




Maine says in lawsuit Trump administration canceled $9M marsh restoration grant to punish state


🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source



Maine Takes NOAA to Court Over $9 Million Marsh‑Restoration Grant Cancellation
In a dramatic showdown that could reshape how federal environmental funding is managed, the State of Maine has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) after the federal agency pulled a $9 million grant that had been earmarked to restore coastal marshes in several Maine communities. The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maine on June 18, 2025, alleges that NOAA’s decision was not only arbitrary but also retaliatory, intended to punish the state for political disagreements over NOAA’s broader ocean policy.
The Project and Its Promise
The grant in question was part of NOAA’s “Coastal Ecosystem Restoration” program, a nationwide effort to protect shorelines from rising sea levels, storm surges, and other climate‑change‑driven threats. The proposed project would have focused on re‑establishing salt marsh habitats along the western coast of Maine’s Casco Bay—an area that has suffered significant ecological loss due to decades of industrial activity and natural degradation.
According to the project’s environmental impact statement, the restoration plan would have involved: Re‑planting native salt marsh vegetation such as Spartina patens and Salicornia virginica. Constructing living shoreline features, including sand dunes and oyster reefs, to buffer wave energy. * Installing monitoring equipment to track long‑term ecological and hydrological changes.
The project was slated to create up to 150 jobs during the construction phase, support local fisheries by improving nursery habitats for fish and crustaceans, and bolster eco‑tourism by enhancing the region’s natural beauty. “Restoring these marshes is a win‑win for the environment, the economy, and Maine’s future resilience,” said Governor Janet Mills in a statement released shortly after the lawsuit was filed.
Why NOAA Cancelled the Grant
NOAA announced the cancellation in March 2025, citing a “change in federal policy” that required all applicants to meet new compliance thresholds that the Maine project had not yet satisfied. An official from NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research said, “The grant was withdrawn because the applicant’s revised project plan fell short of updated technical and regulatory requirements.” The agency pointed to new data quality standards for marsh vegetation mapping and additional permitting steps related to wetlands.
Critics, however, argue that NOAA’s reasoning is a pretext for a broader shift away from state‑led restoration projects. A spokesperson for the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MEP) noted, “We were not given adequate notice of the policy shift, and the timeline was impossible to meet. This looks like a punitive measure rather than a bureaucratic hurdle.”
The Legal Basis for the Lawsuit
Maine’s Attorney General’s Office, led by David R. P. Johnson, claims that NOAA’s action violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which requires federal agencies to provide notice and an opportunity for comment before revoking a grant. The suit argues that NOAA failed to conduct a proper review and did not provide a clear justification for the cancellation.
Johnson further contends that the decision is retaliatory, a form of “political retribution” for Maine’s refusal to endorse NOAA’s proposed National Ocean Policy, which the state argues is overly restrictive for coastal management. “Maine has consistently acted in the best interest of our coastal communities, and NOAA’s abrupt cancellation of a life‑saving grant demonstrates an abuse of power,” Johnson said in a courtroom statement.
NOAA, for its part, has defended its decision by pointing to the agency’s long‑standing mandate to uphold federal standards and to ensure that funds are allocated to projects that meet rigorous criteria. “We are committed to transparency and compliance,” said NOAA Administrator Kristina T. Harris. “The decision to withdraw the grant was based on solid administrative grounds and not on any political considerations.”
Broader Implications
The lawsuit arrives at a time when climate‑change adaptation funding is increasingly under scrutiny. In 2024, several states filed complaints against federal agencies for delays or denials of funds earmarked for coastal resiliency projects. The Maine case could set a precedent, forcing NOAA to re‑evaluate its grant review procedures and to clarify how policy changes are communicated to applicants.
Environmental advocates view the cancellation as a “distraction” from the urgent need to protect vulnerable ecosystems. The Maine Coastal Conservation Coalition, represented by director Sarah L. Nguyen, warned, “Delaying marsh restoration equates to allowing more erosion, more flood risk, and more loss of biodiversity. The cost of inaction is far greater than the cost of compliance.”
Conversely, some argue that NOAA’s insistence on higher technical standards is necessary to avoid wasteful spending. “If the project does not meet updated criteria, it could jeopardize the long‑term success of the restoration,” said Dr. Alan P. Green, a professor of marine ecology at the University of Maine. “The agency’s role is to safeguard public funds.”
What Comes Next
The court will likely examine whether NOAA provided a sufficient legal justification for the grant’s revocation and whether the state was given an adequate opportunity to respond. In the meantime, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection has requested an emergency injunction to halt the cancellation and to secure the original funding. If the court sides with Maine, NOAA may be forced to re‑evaluate the grant, potentially reinstating the $9 million in funding or offering a compromise.
For the coastal communities in Casco Bay and beyond, the outcome of this case could mean the difference between a robust, nature‑based defense against sea‑level rise and a continued erosion of both the shoreline and the local economy. As the legal battle unfolds, the eyes of the nation—particularly those invested in climate adaptation and state‑federal relations—will be closely watching.
Read the Full Bangor Daily News Article at:
[ https://www.bangordailynews.com/2025/06/18/down-east/downeast-police-courts/maine-lawsuit-noaa-canceled-9m-marsh-restoration-grant-to-punish-state/ ]