For decades, the sun-faded town of Crisfield, Maryland has owed both its destiny and its name to the Chesapeake Bay.
Once known as the “Seafood Capital of the World,” it now fights a slow-motion battle against the Bay’s encroaching waters — but a sudden federal funding reversal has left it vulnerable, the Baltimore Banner reports.
As sea levels rise, Crisfield stands at a crossroads.
Can it rebuild a protective barrier in time? Or will the town that once rode the tides be swept aside—left to confront a disappearing future without federal support?
In 2024, Crisfield secured a record-breaking $36 million through FEMA’s Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program.
The award targeted phase one of a project to fortify the town with elevated roads, bulkheads, wetlands, tide gates and pump systems to withstand a 3.5‑foot tidal surge across its low-lying streets and historic downtown.
Officials touted this public‑works lifeline as essential to stanch future flood damage and protect communities across 2,500 acres of waterfront.
That lifeline has now snapped.
In April, FEMA abruptly canceled BRIC funding, including Crisfield’s high-scoring project, calling the program “wasteful and ineffective.”
The withdrawal comes amid a broader federal rollback that eliminates flood‑resilience grants for small communities across the Chesapeake watershed.
The reversal has left Crisfield’s carefully plotted flood defenses in limbo.
With an annual municipal budget of about $4 million, the town now scrambles for replacement funding. Local staff had already expended hundreds of thousands on preliminary engineering, design and permitting and those sunk costs now hang heavy over its waterfron.
By 2050, the Bay’s swelling tides are projected to inundate Crisfield nearly daily, threatening homes, businesses, roads and its iconic seafood economy.
In the wake of the BRIC loss, flood-prone neighborhoods remain exposed, sewer systems continue to back up during heavy storms, and even local schools are at risk when tides rise unexpectedly, the City of Crisfield says.
State emergency managers criticized FEMA’s abrupt cut, citing studies that every $1 spent on flood mitigation saves up to $8 in disaster response costs.
Among those affected are dozens of coastal Bay‑area projects that were in progress, from oyster‑protected shorelines to urban flood walls and property acquisition schemes in vulnerable jurisdictions.
Officials are now pursuing alternatives: grants from EPA, state agencies, private partners and even tapping public bonds. The city’s “Resilience Day” events, initially meant to launch awareness around the BRIC project, have turned into urgent appeals for federal and philanthropic support.
Crisfield’s predicament reflects a broader fault line in national flood policy: While coastal towns face more frequent tidal and storm surge events, the federal safety net is unraveling, leaving at-risk communities to fend for themselves or face evacuation in the face of rising seas.
