SAFE Rural Act Aims to Close the Gap in Pre-Disaster Flood Mitigation Opportunities for Rural and Tribal Communities

ASFPM is among the organizations supporting legislation that would expand access to FEMA flood resilience funding for rural communities and remove barriers that too often prevent small towns from investing in mitigation before disaster strikes. 

Last month, Congressman Pat Harrigan of North Carolina introduced the Sustainable and Flood Resilient Engineering for Rural Areas (SAFE Rural) Act. The bipartisan legislation, co-led by Congressman Eric Sorensen of Illinois, would establish a dedicated rural flood resilience fund within FEMA’s Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program. The fund would provide formula-based funding to eligible rural communities, Tribal governments and U.S. territories rather than requiring them to compete with larger communities for federal funding.

The legislation also would streamline applications for smaller projects, expand technical assistance and help communities invest in flood mitigation before disasters occur, reducing long-term recovery costs and strengthening critical infrastructure. 

“Communities across western North Carolina know better than anyone that rebuilding after a flood is always harder and more expensive than preparing beforehand,” said Congressman Harrigan. “The problem is that too many rural communities never get the chance to prepare because they don’t have the staff or resources to navigate Washington’s grant process. The SAFE Rural Act changes that by making it easier for small towns to access the funding they need to strengthen critical infrastructure before the next disaster hits. That’s a smarter use of taxpayer dollars, and it’s how we build more resilient communities for the long haul.” 

Some key elements of the SAFE Rural Act include:

• Expands the overall amount of funding for pre-disaster mitigation. SAFE Rural does not take funds away from the BRIC program; rather, it expands available funds by requiring that 2% of the Disaster Relief Fund be dedicated to the program.
• Removes the Administration’s discretion to implement the program. The legislation clearly states that “The President shall provide technical and financial assistance…” Both the BRIC program and HMGP are discretionary, meaning the President may or may not choose to implement them.  
• Specifically identifies nature-based solutions as eligible uses of assistance.  Nature-based solutions have been part of the flood mitigation toolbox for some time and this would ensure they remain available options when appropriate
• Authorizes significantly more technical assistance for communities through the Community Assistance (CAP-MIT) program. Modeled after the CAP-SSSE program in the NFIP, CAP-MIT delivers community technical assistance via capacity building at the state level to help communities that would otherwise not be able to develop that capability on their own. This is a superior model to FEMA’s Direct Technical Assistance program, would ensure more continuity of assistance, and is consistent with the President’s concept of states and communities taking more responsibility.   

ASFPM, NAFSMA Voice Support for SAFE Rural Act

“The Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM) is proud to support the SAFE Rural Act in addressing one of the shortcomings of existing pre-disaster hazard mitigation programs—equal opportunity for rural areas and Tribal nations,” said Chad Berginnis, Executive Director of ASFPM. “By using proven approaches to provide technical assistance and funding to these communities and avoiding known pitfalls in existing programs, the SAFE Rural Act allows funding to be flexibly used for locally identified and prioritized flood hazard mitigation efforts.”

The bill also received support from the National Association of Flood & Stormwater Management Agencies (NAFSMA), which urged Congress to “pass it without delay.”

“Rural communities, Tribal lands, and U.S. territories often face the greatest flood risks and the least capacity to access federal mitigation funding,” said Sunny Simpkins, Executive Director of NAFSMA. “The SAFE Rural Act fixes this by establishing a dedicated, formula-based funding stream within the BRIC program, capitalized by a 2 percent set-aside from the FEMA Disaster Relief Fund. It streamlines applications for small projects, waives cost-share requirements for economically distressed communities, and builds state and local capacity through the Community Assistance Program. Every dollar invested in pre-disaster resilience saves many more in post-disaster recovery.”

The SAFE Rural Act has been referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for consideration.

“We’ve long known that the benefits of hazard mitigation actions far exceed their costs,” said Berginnis. “By directing a small part of the Disaster Relief Fund toward hazard mitigation, the SAFE Rural Act compels responsible stewardship of these taxpayer dollars by enabling long-term community flood resilience.”