By SKYLA CARTER
Washington County scored a major legal victory against the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), with an arbitration panel ruling in the county’s favor on February 27 after a long-standing funding dispute.
FEMA notified the county in May 2024 that it would deny and de-obligate approximately $79.6 million for what the agency called ineligible hazard mitigation. FEMA then issued determination memos for 17 road projects in February 2025, denying $55,952,149.22 in mitigation costs specifically related to the paving portion of the county’s hazard mitigation projects (HMPs). The agency went on to state it had previously “erred in approving” the projects, citing that because the county paved unpaved roads, the projects were classified as road improvements rather than road hardening and therefore did not meet the requirements of the Public Assistance Program and Policy Guide (PAPPG).
Commissioners responded to the memos by voting unanimously in a special meeting to move forward with arbitration, arguing that paving unpaved roads is an eligible, cost-effective hazard mitigation measure.
Court documents from the case show the arbitration panel agreed.
“Hazard mitigation is any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property from natural hazards and their effects,” wrote the panel in the February 27 filing. “FEMA has authority to provide PA funding for cost-effective hazard mitigation measures for facilities damaged by the incident … FEMA’s current position, under the Michael PAAP, is that it will fund the installation of geotextile drainage blankets as a hazard mitigation measure but not the cost of paving the roads because, according to FEMA, paving the roads is an improved project and not a hazard mitigation measure.”
“FEMA’s position is based on the PAPPG’s specific mention that ‘laying asphalt on a gravel road’ is an improved project,” the document continued. “FEMA, however, points to no restriction in the Stafford Act, FEMA regulation, or policy that precludes paving as a mitigation measure, provided it is cost effective. In fact, FEMA’s own mitigation handbook lists ‘paving an unpaved roadway as a recommended hazard mitigation option.’ … FEMA has authority to provide PA funding for ‘permanent restoration of damaged facilities, including cost-effective hazard mitigation to protect the facilities from future damage.’ … The applicant’s expert witnesses, both licensed engineers, have convinced the panel that paving dirt and gravel roads can protect roads from future, similar damage caused by flooding.”
“In this case, paving dirt and gravel roads is an eligible hazard mitigation measure if cost effective,” concluded the panel in its final decision.
The panel went on to instruct the county and FEMA to work together to prepare a benefit cost analysis (BCA) for each project to determine if they are cost-effective hazard mitigation measures. Hazard mitigation measures determined to be cost effective will be funded under the fixed-cost agreement that is capped at $160,190,551.75. Any projects with hazard mitigation measures determined to not be cost effective can be removed from the fixed-cost agreement and funded as a standard PA project.
Washington County Attorney Matt Fuqua says the win will allow the county to return its focus to the county’s infrastructure.
“This has been many years in the coming, through all the outside distractions and noise, but finally the county has been vindicated on all fronts,” said Fuqua. “The board showed courage by moving forward unanimously with the appeal. We are looking forward to getting back to the business of hardening the county roadway system, vulnerabilities of which were clearly evident in the aftermath of Hurricane Michael. It’s unfortunate that several of the people instrumental in this project are no longer with us, but the new board has shown a great willingness to work together for the betterment of the county.”
AMBER PATINO 
Staff Report