Floodplain Management by the Numbers: New ASFPM Report Highlights Local Realities

ASFPM has released Local Floodplain Management Programs in Review 2024, a comprehensive look at the state of local programs. Conducted with the University of Wisconsin Survey Center, the report offers a snapshot of who the nation’s floodplain managers are, how they spend their time on the job, and what obstacles they face in the day-to-day implementation of their local floodplain management programs. 

The report also includes a number of demographic questions related to job title, experience, education, certifications, and salary. As a follow-up to the 2016 report, much of this report provides a comparative analysis between the two editions, offering insight into what has changed and what has not.

The report is based on a questionnaire conducted in spring 2024 that drew responses from 448 NFIP participating communities in 47 states and the District of Columbia. No communities from Maryland, Louisiana, or Hawaii responded. Of the responding communities, 21.2% were identified as counties and 78.8% as incorporated places.

Floods Are Frequent — and Familiar

The study confirms what many local officials already know: flooding is a persistent and growing threat for communities of all sizes across the United States, underscoring the need for strong local floodplain management programs to reduce risk and protect lives and property. Nearly 70% of respondents reported at least one flood event in the past six years, and more than three-quarters said their communities had flooded within the last decade. About half experienced flooding within the last three years while 19% reported flooding within the past year. 

How Local Staff Spend Their Time

The survey asked how much time staff spend on various floodplain management activities. The top three tasks were enforcing regulations and standards, providing technical assistance, and managing permits and inspections. Next came protecting the natural and beneficial functions of floodplains, education and outreach, and answering flood insurance questions. The tasks communities are least engaged in include participating in flood mitigation grants, managing activities around the Community Rating System, developing flood maps or data, and promoting flood insurance. 

Alarmingly, 10% of respondents said their community spends no time on any of the core floodplain management activities listed, which was similar to the percentage from 2016. The study attributes this in part to the prevalence of small communities with limited staff or development activity. Among those with populations under 5,000, 86% reported spending five hours or fewer per month on floodplain activities. 

There are many possible explanations for this lack of engagement, including lack of staff, minimal flood risk, and little or no development activity. A closer look at the job titles of those who spend five or fewer hours per month could also help explain the limited engagement in floodplain management activities as 65.7% of the respondents in the “five hours or fewer” category fall into one of three position titles: Clerk (22.9%), Zoning/Code/Building Official (21.7%), and Manager/Administrator (21.1%).

As a participating NFIP community, the floodplain manager is responsible for ensuring minimum requirements for floodplain related activities are met. This generally includes educating and training the public, yet 45.4% of the respondents indicated they spend no time on this activity. Permitting and enforcement appear to be some of the most consistently engaged activities by the respondents, yet 29.8% did no permitting and 19.0% indicated they did no enforcement. Given the number of small communities responding to this study, it is possible that many of these smaller communities have limited development or redevelopment activities necessitating these activities, yet the survey found that more than three-quarters of the responding communities have flooded at least once in the previous 10 years. It is a reasonable assumption that these floods would have necessitated floodplain permits as part of the recovery or enforcement activity.

Small Staff, Limited Experience

Local capacity remains stretched thin. More than 80% of communities reported having two or fewer staff members responsible for floodplain management, and nearly half said the job falls to a single person. Six percent have no dedicated staff at all and rely entirely on contractors. However, when asked if staffing was an obstacle, there was wide variation: 38% of smaller communities indicated that staffing was not an issue compared to 24% of medium and 22% of larger communities.

Experience levels are declining. The share of programs with staff having less than five years of experience jumped from 23.8% in 2016 to 33.8% in 2024. Meanwhile, those with five to 15 years of experience dropped eight points from 38.7 in 2016 to 30.3 in 2024. This shift toward less experienced staff is notable, given that many local programs are already under-resourced.

Funding: Few Dedicated Budgets

Only 7.4% of respondents reported having a dedicated budget for floodplain management. For most communities, funding comes from a mix of general appropriations (44.7%) and permit fees (40.8%), followed by grants (14.4%) and stormwater utility fees (11.2%). The use of stormwater fees is more common among larger communities—rising to 25% among those with populations over 50,000—but remains rare in smaller jurisdictions.

Budgets vary widely, from less than $1,000 to more than $10 million annually, with a median of $25,000. Given this range, the report notes that while some large communities have sustainable funding mechanisms, many others operate on extremely limited resources, leaving little room for proactive mitigation or public outreach.

Mitigation Assistance: Still Rare at the Local Level

Few communities offer locally funded mitigation programs to help property owners reduce risk. Just 10.5% reported offering grants, 8.2% provide technical assistance, and only a handful offer tax incentives or low-interest loans. These figures are largely unchanged from 2016. While communities recognize the value of mitigation, most lack the resources or local authority to launch and sustain such programs.

Obstacles to Implementation

Funding and staffing shortfalls top the list of day-to-day obstacles to implementing their local floodplain management program. Roughly a quarter of respondents rated each as either “quite a bit” or “a great deal” of a challenge. Limited outreach resources also ranked high, while lack of maps, political support, or legal authority were less commonly cited but still present for many.

Overall, 30–70% of respondents identified at least some degree of difficulty across all obstacle categories. ASFPM believes there are needs for further support of local floodplain management programs (i.e., increased funding, technical assistance, etc.) around each of these topics.

What Communities Need

When asked what types of technical assistance would be most helpful, nearly every community identified at least one need. Training topped the list, with approximately 45% saying it would be  “very” or “extremely” helpful. Other high-priority needs included advice on code administration, floodplain management planning, enforcement strategies, and hazard mitigation guidance. Respondents also cited the need for regulatory or legal assistance and practical resources like examples of higher regulatory standards.

In written comments, more than 100 participants offered additional suggestions. Many focused on increasing access to training, funding, and technical expertise—particularly for small and rural communities that struggle to meet NFIP requirements with limited staff time.

Familiarity with ASFPM

The survey also gauged familiarity with ASFPM and its resources. Just over 40% of respondents indicated they are aware of and make use of ASFPM’s services, particularly the association’s webinars, CFM program, and  in-person training events. Overall, the findings point to a strong baseline awareness of ASFPM among local floodplain managers but also highlight opportunities for deeper connection and support, particularly in helping new or part-time administrators tap into the network and resources available to them.

Looking Ahead

ASFPM sees this second Local Floodplain Management in Review as part of an ongoing effort to track trends and strengthen support for local floodplain managers. Future iterations will continue to measure changes in trends, needs, and obstacles as well as the flood loss reduction activities communities are undertaking. 

The 2024 results make one thing clear: while local floodplain managers remain on the front lines of flood risk reduction, many are doing so with minimal staff, limited budgets, and increasing demands. Strengthening these local programs—through funding, training, and stronger partnerships—will be critical to improving flood resilience nationwide.

Download the full report

In addition to the PDF, on the Flood Science Center page you’ll find Appendix A-C and a variety of charts that present some of the report findings in an alternative format, which allows for review based upon three population ranges: communities with populations less than 5,000, communities with populations between 5,000 and 50,000, and communities with populations of more than 50,000. This additional analysis may provide more comparative insight to communities.