New ASFPM Report Provides a Snapshot of Floodplain Management Across the Nation

ASFPM has released its latest assessment of state and territory floodplain management programs across the nation. The 2025 State and Territory Floodplain Management Assessment builds on more than three decades of analyzing the capabilities and capacity of these programs and continues ASFPM’s commitment to define and promote the key components of effective floodplain management. 

This latest edition, an important update to the 2017 report, serves as a useful reference for policy advocates and those in the floodplain management community who are interested in understanding more about the identification and assessment of flood risks and the actions that are being taken to reduce those risks. 

The 2025 report identifies current funding and staffing trends and highlights best practices for sound floodplain management. Together, these findings give states and territories a clearer picture of how their programs compare nationally and where opportunities exist to strengthen their floodplain management efforts.

Drawing on the responses from 42 states and territories, the assessment offers a national portrait of progress, gaps, and emerging trends in floodplain management programs. The report analyzes their responses according to the 10 guiding principles for effective floodplain management, and where possible, compares findings from earlier reports in 2010 and 2017.

The comprehensive assessment asks questions across a broad range of topics, including: state and local authority, implementation of higher standards, issues around data privacy, floodplain mapping, funding levels, and staffing trends.

Key findings include: 

• Half of the responding states reported that they saw changes in laws or regulations affecting floodplain management since 2017.
  • Of those that saw changes, 15 states reported that changes in state laws and regulations have strengthened their floodplain management efforts since 2017 (Question 5). 
• Freeboard standards are the most commonly required of 18 different types of floodplain management regulations as reported by 72% of respondents (26 states in response to Question 82).
  • Most responding states require one foot of freeboard above the BFE. Several jurisdictions (Montana, Indiana, District of Columbia, New York, and Vermont) require two feet, and New Jersey requires three feet of freeboard.
• A strong majority (73%) of respondents indicated they have a state-adopted building code, with almost all reporting that their state used a version of International Codes (I-Codes) as the basis of their building codes (Question 104).
  • This is encouraging news, especially with the potential inclusion of ASCE 24-24 Flood Resistant Design and Construction in the 2027 International Codes, including the Building, Residential, and Existing Building code volumes.

• A series of new questions, added in 2025, asked about state floodplain management programs’ access and use of FEMA National Flood Insurance Program data (e.g., Repetitive Loss properties, flood claims history) and related privacy concerns.
  • Most respondents (82–95%) strongly support making FEMA’s property-specific flood loss data publicly available, believing it would improve floodplain management effectiveness, with 95% saying it would help in prioritizing grant applications (Question 24). 
  • A large majority (84%) favored transparency when asked if the public benefits of sharing property-specific flood claims data outweigh property owners’ privacy concerns (Question 25).
• Updating old flood engineering studies was identified as the most urgent flood mapping need (Question 30). Overall, 82% rated this as “quite a bit or a great deal” of a priority, emphasizing a widespread agreement on the need for modernization, consistent with its high priority status in 2017.
  • In a follow up question, (Question 31) when asked to list any other priority mapping needs, many states mentioned the need to transition to 2D Base Level Engineering (BLE) mapping or include future conditions and sea level rise, with specific mention of the need to use the Climate-Informed Science Approach (CISA) for future conditions mapping and to inform freeboard.
• 75% of respondents have developed new publications or tools since 2017 to provide technical assistance for reducing flood losses and protecting natural floodplain functions (Question 192).
  • These resources include guidebooks, manuals, worksheets, and web applications covering such topics as Substantial Damage/Substantial Improvement, model ordinances, climate data and resilience, and guidance for new floodplain managers (Question 193).
• Since 2017, a majority of respondents (57%) reported an increase in program funding (Question 209).
  • Federal program adjustments (CAP-SSSE, TSF, CTP) were the most cited factor for funding changes (Question 210).
  • Climate change, flooding events, and disaster response needs prompted funding increases in several states.
• Funding changes since 2017 primarily improved overall program capacity, often leading to new staff hires in states like Alabama, Utah, Vermont, and Washington (Question 211). Increased funding also enhanced outreach and local community assistance.
  • However, a few respondents reported neutral or counterbalancing effects. For instance, one respondent noted a decrease in CAP funding offset by an increase in other funding, while another shifted work from district offices to the central office due to increased administrative burden.

Visit the 2025 State and Territory Floodplain Management Assessment webpage to explore report highlights organized around the 10 principles of effective floodplain management, view graphics and key findings, and download the full report. The appendix and raw data results are available in the additional materials section on the About page.