A Department of Homeland Security report released Wednesday that ranks communication strengths in cities around the country shows the department’s priority for states. The ability of emergency responders to talk if cell phone towers or landlines go down is crucial, and the report is valuable for pointing out areas of vulnerability. It should inspire the new Congress to fund these systems with the same level of concern shown by DHS.

Portland finished among the top cities in the report, which measured whether operating procedures were in place, use of communications systems, and how effectively local governments have coordinated to prepare for disaster, natural or otherwise. But other Maine communities would not have fared as well – a recent news story explained how in Piscataquis County, the emergency management agency director just recently was awarded funding for improved communication, which currently may be carried out by making individual calls via cell phone to first responders.

The current Department of Homeland Security budget is $41 million above the level appropriated for fiscal year 2006, but significant funding gains – in port and rail security, for instance – have been more than offset by losses in grants to state first-responder programs. Of particular interest to states are the Homeland Security Grant Program and the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program, which together dropped from $950 million in funding in FY ’06 to $900 million this year. That squeeze has elicited the expected response from more urban states – that rural areas don’t face the same level of threat and yet on a per-capita basis they get more dollars than states with cities that are likely targets.

Speaking at a grant conference recently, DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff said, “We recognize that we have high risk regions that are going to get a disproportionate amount of the assistance because they have the greater risk. We also recognize, though, that we cannot give them all the money. We have to make sure that all communities in all states have some basic capabilities.”

If the department’s risk analysis is accurate and the money is being distributed effectively, the department should be advocating for more dollars for grants programs to avoid creating more tension between states than better communication within them. And Mr. Chertoff sees not only better intra-state communication but “a national network of linked intelligence fusion centers to facilitate the two-way sharing of information.” That sounds fine, but small states, which naturally would want to be part of the national network, first must get beyond relying on somebody’s cell phone as a lone source of communication.

Sen. Susan Collins, ranking member of the DHS oversight committee, has been urging colleagues to increase the state grant money for such projects, returning it to the 2004 level; majority Democrats say they too are interested in finding those funds. They should be. Mr. Chertoff is on the right track as he seeks to substantially improve the way states and the federal government communicate in the event of crises, as Hurricane Katrina demonstrated and as its aftermath still demonstrates.

But DHS won’t reach that goal with reduced funding that pits one state against another, intentionally or not. At the very least, to communicate the states must be willing to talk to one another.