Imagine a village, already on the brink of being swallowed by the sea, having its lifeline ripped away just as the waters rise. That's the harsh reality for Kipnuk, Alaska, a community devastated by Typhoon Halong, which lost a crucial $20 million grant to combat coastal erosion just months before the storm hit.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under the Trump administration, defended its decision to rescind the grant, awarded during the Biden era to mitigate climate change impacts. The agency claimed the cancellation saved taxpayer dollars, with EPA press secretary Brigit Hirsch stating bluntly, “$20 million remains in the U.S. treasury instead of being swept into the Kuskokwim River.”
But here’s where it gets controversial: Was this a prudent fiscal decision or a shortsighted move that left a vulnerable community exposed?
Kipnuk, one of the hardest-hit villages by Typhoon Halong, saw dozens of homes washed away in a record-breaking storm surge, forcing hundreds to evacuate. The grant, part of a program created under President Biden, was intended to fund an erosion barrier to protect homes, infrastructure, and even hazardous materials from falling into the river.
In July, Rayna Paul, Kipnuk’s environmental director, warned that without the barrier, the village might be forced to relocate entirely. Her words proved tragically prophetic as the storm inundated homes, boardwalks, and power lines just months later.
The cancellation has sparked outrage, even among EPA staff. Lauren Boldrick, union president representing Alaska-based EPA employees, wrote, “None of you listened or cared, and now the consequences of your callousness are laid bare.”
While U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski acknowledged the grant likely wouldn’t have arrived in time to prevent this storm’s damage, she emphasized the urgent need for such funding to protect against future disasters. “Minimizing the impacts before they occur is far cheaper than rebuilding afterward,” she said, adding, “The best time to prepare our communities was 20 years ago; the next best time is now.”
The EPA’s Hirsch countered that the canceled grants freed up resources for other projects, like the $140 million awarded to the Denali Commission for Alaska Native village infrastructure. But critics argue this is a false trade-off, as communities like Kipnuk are left vulnerable in the meantime.
Sally Russell Cox, who manages a program assisting Alaska Native villages with coastal erosion planning, noted that accessing mitigation funding has been “consistently challenging.” She warned, “Any termination of funding reduces communities’ capacity to mitigate potential impacts.”
And this is the part most people miss: For decades, the federal government has warned of the threats posed by coastal erosion in Alaska Native villages. Yet, despite reports and funding programs, many villages remain unprepared due to shifting priorities and bureaucratic hurdles.
The EPA insists it’s coordinating with Alaska on emergency response and infrastructure projects. But as Kipnuk residents mourn their losses, the question remains: Could this tragedy have been prevented, and at what cost?
Is canceling grants for climate resilience a responsible fiscal decision, or a dangerous gamble with communities’ futures? Let’s discuss in the comments—your perspective matters.
