and ways to improve resilience and restore natural water movement. The bill is introduced and is not law.
- The department must create the program and make rules for it. It may award grants for flood-risk assessments, planning and studies, culvert inventories, and related restoration projects.
- Eligible applicants are local governments, federally recognized tribes, and nonprofit or private consulting organizations applying on behalf of one of those governments or tribes.
- Grants may cover up to 75% of projected project costs, subject to a $300,000 cap for assessments, planning and studies, and a $250,000 cap for restoration projects.
- Applicants must provide proof that the local government or tribe authorized the project and explain how costs not covered by the grant will be funded.
- Grant recipients must use the money within two years and report on the project. The department must post those reports online and report annually to state officials and legislative committees.
What it means for you#
- Local governments and federally recognized tribes: They could apply for grants for eligible flood-resilience work. They must authorize the project, identify funding for costs not covered by the grant, use the grant within two years, and report on the work.
- Nonprofits and private consulting organizations: They could apply only on behalf of a local government or federally recognized tribe, not for themselves.
- Residents and property owners: The bill does not directly change floodplain rules, property rights, insurance, or access to public services. Publicly posted grant reports could provide information about funded projects.
- State taxpayers: The bill would require the department to run the program, make rules, and report on it, but it does not set a total program budget.
Money#
No publicly available information on the program’s total cost or funding source is in the supplied material.
- The bill requires the department to create and implement the program, make rules, and prepare annual reports, but gives no estimate of those costs or staffing needs.
- Grants could cover no more than 75% of projected project costs, and are capped at $300,000 for assessments, planning and studies or $250,000 for restoration projects.
- Applicants must explain how they will fund project costs not covered by the grant. The bill does not appropriate a total amount for grants.
What is unclear#
- The supplied material does not include the existing Act, so it is not possible to verify what grant programs or related rules already exist or how this program would overlap with them.
- The bill does not set a total grant budget, say where the money would come from, or guarantee that grants will be available.
- The department must set application standards and requirements by rule. The bill lists considerations, including past disasters, repeated flooding, cost-effectiveness, and measurable results, but does not say how they will be weighed.
- The bill does not specify when the program would start; it is not yet law.
- The bill does not explain whether or how people living in affected areas would take part in project decisions.
Case for#
- A possible argument for the bill is that planning and studies before a flood could help local governments and tribes identify risks and useful projects in advance.
- The grant list covers both information-gathering and restoration work, so funding could support projects from assessing a problem to addressing it.
- The application and reporting requirements could help the department assess project plans and make grant results public.
- Requiring applicants to identify other funding sources may help ensure grants do not have to cover the full cost of a project.
Case against#
- One concern is that the bill requires the department to establish and run a program but does not provide a budget or say how much grant funding will be available.
- The department may award grants; the bill does not require it to fund every eligible application or set a minimum number of grants.
- The department would set important selection standards by rule, including what counts as projects with “beneficial impacts.” The bill does not specify how these standards would prioritize competing applications.
- Because grants cover at most 75% of costs and are capped, applicants may need substantial other funding; the bill does not say what happens if they cannot secure it.