Emergency Relief Program for Disaster-
March 29, 2024
Damaged Highways and Bridges
Ali E. Lohman
The March 26, 2024, collapse of Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key Bridge called attention to federal
Analyst in Transportation
transportation programs that provide emergency relief (ER) in the wake of disasters. The MV
Policy
Dali, a container ship departing the Port of Baltimore, struck one of the bridge’s support towers,

causing the bridge to collapse into the Patapsco River. The bridge is a segment of Interstate 695,
part of the National Highway System, and therefore eligible for federal aid from the Federal

Highway Administration (FHWA) through the ER Program.
Federal aid to disaster-damaged highways and bridges has been available since the 1930s. The U.S. Department of
Transportation provides federal assistance for disaster-damaged federal-aid highways through the ER Program administered
by the FHWA. The program is funded by a permanent annual authorization of $100 million from the Highway Trust Fund
(HTF) along with general fund appropriations provided by Congress on a “such sums as necessary” basis. Since January 29,
2013, the highway ER Program has received nearly $9.9 billion in emergency supplemental appropriations. Public roads on
federal lands are eligible for assistance under FHWA’s Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads Program.
Following natural disasters (such as hurricanes, earthquakes, wildfires, and flooding) or catastrophic failures (such as the I-95
bridge collapse in Philadelphia caused by a gasoline tanker truck crash), ER funds are available for both emergency repairs
and permanent repairs (i.e., the restoration of facilities to pre-disaster conditions). Eligibility is dependent on a presidential or
gubernatorial disaster declaration. For example, Maryland Governor Wes Moore declared a state of emergency on March 26,
2024, making repairs to the Francis Scott Key Bridge eligible.
Although ER for highways is a federal program, the decision to seek ER funding is made by a state government or by a
federal land management agency. Local governments are not eligible to apply directly. FHWA pays 100% of the cost of
emergency repairs done to minimize the extent of damage, protect remaining facilities, and restore essential traffic during or
immediately after a disaster. Emergency repairs must be completed within 270 days of the disaster event. Permanent repairs
go beyond the restoration of essential traffic and are intended to restore damaged bridges and roads to conditions and
capabilities comparable to those before the event. The federal share for permanent repairs is generally 80% for non-interstate
roads and 90% for Interstate Highways. Congress has on occasion authorized FHWA to pay 100% of ER Program expenses
for repair and reconstruction projects related to particular disasters. In response to the collapse of Baltimore’s Francis Scott
Key Bridge, President Biden announced his intention that the federal government would cover the entire cost of
reconstruction. Certain “quick release” funds are allocated to help with initial emergency repair costs and may be released
prior to completion of detailed damage inspections and cost estimates. Other allocations to the states follow a more deliberate
process of completing detailed damage reports, developing cost estimates, and processing competitive bids.
The most recent surface transportation reauthorization act, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58),
made a number of changes to the ER Program. Most of the changes were to allow the addition of resilience measures to ER-
funded repairs if the specified protective features would mitigate the risk of recurring damage or the cost of future repairs
from extreme weather, flooding, or other natural disasters. The act also expanded the definition of comparable facility to
include economically justifiable improvements that will mitigate the risk of recurring damage.
In the near term, Congress may view the implementation of the resilience-related changes as an oversight issue, along with
FHWA’s management of ER Program funds and the ER Program’s unmet needs. In the longer term, as the expiration of the
IIJA in September 2026 approaches, Congress may wish to consider future modifications to the program and the way it is
funded, perhaps reexamining a possible increase in the $100 million annual permanent HTF authorization to reduce the
program’s reliance on periodic supplemental appropriations. Congressional oversight options could include examining the
timeline of permanent ER repair projects and the typical reasons for delays in completion when they occur.

Congressional Research Service

Emergency Relief Program for Disaster-Damaged Highways and Bridges

Introduction
At about 1:30 a.m. on March 26, 2024, the MV Dali, a container ship departing the Port of
Baltimore, struck a support tower of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore, MD, causing the
bridge to collapse into the Patapsco River. The bridge is a segment of Interstate 695, part of the
National Highway System, and a federal-aid highway. The bridge collapse has called attention to
federal transportation programs that provide emergency relief (ER) to communities in the wake of
disasters. This report provides an overview of the ER Program administered by the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA). For more information about the collapse of the Francis Scott
Key Bridge, see CRS In Focus IF12619, Baltimore Bridge Collapse: Frequently Asked Questions
(FAQ), by John Frittelli, Ben Goldman, and Ali E. Lohman.
Disaster-damaged roads that are federal-aid highways are eligible for federal assistance under the
ER Program. Federal-aid highways make up about 25% of all public roads in the United States
but exclude roads classified as local roads or rural minor collectors. Disaster-damaged public
roads that are not federal-aid highways may be eligible for disaster aid from the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Public Assistance Program and are not discussed in
this report.1
The Federal Transit Administration has a separate funding program for disaster-damaged public
transportation systems. See CRS Report R47661, Emergency Relief for Disaster-Damaged Public
Transportation Systems: In Brief, by William J. Mallett.
This report begins by discussing FHWA assistance for the repair and reconstruction of highways
and bridges damaged by disasters (such as hurricanes, flooding, and wildfires) or catastrophic
failures (such as the I-95 bridge collapse of June 11, 2023, in Philadelphia). The report includes
information on the use of ER funds on disaster-damaged federally owned public use roadways,
such as National Park Service roads and U.S. Forest Service roads, under the affiliated
Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads (ERFO) program.
For over 80 years, federal highway funding has been available for the emergency repair and
restoration of disaster-damaged roads. The first legislation authorizing such use of federal funds
was the Hayden-Cartwright Act of 1934 (48 Stat. 993). This act provided no separate funds, and
states subject to disasters had to divert their regularly apportioned (formula) federal highway
funds from other uses to repair disaster-damaged roads.
The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 (70 Stat. 374 and 70 Stat. 387) was the first act that
authorized separate funds for the ER Program.2 From 1956 through 1978, funding for the
program was drawn 40% from the Treasury’s general fund and 60% from the Highway Trust
Fund (HTF). The HTF is supported primarily by taxes paid by highway users, mainly on gasoline
and diesel fuel. Starting in 1979, the ER Program was funded solely from the HTF with $100
million authorized annually. In 1998, Congress made the annual $100 million HTF authorization
permanent. Beginning in 2005, while Congress continued the $100 million permanent
authorization from the HTF, it authorized supplemental appropriations from the general fund.3

1 CRS In Focus IF11529, A Brief Overview of FEMA’s Public Assistance Program, by Erica A. Lee.
2 The program is codified at 23 U.S.C. §125. See also 23 C.F.R. Part 668.
3 Beginning with the December 30, 2005, enactment of the Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006 (P.L. 109-148),
emergency relief (ER) supplemental appropriations have been drawn from the general fund.
Congressional Research Service

1

Emergency Relief Program for Disaster-Damaged Highways and Bridges

The most recent surface transportation reauthorization, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
(IIJA; P.L. 117-58), authorized federal highway programs for FY2022-FY2026. The IIJA made no
change to the permanent $100 billion annual HTF authorization for the ER Program, adhering to
a policy of relying predominantly on existing and future supplemental appropriations to fund the
program’s needs. Whether to raise the permanent annual authorization to account for its loss of
value since 1972 could again be an issue during IIJA reauthorization. The IIJA made modest
changes to the program’s operation.4
As is true with most other FHWA programs, the ER Program is administered through state
departments of transportation (state DOTs) in close coordination with FHWA’s field offices in
each state (also known as division offices).5 The decision to seek financial assistance under the
program is made by state DOTs, not by the federal government. Local officials who wish to seek
ER funding must do so through their state DOTs; they do not deal directly with FHWA. As state
DOTs normally deal with FHWA field office staff in each state on many matters, they typically
have working relationships that facilitate a quickly coordinated response to disasters.
Public Use Roads on Federal Lands
For roads and bridges on federally owned lands, emergency relief (ER) assistance is managed via a related program
called Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads (ERFO). This program addresses disaster damage to facilities
such as National Park Service roads, U.S. Forest Service roads, and tribal transportation facilities.6 The Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) dispenses these funds through the various federal land management agencies,
not the states.7 Aid is restricted to facilities that are open to the general public for use with a standard passenger
vehicle. FHWA pays 100% of the cost of approved repairs, but the program is designed to pay for unusually heavy
expenses and to supplement the agencies’ repair programs, not to cover all repair costs. Tribal, state, and other
government entities that have the authority to repair or reconstruct eligible facilities must apply through a federal
land management agency.8 The program is managed by FHWA’s Office of Federal Lands Highway.
Emergency Relief Funding
The ER Program has a permanent annual authorization of $100 million in contract authority to be
derived from the HTF. These funds are not subject to the annual obligation limitation placed on
most highway funding by appropriators, which generally means most of the $100 million is
available each year, although the funding is subject to sequester.9 Because the costs of road repair

4 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), “Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Fact Sheets: Emergency Relief Program
(ER),” July 28, 2022, at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bipartisan-infrastructure-law/er_fact_sheet.cfm.
5 CRS Report R47022, Federal Highway Programs: In Brief, by Robert S. Kirk.
6 FHWA, “Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads (ERFO),” at https://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/erfo/.
7 The main land management agencies are the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management, National Park
Service, and Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service. Some ER-eligible roads
also serve military installations as well as U.S. Army Corp of Engineers and Department of Energy facilities. See
FHWA, Transportation Serving Federal and Tribal Lands: Chapter 12, at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/2015cpr/
pdfs/chap12.pdf.
8 FHWA, Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads: Disaster Assistance Manual, FHWA-FLH-15-001, October
2014, pp. 1-109, at https://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/erfo/documents/erfo-2015.pdf.
9 ER funds were subject to the FY2013 sequester under the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, as
amended. The sequester amount for the $100 million of contract authority was $5.1 million, and the sequester amount
for the $2.022 billion of supplementary funds provided in the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013 (P.L. 113-2)
was $101.1 million. See FHWA, Sequestration of Highway Funds for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013, Notice 4510.762, March
22, 2013, at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/notices/n4510762.cfm. Sequester amounts for the annually
authorized $100 million in contract authority since FY2013 are as follows: FY2014, $7.2 million; FY2015, $7.3
million; FY2016, $6.8 million; FY2017, $6.9 million; FY2018, $6.6 million; FY2019, $6.2 million; FY2020, $5.9
million; FY2021, $5.7 million; FY2022, $5.7 million; and FY2023, $5.7 million.
Congressional Research Service

2

link to page 20 Emergency Relief Program for Disaster-Damaged Highways and Bridges

and reconstruction following disasters typically exceed the $100 million annual authorization,
surface transportation authorization laws—currently the IIJA—have authorized the appropriation
of additional funds on a “such sums as may be necessary” basis, generally accomplished in either
annual or emergency supplemental appropriations legislation.10 For a listing of ER appropriations
since 1998, see Table A-1. These funds are available until expended.
As is true with other FHWA programs, ER is a reimbursable program. A state receives payment
after making repairs and submitting vouchers to FHWA for reimbursement of the federal share.
Once the state’s eligibility for ER funds has been confirmed by FHWA, it can incur obligations
knowing that FHWA will reimburse the state.
The ER funding structure of having a modest annual authorization supplemented by
appropriations addressed the fact that small disaster events occur every year, but large disasters
do not. However, the $100 million annual authorization has not changed since 1972. To equal the
current purchasing power of $100 million in FY1972 would require an authorization of around
$600 million to $900 million.11 Because the value of the $100 million permanent authorization
has diminished over time, the program has become increasingly dependent on supplemental
appropriations. Over the last 10 fiscal years, $9.9 billion in supplemental appropriations have
been provided in seven appropriations acts. Roughly 8.7% of the total amount made available was
provided by the permanent annual authorization; the other 91.3% was provided in appropriations
acts. Consequently, a future surface transportation reauthorization issue for consideration is
whether to raise the permanent annual authorization to account for its loss of value since 1972 or
to continue to rely heavily on supplemental appropriations to fund emergency repairs to
highways.
The Federal Share
Emergency repairs to restore essential travel, minimize the extent of damage, or protect remaining
facilities, if accomplished within 270 days after a disaster, may be reimbursed with a 100%
federal share.12 Permanent repair projects, such as rebuilding a bridge or a segment of damaged
road, are reimbursed at the same federal share that would normally apply to the federal-aid
highway facility. For Interstate System highways, the federal share would be 90%; for most other
highways, including Federal Lands Access Program facilities,13 the share would be 80%. For
example, the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore, MD, is a segment of the road commonly
called Interstate 695. However, the portion of Interstate 695 that includes the bridge is not part of

10 The extensive damage caused by Hurricane Katrina in 2005 raised doubts about whether emergency supplemental
ER expenditures could be drawn from the highway account of the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) without constraining the
ability of the HTF to fully fund other authorized surface transportation programs. For that reason, supplemental ER
appropriations have come from the Treasury’s general fund since December 2005.
11 The amount varies depending on the deflator used: $567 million using the gross domestic product (GDP) price index;
$774 million using the Consumer Price Index; and $935 million using the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis’s
Highways and Streets price index (1972-2021 calendar years only).
12 FHWA, Defining and Managing Emergency Relief Repair Activities Eligible for 100 Percent Federal Funding,
March 7, 2022, pp. 1-7, at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/specialfunding/er/220307.cfm. FHWA may extend the 270-day
period if there are delays in state access to the damaged facilities to assess the damage and cost of repair. Emergency
events that have an event start date that preceded the October 1, 2021, effective date of the Infrastructure Investment
and Jobs Act (IIJA) are subject to the previous language in 23 U.S.C. §120(e)(1), and these emergency repairs must be
accomplished within 180 days to be eligible for 100% federal funding.
13 The Federal Lands Access Program is for roads that are located on or adjacent to or provide access to federal lands.
The funds are allocated to the states using a formula based on mileage, number of bridges, land area, and visitation. See
FHWA, “Federal Lands Access Program: Fact Sheet,” February 8, 2017, at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/
factsheets/fedlandsaccessfs.cfm.
Congressional Research Service

3

Emergency Relief Program for Disaster-Damaged Highways and Bridges

the Interstate Highway System and is instead a state highway.14 Therefore, the federal share for
ER Program-funded repairs to the bridge would be 80%, unless the project meets the conditions
for an exception.
If the total expenses a state incurs to deal with disaster-damaged roads in a given fiscal year
exceed the state’s total federal-aid highway formula funds for the fiscal year in which the
disasters or failures occurred, the share for eligible repairs becomes “up to 90%” for repairs on
any federal-aid highway.15 For example, Maryland’s federal-aid highway formula funds for
FY2024 total $828,287,771.16 If the costs of repairing the bridge and other eligible activities, such
as emergency traffic services or operation of additional transit services, exceed $828,287,771 in
FY2024, the federal share payable could be up to 90%.
Congress has on occasion authorized FHWA to pay 100% of ER Program expenses for repair and
reconstruction projects related to particular disasters. Legislation for that purpose was enacted
following the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes and the collapse of the I-35W Bridge in Minneapolis in
2007. A provision in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-123) provided for a 100%
federal share for damage caused by Hurricanes Irma and Maria in Puerto Rico in 2017. The
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 (P.L. 117-328) provided for a 100% share for damage
caused by Hurricane Fiona. In response to the collapse of Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key Bridge
on March 26, 2024, President Biden announced his intention that the federal government would
cover the entire cost of reconstruction.17
Eligibility and Project Requirements18
ER funds may be used for the repair and reconstruction of federal-aid highways and roads on
federally owned lands that have suffered serious damage as a result of either (1) a natural disaster
over a wide area, such as a flood, hurricane, tidal wave, earthquake, tornado, severe storm,
landslide, or wildfire; or (2) a catastrophic failure from any external cause (e.g., the collapse of a
bridge that is struck by a barge). Historically, the vast majority of ER funds have gone for repair
and reconstruction following natural disasters.
Disaster Designation
Federal funding eligibility is typically dependent on a disaster declaration. A governor may issue
a formal proclamation of a disaster occurrence, as Maryland Governor Wes Moore did on March
26, 2024, when he declared a state of emergency in response to the collapse of the Francis Scott
Key Bridge.19 A presidential declaration or the governor’s request for this declaration can serve

14 FHWA, National Highway System: Baltimore, MD, October 1, 2020, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/
national_highway_system/nhs_maps/maryland/baltimore_md.pdf.
15 23 U.S.C. §120(e)(4).
16 Shailen P. Bhatt, Notice: Apportionment of Federal-Aid Highway Program Funds for Fiscal Year 2024, FHWA,
Office of Budget and Finance, N 4510.880, October 2, 2023, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/notices/
n4510880.cfm.
17 White House, “Remarks by President Biden on the Collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge,” press release, March
26, 2024, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/03/26/remarks-by-president-biden-on-
the-collapse-of-the-francis-scott-key-bridge/.
18 FHWA, Emergency Relief Manual (Federal-Aid Highways), May 31, 2013, pp. 1-67, at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/
reports/erm/er.pdf (hereinafter FHWA, ER Manual).
19 Office of Maryland Governor Wes Moore, “Governor Moore Statement on the Collapse of the Francis Scott Key
Bridge,” press release, March 26, 2024, https://governor.maryland.gov/news/press/pages/governor-moore-statement-
on-the-collapse-of-the-francis-scott-key-bridge.aspx.
Congressional Research Service

4

Emergency Relief Program for Disaster-Damaged Highways and Bridges

the same purpose. The state files a letter of intent to apply for ER funding with the FHWA
division office within the state. The FHWA division administrator may then concur that a disaster
occurred with substantial damage to federal-aid highway system roads or that the criteria for a
catastrophic failure were met and the damage is eligible under 23 U.S.C. §125. When the
President issues a major disaster declaration, the division administrator’s concurrence is not
necessary.20
FHWA (via the director of each Federal Lands Highway Division) determines whether a disaster
has occurred in regard to ERFO, although this is not necessary when there is a presidential
declaration of a major disaster.
Restoration
The intent of ER assistance is to restore highway facilities to conditions comparable to those
before the disaster, not to increase capacity or fix non-disaster-related deficiencies. Current law
broadly defines comparable facility as one that “meets the current geometric and construction
standards required for the types and volume of traffic that the facility will carry over its design
life.”21 Thus, for example, ER funds could be used to rebuild an older disaster-damaged road or
bridge that had narrow lanes with wider lanes that meet current FHWA guidelines. In addition, the
IIJA broadened the definition of comparable facility to include a facility that incorporates
“economically justifiable improvements that will mitigate the risk of recurring damage from
extreme weather, flooding, and other natural disasters.”22
Concerning bridges, ER funds are not to be used if the bridge had been permanently closed to all
vehicular traffic prior to the disaster because of imminent danger of collapse due to a structural
deficiency or physical deterioration.23

Pier Protections for New Bridges
Emergency Relief (ER) Program funding covers reconstruction of damaged highways and bridges. The replacement
facility must meet current geometric and construction standards, which may have changed in the time since the
original facility was constructed.
For example, when the Francis Scott Key Bridge was constructed in the 1970s, highway bridge standards did not
address protection for bridge piers. On May 9, 1980, a bulk carrier, the Summit Venture, rammed a support pier of
the Sunshine Skyway Bridge in Tampa Bay, FL, causing the bridge to collapse and resulting in 35 deaths. The
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigated the bridge collapse and found that “if the crashwall at
pier 2S had been larger, or if a pier protection system had been installed at that location, the damage to the
Sunshine Skyway Bridge from the ramming by the Summit Venture might have been reduced.” NTSB recommended
that Federal Highway Administration “develop standards for the design, performance, and location of structural
bridge pier protection systems.”24 Subsequent guidance from the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, which sets standards for road and bridge construction, addressed pier protection,
directing that “where the possibility of collision exists from highway or river traffic, an appropriate risk analysis

20 FHWA, ER Manual, pp. 30-31.
21 23 U.S.C. §125(d)(2)(A)(i).
22 23 U.S.C. §125(d)(2)(A)(ii).
23 23 U.S.C. §125(b).
24 National Transportation Safety Board, Bureau of Investigation, Ramming of the Sunshine Skyway Bridge by the
Liberian Bulk Carrier Summit Venture, Tampa Bay, Florida, May 9, 1980, NTSB-MAR-81-3, April 10, 1981, pp. 42-
43, https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/MAR8103.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

5

Emergency Relief Program for Disaster-Damaged Highways and Bridges

should be made to determine the degree of impact resistance to be provided and/or the appropriate protection
system.”25 These standards were incorporated by reference into federal regulations.26
If Maryland transportation officials repair or reconstruct the Francis Scott Key Bridge using ER Program funds, pier
protection systems such as fenders would likely be covered. However, while a pier protection system may have
mitigated the damage, there is no guarantee that it would have prevented the bridge collapse.
IIJA Resilience-Enhancing Protective Features
Despite the limitations placed on ER funding of “betterments,” the consideration of long-term
resilience features has been allowed under the ER Program since at least 2013.27 The IIJA,
enacted November 15, 2021, included provisions to add clarity to the inclusion and tracking of
resilience improvements in ER projects. Section 11519(b) of the act, Improving the Emergency
Relief Program, directed the Secretary of Transportation to update FHWA’s Emergency Relief
Manual (Federal-Aid Highways) (ER Manual) within 90 days of IIJA enactment to reflect the
definition of resilience in 23 U.S.C. §101 and to include other specific ER Program
improvements. With respect to projects, resilience is defined to mean
a project with the ability to anticipate, prepare for, or adapt to conditions or withstand,
respond to, or recover rapidly from disruptions, including the ability—to resist hazards or
withstand impacts from weather events and natural disasters; or to reduce the magnitude
or duration of impacts of a disruptive weather event or natural disaster on a project; and to
have the absorptive capacity, adaptive capacity and recoverability to decrease project
vulnerability to weather events or other disasters.
Section 11519(b) requires FHWA to identify features to incorporate resilience into ER projects;
develop best practices for including resilience in ER projects; and develop and implement a
system to track the consideration of resilience in the ER Program.
More generally, Section 11519(b) requires that the revision of the ER Manual encourage the use
of “Complete Streets” design principles and consideration of access for moderate- and low-
income families impacted by a declared disaster. It also requires FHWA to develop and
implement a process to track the costs of ER projects.
In addition, the IIJA made eligible a number of specific protective features if the protective
feature is an improvement that will mitigate the risk of recurring damage or the cost of future
repair from extreme weather, flooding, and other natural disasters.28 The eligible protective
features are
• raising roadway grades;
• relocating roadways in a floodplain to higher ground above projected flood
elevation levels or away from slide prone areas;
• stabilizing slide areas;
• stabilizing slopes;
• lengthening or raising bridges to increase waterway openings;

25 Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 17th ed. (Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials, 2002), p. 184.
26 23 C.F.R. §625.4(b).
27 FHWA, ER Manual, pp. 2, 24-29. Betterments “are added protective features or changes that modify the function or
character of a facility from what existed prior to the disaster or catastrophic failure.”
28 23 U.S.C. §125(d)(3).
Congressional Research Service

6

Emergency Relief Program for Disaster-Damaged Highways and Bridges

• increasing the size or number of drainage structures;
• replacing culverts with bridges or upsizing culverts;
• installing seismic retrofits on bridges;
• adding scour protection at bridges, installing riprap, or adding other scour, stream
stability, coastal, or other hydraulic countermeasures, including spur dikes; and
• using natural infrastructure to mitigate the risk of recurring damage or the cost of
future repair from extreme weather, flooding, and other natural disasters.
ER funds are not available to pay for resilience features to highway facilities that are susceptible
to disaster damage but have not yet been damaged by a declared disaster event. Other highway
program funds may be used for such resilience improvements. For example, both the National
Highway Performance Program and the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program allow for
resilience considerations in their projects. In addition, the IIJA created a stand-alone resilience
program, the Promoting Resilient Operations for Transformative, Efficient, and Cost-Saving
Transportation (PROTECT) program, which provides both formula funding to the states and
competitive discretionary grants to communities for resilience planning and improvements
(including for evacuation routes).29 PROTECT grants may be used for federal-aid highway
resilience improvements and to improve the resilience of public transportation, intercity
passenger rail, and ports.30
Repair Work
The ER Program divides all repair work into two categories: emergency repairs and permanent
repairs.
Emergency Repairs
State and local transportation agencies can begin emergency repairs during or immediately
following a disaster to meet the program goals to “restore essential traffic, to minimize the extent
of damage, or to protect the remaining facilities.”31 Prior approval from FHWA is not required.
Once the FHWA division administrator finds that the disaster work is eligible, properly
documented costs can be reimbursed retrospectively. To be eligible for a 100% federal share,
emergency repair work must be accomplished within 270 days of the disaster, although FHWA
may extend this period if there is a delay in access to the damaged areas (e.g., due to flooding).
Examples of emergency repairs are regrading of roads, removal of landslides, construction of
temporary road detours, erection of temporary detour bridges, and use of ferries as an interim
substitute for highway or bridge service. According to FHWA, “such work is typically temporary
in nature to satisfy an immediate need with respect to the facility, but it could remain in place as
part of the permanent fix…. There is no requirement that emergency repairs be removed and
replaced if they also serve the need for the permanent solution.”32

29 23 U.S.C. §176.
30 U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), “Promoting Resilient Operations for Transformative, Efficient, and Cost-
saving Transportation Program (PROTECT),” August 21, 2023, at https://www.transportation.gov/rural/grant-toolkit/
promoting-resilient-operations-transformative-efficient-and-cost-saving.
31 FHWA, ER Manual.
32 FHWA, Defining and Managing Emergency Relief Repair Activities Eligible for 100 Percent Federal Funding,
Guidance Information, March 22, 2022, p. 3, at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/specialfunding/er/220307.cfm.
Congressional Research Service

7

Emergency Relief Program for Disaster-Damaged Highways and Bridges

Debris removal costs are generally FEMA’s responsibility.33 However, debris removal from tribal
transportation facilities, federal land transportation facilities, and other federally owned roads
open to public travel is eligible for funding under the ERFO program. The emergency repair
provisions in the ER Program are designed to permit work to start immediately, ahead of a
finding of eligibility and programming of a project. In some instances, state DOTs have been able
to let initial ER-funded contracts within a day of a disaster event.34 Emergency repairs do not
have to adhere to normal competitive bidding requirements and are generally treated as
categorical exclusions under the National Environmental Protection Act of 1969 (NEPA).35
Permanent Repairs
ER funds may be used to make permanent repairs or reconstruct federal-aid highways and may be
used for temporary or permanent repair of a repairable bridge or tunnel. If a bridge is destroyed or
repair is not feasible, then ER funds may participate in building a new, comparable bridge to
current design standards and to accommodate traffic volume projected over its design life. In
some cases, betterments (added protective features or changes that modify the function or
character of a road or bridge beyond its pre-disaster character) may be eligible, but they must be
shown to be economically justified improvements and to mitigate the risk of recurring damage
from extreme weather, flooding, and other natural disasters. Permanent repair and reconstruction
contracts not classified as emergency repairs must meet competitive bidding requirements.
Numerous techniques are available to accelerate projects, including design-build contracting,
abbreviated plans, shortened advertisement periods for bids, and cost-plus-time (A+B) bidding
that includes monetary incentive/disincentive clauses designed to encourage contractors to
complete projects ahead of time.36 For example, the contract for the replacement of the I-35W
Bridge in Minneapolis, MN, which collapsed in August 2007, used incentives for early
completion. The new bridge was built in 11 months, which was 3 months ahead of schedule.37
Another example of the use of accelerated methods to complete ER-funded repairs is the
replacement of the I-5 Skadget River bridge in Washington State, which had permanent
replacement bridges in place within five months.38 These accelerated techniques may also be used
on other federal-aid highway projects, although not all contractors are interested in using these
techniques because they often require the contractor to assume more risk. Also, time-related
incentives can increase project costs for states, making them less attractive for routine projects.

33 The 2012 authorization act, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21; P.L. 112-141), restricted
debris removal under ER to events not declared a major disaster by the President or declared a major disaster but where
debris removal is not eligible under the Stafford Act.
34 This occurred following the 1994 Northridge earthquake in California. See U.S. DOT, John A. Volpe National
Transportation Systems Center, Effects of Catastrophic Events on Transportation System Management and Operation:
Comparative Analysis, May 2004, pp. 37-45. Most within-24-hour actions involve debris removal such as that which
occurred after the June 11, 2023, I-95 bridge collapse in Philadelphia. The “letting” of a contract generally refers to the
receipt and opening of bids and the determination of the low bidder. Emergency repairs may be done using a “short-
list” bidding technique that limits the number of firms permitted to submit proposals. The emergency character of the
work may also warrant a solicited contract for which the state may contact a reasonable minimum number of
contractors by telephone to solicit quotes for a specific scope of work.
35 23 C.F.R. §771.117(c)(9)(i).
36 Cost-plus-time bidding (A+B method) includes two components. The A component is the traditional bid for all work
to be performed. The B component is a bid of the total number of calendar days required to complete the project. The
contract includes a disincentive for overrunning the time bid and an incentive for earlier completion.
37 Minnesota DOT, “Interstate 35W Bridge in Minneapolis,” at http://www.dot.state.mn.us/i35wbridge/index.html.
38 Jeffrey L. Horton, “Surviving an Interstate Bridge Collapse,” Public Roads, vol. 78, no. 3, November/December
2014, at https://highways.dot.gov/public-roads/novemberdecember-2014/surviving-interstate-bridge-collapse.
Congressional Research Service

8

Emergency Relief Program for Disaster-Damaged Highways and Bridges

Other Federal Requirements
States must apply for funding and provide a comprehensive list of all eligible project sites and
repair costs within two years of the disaster or catastrophic event.39
Contracts supported by ER funding must meet all conditions required by 23 C.F.R. Part 633A,
which regulates highway contracts involving federal funding. All contractors receiving ER funds
must pay prevailing wages as required under the Davis-Bacon Act.40 ER-funded contracts must
abide by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises requirements, Americans with Disabilities Act
requirements, “Buy America” law and regulations, and prohibitions against the use of convict
labor (23 U.S.C. §114).41 Reconstruction of extensively damaged roads and bridges are to meet
current applicable design standards.42
National Environmental Policy Act
Repair projects funded under the ER Program are subject to NEPA requirements. However,
according to FHWA,43
If emergency situations involve immediate threats to public health or safety, or immediate
threats to property, including natural resources, emergency repairs can start as soon as
possible with the environmental reviews occurring afterward. All other repairs (i.e.,
permanent restoration) require the completion of environmental reviews prior to the start
of permanent repair work.
The environmental impact of ER projects is generally limited because they generally occur within
the federal-aid highway right-of-way. Thus, emergency repairs are often classified as categorical
exclusions under 23 C.F.R. §771.117(c)(9), as are most projects to permanently restore an
existing facility “in kind” to its pre-disaster condition. Betterments (e.g., added protective
features, added lanes, and added access control) may, in some cases, require further NEPA review.
Some resilience improvements, such as moving a road to a higher elevation, may also require
further NEPA review.
Project Completion Time for Emergency and Permanent Repairs
On June 11, 2013, a tanker truck carrying gasoline crashed and burned under I-95 in Philadelphia, PA, causing the
northbound lanes to collapse and weakening the southbound lanes to the point that they were structurally
unsound. Despite initial concerns that the restoration of traffic would take several months, coordinated efforts at
the federal, state, and local levels restored essential traffic within 12 days. The repairs were funded as emergency
repairs under the Emergency Relief (ER) Program, which provided 100% federal funding. The remarkable speed of
the repair work was noted in the press, including commentary asking how the Philadelphia bridge could be
completed in 12 days when many highway projects take years to complete.

39 23 U.S.C. §125(d)(1)(B).
40 The Davis-Bacon requirements can be suspended by executive order (40 U.S.C. §276a-5). President George W. Bush
did this in response to Hurricane Katrina. He reimposed the requirements on November 8, 2005.
41 A state may request a waiver of the Buy America requirements from FHWA based on a public interest rationale
under 23 C.F.R. §635.4109(c)(1)(i).
42 23 C.F.R. §625.
43 FHWA, Environmental Compliance During Emergencies, at https://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/
Pubs_resources_tools/publications/newsletters/apr18nl.aspx.
Congressional Research Service

9

Emergency Relief Program for Disaster-Damaged Highways and Bridges

The early press reports left out an important fact. The current I-95 fix is a temporary one, done as an ER Program
emergency repair to restore essential traffic flow. Although progress on the permanent repairs has been rapid,
completion of those repairs is not expected until later in 2024.44
The emergency repair provisions in the ER Program are designed to permit work to start immediately, ahead of a
finding of eligibility and programming of a project. Emergency repairs do not have to adhere to the normal
federally required competitive bidding requirement, and emergency situations that involve immediate threats to
public health or safety or immediate threats to property can start as soon as possible with the environmental
reviews occurring afterward. The restoration of the six travel lanes was done with the participants knowing that
the ER Program would pay 100% of the costs for the construction of the temporary lanes. Also, the fact that the
I-95 bridge was on a critical regional artery in a major metropolitan area made it a high-priority project. The
repairs faced no local opposition, and the project design was straightforward. The engineering and construction
contractors worked around the clock every day for the 12 days.
The temporary repairs did not restore the route to its previous condition or capacity. The lanes are 11 feet wide
(the normal Interstate standard is 12 feet), there are no shoulders, and there is a speed limit of 45 miles per hour
in the repaired area. Oversized loads must still use the detours. However, the lanes meet the ER Program goal of
restoring essential traffic. Also, doing things quickly can increase costs as contractors bring more equipment to
bear on the project, and working around the clock increases labor costs, such as overtime.
It is not unusual for the permanent repair or replacement of disaster-damaged roads to take a substantial amount
of time to complete. The various reasons for this include many of the same reasons that slow the completion of
routine federal-aid highway projects, including the time for planning, design, public comment, opposition
resolution, environmental review, lawsuits, matching share availability, design changes, and construction delays.45
There is little publicly available analysis on the timeliness of completion of ER projects. ER project completion
times could be an oversight issue for Congress.
ER Funding Distribution and Management
Because the ER Program is funded primarily through supplemental appropriations, the amounts
available for distribution can vary greatly from year to year. FHWA manages the distribution of
funds through a process of allocations and withdrawals as well as procedures to manage funding
shortfalls.
There are two processes used to apply for ER funds following a disaster: quick release and the
standard method. Allocations for quick release funding often occur individually, whereas standard
allocations are periodically distributed to all eligible states nationwide at one time.
“Quick Release” ER Allocations
The ER Manual describes the “quick release” method for developing and processing a state
request for ER funding as a method that
provides limited, initial ER funds for large disasters quickly. [Quick release applications
are processed based on preliminary assessment of damage and a damage survey typically
does not accompany the application.] Quick release funds are intended as a “down
payment” to immediately provide funds for emergency operations until the Standard
application may be submitted and approved.46

44 Pennsylvania DOT, “I-95 Update,” at https://www.penndot.pa.gov/RegionalOffices/district-6/Pages/
AlertDetails.aspx.
45 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Highway Infrastructure: Preliminary Information on the Timely
Completion of Highway Construction Projects, GAO-02-1067, September 19, 2002, at https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-
02-1067t.pdf.
46 FHWA, ER Manual, pp. 30, 33-34.
Congressional Research Service

10

link to page 14 Emergency Relief Program for Disaster-Damaged Highways and Bridges

Examples of quick release funding include $3 million released on August 21, 2023, for traffic
management and road repairs in response to wildfires in Lahaina, HI; $11 million released on
August 11, 2023, for statewide flood damage in Vermont; $3 million released on June 15, 2023,
for repairs to the section of I-95 in Philadelphia that collapsed as a result of a gasoline tanker
truck fire; and $4.6 million released on March 29, 2023, for repairs to statewide storm damage in
California. According to FHWA, $432 million in quick release funds were provided to 29 states,
Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands during FY2018-FY2023.47
FHWA holds some funding in reserve to ensure that there will always be funds available for quick
release needs. The amount reserved is at the discretion of the FHWA Administrator with the
concurrence of the Secretary of Transportation.
Nationwide ER Allocations
The standard application method is more deliberate than the quick release method, requiring that
site inspections and a damage survey summary report be submitted to the FHWA division office.
FHWA and state DOTs use this process mostly for permanent repairs. The standard allocations
address both recent and backlogged projects from past disasters.48 Depending on funding
availability and needs, money is allocated once or twice each fiscal year; see Table 1.
Table 1. Nationwide ER and ERFO Allocations
April 6, 2017-January 23, 2024 (in nominal $)
Allocation Date
ER
ERFO
Total
Apr. 6, 2017
670,328,990
97,911,698
768,240,688
Nov. 22, 2017
466,642,367
52,470,598
519,112,965
Apr. 13, 2018
882,862,025
173,913,140
1,056,775,165
Feb. 6, 2019
664,689,545
61,053,260
725,742,805
Sept. 5, 2019
649,780,528
221,418,582
871,199,110
Feb. 27, 2020
553,873,092
99,352,878
653,225,970
Sept. 29, 2020
508,250,687
65,779,261
574,029,948
Dec. 21, 2021
1,273,344,213
126,476,570
1,399,820,783
Aug. 31, 2022
460,976,276
52,196,739
513,173,015
May 18, 2023
603,730,065
145,342,110
749,072,175
Jan. 23, 2024
559,732,972
169,648,495
729,381,467
Total
7,294,210,760
1,265,563,331
8,559,774,091
Source: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Emergency Relief Program, ER Recent Allocations, at
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/erelief.cfm.
Notes: ER = emergency relief; ERFO = Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads. Amounts are those
announced at the time of release. The amounts do not reflect technical adjustments, withdrawals or reallocation
of funds. Nominal dollars are amounts not adjusted for inflation.
These allocations funded a wide range of repairs to disaster-damaged roads and bridges in all
regions of the United States, including damage from Hurricanes Ian and Fiona, western wildfires,

47 Based on technical assistance from FHWA provided to CRS, September 11, 2023.
48 FHWA, “Emergency Relief Program, Policy and Guidance,” at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/
erelief.cfm.
Congressional Research Service

11

link to page 22 link to page 15 Emergency Relief Program for Disaster-Damaged Highways and Bridges

and flooding events throughout the country. For state-by-state allocations for FY2018-FY2023 to
date, see Appendix B.
Hurricanes and tropical storms are an example of the use of ER funds over time. Table 2 sets
forth such ER Program spending since the 2017 hurricane season.
Table 2. ER Allocations for Hurricanes and Tropical Storms
FY2018-FY2023 (nominal $)
Semiannual
State or Territory
Quick Release
Allocations
Total
Alabama

23,597,188
23,597,188
American Samoa

1,500,000
1,500,000
Arizona

28,860,438
28,860,438
Arkansas

10,976,099
10,976,099
California

23,513,760
23,513,760
Connecticut

6,030,000
6,030,000
Florida
75,000,000
252,750,142
327,750,142
Georgia

10,479,773
10,479,773
Louisiana
10,000,000
25,091,754
35,091,754
Mississippi

23,296,397
23,296,397
N. Mariana Islands

4,556,151
4,556,151
New Jersey

12,098,940
12,098,940
New York

43,406,210
43,406,210
North Carolina
20,750,000
156,499,040
177,249,040
Pennsylvania
450,000
21,902,695
22,352,695
Puerto Rico
90,695,000
597,796,017
688,491,017
South Carolina
9,000,000
41,923,745
50,923,745
Tennessee

2,703,282
2,703,282
Texas
25,000,000
89,694,299
114,694,299
Vermont

12,788,558
12,788,558
Virgin Islands
21,500,000
59,036,756
80,536,756
Virginia

24,672,542
24,672,542
Grand Total
252,395,000
1,473,173,786
1,725,568,786
Source: FHWA, technical assistance to CRS, September 11, 2023.
Notes: Does not reflect withdrawals or reallocation of funds. Nominal dollars are amounts not adjusted for
inflation.
Congressional Research Service

12

Emergency Relief Program for Disaster-Damaged Highways and Bridges

Funds Management and the ER Unmet Needs Backlog
Once funding is allocated for a disaster event, FHWA can enter into project agreements and incur
obligations (which legally commit the federal government to pay the federal share for a project).
If funds are unavailable, the request from a state is added to a list of unfunded requests.49
Typically, requests for allocations exceed available ER funding. For example, as of August 10,
2023, FHWA had an available ER fund balance of $1,355 million to pay for $1,838 million in
state and federal land management agency claims against the fund. This, at the time, left an ER
Program “backlog” of $483 million.50 Because FHWA may not commit to funding beyond its
authorized and appropriated amounts, FHWA adjusts the distribution of funds to stay within the
program’s means.
When the unallocated balance is insufficient to cover the reserved quick release funds and the
upcoming biannual nationwide distribution, the distributions are provided on a proportional basis.
Each state’s allocation would be computed based on a ratio of total available funding to total
needs. FHWA cannot make the allocations whole unless Congress makes additional ER funding
available. FHWA also has the option of skipping or delaying a standard nationwide distribution,
allowing time for its funds to be replenished via the annual $100 million authorization or further
supplemental appropriations.
During a funding shortfall, ER projects can be funded using a state’s regular formula funds under
the Federal-Aid Highway Program. That funding would then be reimbursed when and if ER funds
become available. This, however, could lead to delays in the funding of other planned projects as
the state awaits reimbursement from ER funds.
FHWA reviews states’ unobligated and unexpended balances of allocated funds on a monthly
basis and deallocates unobligated funds that exceed states’ ER Program needs.51 Such withdrawn
funds are then available for reallocation nationwide. The agency also tracks recovery of insurance
proceeds by the state or subdivision of a state, every six months.52 The FHWA’s share of the
resulting proceeds is withdrawn from the state’s allocated funds and made available for other
nationwide needs.53
Project needs subject to the withdrawal of funds may be again considered for funding in future
nationwide allocations. Sometimes states object to the withdrawal of unused funds. However,
failure to withdraw unused allocations means the funds are not available to support other ER
projects nationwide that can use the funds in a timelier fashion.

49 The unfunded request list includes state and federal land management agency estimates for both recent disaster
events and older disasters, as well as for projects that were funded using state funds and are awaiting reimbursement.
50 FHWA, “Emergency Relief (ER) Program Unmet Needs: Data as of August 10, 2023”; attachment in email from
FHWA to CRS, September 11, 2023.
51 The existing ER Manual requires that FHWA withdraw unobligated balances at the end of the fiscal year; however,
FHWA Order 5182.1 requires monthly review of unneeded funds. FHWA follows Order 5182.1 as superseding the ER
Manual until the updated manual is released.
52 A “subdivision of a state” generally refers to government entities below the state level, such as cities, counties,
towns, or townships.
53 FHWA, Emergency Relief Program Responsibilities, FHWA Order 5182.1, February 22, 2016, p. 9, at
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/orders/51821.cfm.
Congressional Research Service

13

link to page 5 Emergency Relief Program for Disaster-Damaged Highways and Bridges

Congressional Issues
Because the IIJA has authorized federal highway programs through FY2026, program oversight
and IIJA implementation will likely be the near-term ER Program issues for Congress. By early
2025, the IIJA reauthorization debate could be under way, and ER Program and funding issues
could again be part of the surface transportation reauthorization discussion.
Funding
The ER Program is funded with a permanent $100 million annual authorization from the HTF.
Funding above this amount is provided on a “such sums as necessary” basis, usually in
supplemental appropriations acts. The $100 million authorization has not been raised since it was
established in 1972. As disaster relief needs have grown over the years, the annual authorization
has diminished in value by up to 86%.54 Over the last 10 fiscal years, the annual appropriation has
provided 8.7% of the program’s funding. This reflects an increasing dependence on supplemental
appropriations to support the program. One option for Congress to address this situation would be
to increase the permanent annual authorization to account for inflation. This could reduce the
need for periodic funding requests from the appropriators.
Another issue for Congress has been whether to place a time limit on the availability of ER funds
for obligation to encourage states to prioritize the obligation of funds to ER projects.55 Currently,
the funds are available until expended. Federal-aid highway formula funds are generally available
for obligation for four years. This difference in length of availability creates an incentive for
states to commit their limited state matching funds to non-ER projects first, in effect lowering the
spending priority of some ER projects.
Some unmet needs of the ER Program have remained on the backlog for years. Other projects for
which states have received allocations have undergone delays and have not moved to completion.
This can complicate the decision on how much ER funding is needed in the periodic
supplemental appropriations. Congress could request further studies of the allocation, withdrawal,
and reallocation of ER funds. It might also ask FHWA for statistics on completion timelines for
ER projects and the reasons for project delays.
Program Oversight Issues
Funds Management
FHWA makes ER funds available to the states and federal land management agencies via a quick
release mechanism (for specific disasters and catastrophic failures) and nationwide allocations
mostly for permanent repairs. The agency has a process of withdrawals of allocations that are not
obligated by the states in a timely fashion.
Three categories of issues have had critical reviews by the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) and the U.S. Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General (DOT IG). The

54 See discussion of inflation effects under “Emergency Relief Funding.”
55 Limiting the availability of ER funds to a specific number of years is not a new concept. See U.S. Congress, House
Committee on Public Works, Emergency Highway Relief, report to accompany H.R. 6790, 89th Cong., 1st sess., July 7,
1965, H.Rept. 89-596 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1965), p. 7. The report recommended an availability of three years. The
provision was not included in the legislation as passed (P.L. 80-41).
Congressional Research Service

14

Emergency Relief Program for Disaster-Damaged Highways and Bridges

critiques center on the sustainability of the program due to “mission creep”;56 the inability or
resistance of some FHWA division offices to recapture unused funds that have been allocated to
the states; and related concerns that some FHWA field office officials have shown a lack of
independence from their state partners, which has led them to put state interests above federal
interests.57
FHWA last updated the ER Manual in 2013 to clarify eligibility and procedural issues.58 The
agency is in the process of revising the manual. In the interim, FHWA on February 22, 2016,
released Order 5182.1, Emergency Relief Program Responsibilities, to
strengthen the administration and oversight of the ER program to ensure the effective use
of limited ER funding for eligible projects to restore Federal-aid roads and bridges after a
qualified event.
The order was released in response to internal DOT reviews of the program’s administration and
external reviews (such as those by GAO). The order sets forth the responsibilities of the FHWA
division offices, including their role in funds management. The order also sets forth the role of the
FHWA Office of Program Administration.
In October 2019, GAO released a report finding FHWA did not document its decisionmaking
when classifying a project as an emergency repair and therefore eligible for 100% federal share as
well as for expedited contracting and environmental procedures.59 GAO identified projects that
had been inappropriately classified and recommended that FHWA document its emergency repair
decisions and “to more clearly define the circumstances under which projects are classified as
emergency repairs, including what constitutes restoration of essential traffic.” It also urged FHWA
to clarify its policy on when expedited contracting and environmental procedures are allowed and
the acceptable time frames for accomplishing emergency repair projects undertaken under
expedited contracting and environmental requirements. FHWA concurred with GAO’s
recommendation. In the 2019 report, GAO again found that its examination of FHWA’s
decisionmaking regarding emergency repairs invites
questions we have raised before about the partnership relationship between FHWA and the
states. In high stress politically sensitive situations like natural disasters in particular, the
relationship could lead FHWA to put states’ interests before federal ones or give the
appearance of having done so.
On February 15, 2022, DOT IG released Outdated Policies Hinder FHWA’s Ability to Oversee
Unobligated Emergency Relief Funds.60 The report assessed FHWA’s controls over the use of its

56 GAO, Highway Emergency Relief: Reexamination Needed to Address Fiscal Imbalance and Long-Term
Sustainability, GAO-07-245, February 23, 2007, at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-245; and GAO, Highway
Emergency Relief: Strengthened Oversight of Project Eligibility Decisions Needed, GAO-12-45, November 2011, pp.
1-56, at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-45. As GAO noted, some of the “mission creep” that GAO expressed
concerns about was required by legislation.
57 GAO, Highway Infrastructure: Federal-State Partnership Produces Benefits and Poses Oversight Risks, GAO-12-
474, April 2012, pp. 21-22, 27-28, at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-474.
58 FHWA, “Emergency Relief Program Responsibilities,” FHWA Order 5182.1, February 22, 2016, at
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/orders/51821.cfm. See also FHWA, “Guidance-Information: Defining
and Managing Emergency Relief Repair Activities Eligible for 100 Percent Federal Funding,” March 7, 2022, at
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/specialfunding/er/220307.cfm.
59 GAO, Highway Emergency Relief: Federal Highway Administration Should Enhance Accountability over Project
Decisions, GAO 20-32, October 17, 2019, at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-32.
60 DOT, Office of Inspector General, Outdated Policies Hinder FHWA’s Ability to Oversee Unobligated Emergency
Relief Funds, Report no. FS2022022, February 15, 2022, at https://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/default/files/
FHWA%20Management%20of%20Emergency%20Relief%20Final%20Report_02-15-21.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

15

Emergency Relief Program for Disaster-Damaged Highways and Bridges

ER funds. The IG found that FHWA’s division offices were not always enforcing its process for
preventing state DOTs from retaining unobligated allocations. The review also found that FHWA
was not following its process for identifying quick release funds for withdrawal. It found that the
ER Manual is outdated and the updating notice and other guidance do not always align with the
manual, and this inconsistent guidance increases the risk of improper fund management. Despite
the funds management issues, the report found a low incidence of improper payments in the ER
Program and no improper payments in ERFO. FHWA concurred with most of the
recommendations but agreed to follow the ER Manual regarding the deallocation of unobligated
funds after the manual’s ongoing update is completed. The agency also did not agree with the
recommendation that the agency “identify any balance of allocated quick release funds older than
6 months and will not be obligated through the end of the year.” FHWA indicated it would not
treat quick release funds differently from other ER funds and would identify ER funds “no longer
needed and [that] can be deallocated.”61
FHWA has made systems and operational changes in response to the GAO and DOT IG
reviews.62 Some of the procedural changes will likely be included in the updated ER Manual. The
effectiveness of these changes could be of congressional oversight interest in preparation for the
IIJA reauthorization debate.
The IIJA provisions that broadened ER Program eligibility for betterments and resilience features
could mitigate some of the kinds of eligibility issues that have raised GAO and DOT IG concerns.
Also, the IIJA raised the allowed completion time for emergency repairs from 180 to 270 days.
This should help the states manage emergency repairs without risking loss of their 100% federal
share eligibility.
Resilience Features
The IIJA expanded and clarified the incorporation of resilience features in ER Program projects.
The integration of resilience features into the ER Program (via the IIJA-required update of the ER
Manual) in a way that reflects congressional intent could be of oversight interest. Also, the
effectiveness of these changes and their impact on the dollar amounts needed for the ER Program
over time (and the size of the ER funding backlog) could be of interest to Congress.
The IIJA did not expand resilience eligibility beyond repairs to or replacement of declared
disaster-damaged facilities. For resilience features of new highways and bridges or for the
retrofitting of existing ones, the IIJA relies on both existing eligibilities under current highway
formula programs and the new stand-alone PROTECT program. This means there is
programmatic separation of funding for declared disaster repairs under the ER Program from
funding for yet undamaged but high disaster risk infrastructure under the PROTECT program.
Whether this is an effective strategy or whether the two programs should be merged could be an
issue in the IIJA reauthorization debate.

61 Ibid., pp. 25-28.
62 Ibid., pp. 25-26.
Congressional Research Service

16

Emergency Relief Program for Disaster-Damaged Highways and Bridges

Appendix A.
Table A-1. Appropriated Funds for the Federal Highway Administration Emergency
Relief Program: 1998-2023
Excludes annual $100 million permanent authorization
Date
Highway
General
Public Law
Enacted
Title of Appropriations Act
Trust Fund
Fund
P.L. 105-174 May 1, 1998
1998 Supplemental Appropriations and
$259,000,000

Rescissions Act
P.L. 106-346 Oct. 23, 2000
Dept. of Transportation and Related
$720,000,000

Agencies Appropriations, 2001
P.L. 107-117 Jan. 10, 2002
Dept. of Defense and Emergency
$175,000,000

Supplemental Appropriations for Recovery
from and Response to Terrorist Attacks on
the United States Act, 2002
P.L. 107-206 Aug. 2, 2002
2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act for
$265,000,000

Further Recovery from and Response to
Terrorist Attacks on the United States
P.L. 108-324 Oct. 13, 2004
Military Construction Appropriations and
$1,202,000,000

Emergency Hurricane Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2005
P.L. 108-447 Dec. 8, 2004
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005
$741,000,000

P.L. 109-148 Dec. 30, 2005
Dept. of Defense, Emergency Supplemental
$2,750,000,000
Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the
Gulf of Mexico and Pandemic Influenza Act,
2006
P.L. 109-234 June 15, 2006
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act

$702,362,500
for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and
Hurricane Recovery, 2006
P.L. 110-28
May 25, 2007
U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care,

$871,022,000
Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability
Appropriations Act, 2007
P.L. 110-161 Dec. 26, 2007
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008

$195,000,000
P.L. 110-329 Sept. 30, 2008 Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance,

$850,000,000
and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009
P.L. 112-55
Nov. 18, 2011 Consolidated and Further Continuing
$1,622,000,000
Appropriations Act, 2012
P.L. 113-2
Jan. 29, 2013
Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013
$1,920,900,000
P.L. 114-254 Dec. 10, 2016
Further Continuing and Security Assistance
$1,004,017,000
Appropriations Act, 2017
P.L. 115-31
May 5, 2017
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017

$528,000,000
P.L. 115-123 Feb. 9, 2018
Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018
$1,374,000,000
P.L. 116-20
June 6, 2019
Additional Supplemental Appropriations for
$1,650,000,000
Disaster Relief Act, 2019
P.L. 117-43
Sept. 30,2021
Extending Government Funding and
$2,600,000,000
Delivering Emergency Assistance Act
Congressional Research Service

17

Emergency Relief Program for Disaster-Damaged Highways and Bridges

Date
Highway
General
Public Law
Enacted
Title of Appropriations Act
Trust Fund
Fund
P.L. 117-328 Dec. 29, 2022
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023

$803,000,000
Source: FHWA, Office of Program Administration.
Notes: P.L. 113-2 provided $2.022 billion. Amount shown reflects 5% rescission due to sequestration.

Congressional Research Service

18

Appendix B.
Table B-1. Emergency Relief Allocations: State and Territorial Totals
FY2018-FY2024 as of September 11, 2023 (nominal $)
State or
Territory
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
Total
Alabama
12,344,590
12,014,388
36,575,906

33,732,800
500,000
15,591,207
110,758,891
Alaska
2,117,777
26,688,400
55,501,922
1,689,000
32,328,090
74,000,000
1,316,032
193,641,221
American

4,280,947

4,280,947
Samoa
Arizona
7,056,243
4,700,000
29,884,684

30,103,902
17,230,000
36,819,241
125,794,070
Arkansas
48,921,716
8,847,529
19,983,449

31,794,742
6,521,393
5,377,931
121,446,760
California
274,521,117
260,733,894
295,855,883

732,271,748
284,065,052
124,279,244
1,971,726,937
Colorado

24,248,370
1,880,708
11,600,000
16,995,135
770,000
2,641,160
58,135,373
Connecticut

661,000

7,030,000

7,691,000
District of

750,000
1,000,000
1,637,505
13,801,821
133,944
17,323,271
Columbia
Florida
113,752,826
26,755,194
23,623,891

79,574,520
61,518,788
223,249,358
528,474,577
Georgia
3,519,246
6,309,328
4,097,513

14,607,805
6,042,180

34,576,072
Hawaii
8,000,000
94,141,097

1,050,000
66,725,968
24,448,082
194,365,147
Idaho
6,645,523
19,470,633
9,856,791

17,030,466
7,707,305
1,949,169
62,659,887
Illinois
5,004,113
5,099,431
4,338,966

1,827,430
2,274,385

18,544,325
Indiana
128,219
6,522,964

6,651,183
Iowa
3,455,094
9,000,000
44,841,897

27,647,891
1,422,385

86,367,267
Kansas
916,868
1,840,802
8,166,548

6,791,056

17,715,274
Kentucky
11,624,562
15,799,299
42,415,241
12,000,000
84,032,600
13,581,056
12,273,399
191,726,157
Louisiana
27,797,721
2,610,000
7,884,906
5,000,000
23,959,199
1,132,555
7,382,870
75,767,251
CRS-19

State or
Territory
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
Total
Maryland

5,203,805
1,186,181

6,637,482
850,172

13,877,640
Michigan
19,313,799
31,986,258
37,795,440

50,269,619
1,856,000
2,200,000
143,421,116
Minnesota

2,563,090
6,947,939

6,801,719
3,437,499
3,908,053
23,658,300
Mississippi
8,337,755
18,633,703
39,372,515

35,162,207
9,110,005

110,616,185
Missouri
22,738,087
20,318,094
19,875,423

25,236,075
4,087,112
10,612
92,265,402
Montana
2,071,853
18,717,061
667,009

29,970,276
51,319,120
28,256,349
131,001,668
N. Mariana
287,087
4,269,064

4,556,151
Islands
Nebraska

94,954,667
46,274,465

40,019,253

181,248,385
Nevada
9,132,440
8,137,748

7,030,982
12,611
7,300,000
31,613,781
New
8,491,049
1,643,583
2,588,203

4,500,000

17,222,835
Hampshire
New Jersey
3,376,266

1,042,826

8,070,174
1,477,606
13,103,555
27,070,427
New Mexico

14,280

2,679,011

2,693,291
New York
23,481,811
18,728,438
71,911,673

31,252,850
51,147

145,425,918
North Carolina
40,647,300
54,027,253
50,863,666
1,000,000
38,345,896
14,840,720
12,251,601
211,976,436
North Dakota
216,339
4,300,000
46,236,477

24,329,962
13,436,367
5,677,883
94,197,028
Ohio
4,849,981
95,196,217
16,884,040

28,001,122
13,611,000
2,613,000
161,155,360
Oklahoma
24,000,000
6,972,087
33,765,666

20,297,366
4,918,783
65,131
90,019,033
Oregon
41,863,791
48,962,689
47,699,220

75,201,685
8,364,460
22,845,341
244,937,186
Pennsylvania

41,718,185
450,000

39,244,711
7,825,995
23,190,000
112,428,891
Puerto Rico
119,081,749
358,574,268
58,872,617

246,026,722
46,425,141
32,908,803
861,889,300
South Carolina
12,876,544
15,000,000
5,315,928

2,786,596

12,000,000
47,979,067
South Dakota

11,445,000
27,626,815

10,213,913
890,403
1,578,955
51,755,086
Tennessee
880,160
121,897,784
24,642,501

31,274,045
2,612,955
13,192,856
194,500,301
CRS-20

link to page 14 link to page 22 link to page 22
State or
Territory
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
Total
Texas
77,385,857
25,092,393
13,077,915

26,000,000

3,876,185
145,432,350
Utah

7,031,196

8,176,038
2,972,911
7,982,032
26,162,177
Vermont
6,666,591
4,322,000
19,293,423

11,012,985
10,486,949
37,770,000
89,551,948
Virgin Islands
34,500,000
21,774,435
19,768,475

12,493,846

217,033
88,753,789
Virginia
2,754,875
5,675,234
24,646,109

11,373,005
6,779,198
11,501,097
62,729,518
Washington
100,849,078
6,443,893
28,157,038

49,287,378
27,218,719
23,033,729
234,989,835
West Virginia
28,244,069
23,013,966
5,430,743

400,000
7,186,999
6,894,616
71,170,393
Wisconsin
20,373,309
33,380,312
7,936,383

1,518,000
3,803,404
243,000
67,254,408
Wyoming
7,049,760
14,907,412
2,483,449

50,000,000

1,300,000
75,740,621
Total
1,145,275,165
1,647,581,915
1,253,515,918
32,289,000
2,068,848,797
808,047,175
729,381,468
7,684,939,438
Sources: FHWA, Technical Assistance to CRS, September 11, 2023. Updated in March 2024 with data from Peter J. Stephanos, Memorandum: Allocation of Emergency
Relief Funds, FY 2024 Obligation Needs, to the Office of Federal Lands Highway, DOT, FHWA, Office of Stewardship, Oversight and Management, January 23, 2024,
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/specialfunding/er/240123flhfy.cfm; and Peter J. Stephanos, Memorandum: Allocation of Emergency Relief Funds, FY 2024 Obligation Needs, DOT,
FHWA, Office of Stewardship, Oversight and Management, January 23, 2024, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/specialfunding/er/240123fy.cfm.
Notes: Does not reflect withdrawals or reallocation of funds. Nominal dollars are amounts not adjusted for inflation. Data run by FHWA in early September 2023. Total
amounts in Table 1 of this report differ from amounts in Table B-1 because Table B-1 does not include data on FY2017 and does include allocation adjustments made
through August 2023. Does not include $432 million in quick release funding. Values may not sum to totals shown because of rounding.

CRS-21

Emergency Relief Program for Disaster-Damaged Highways and Bridges

Author Information

Ali E. Lohman

Analyst in Transportation Policy

Acknowledgments
Former CRS analyst Robert S. Kirk wrote earlier versions of this report.

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R47724 · VERSION 2 · UPDATED
22