OK, here we go:

1. Get FEMA out of DHS and make the FEMA Administrator a Cabinet-level position. Exhibit A to support this argument: pretty much everything we watched unfold the past year or so. Any questions?
   
2. Reform the NFIP by making the program’s minimum land use and development standards at least as stringent as ASCE 24-24. Raise your hand if you’re tired of a 53-year-old national standard while we are up to our eyeballs in flood damages. This is something that truly could be done by the Administration without congressional approval. Seriously.
   
3. Authorize CAP-SSSE and the CTP programs into law. If you want states and communities to do more, invest in the programs that build and maintain their capability to succeed. Let’s show these two proven programs a little love! 
4. Authorize a CAP-like program to build and maintain state hazard mitigation capability. It is a proven model, it works, and it even aligns with the President’s goal of having states take on more responsibility.  FEMA Direct Technical Assistance? Not so much.     
5. Finish the Job of Developing Flood Maps for the Nation. Yes, it will cost money up front — but not too much.  It will basically cost the same as about 25% of our nation’s average annual flood losses.  Seems like a pretty good return on investment to me. And just think of all of the long-term savings by having our nation’s flood hazards identified!  
6. Develop and implement a strategic goal for FEMA mitigation projects to be approved within one year.  There is really no good reason for it to take longer. Joint Field Office operations, FEMA administrative procedures, and state processes should all be aligned to make this happen.  Let’s start mitigation while the carp are still flopping on the couch.  
7. Make hazard mitigation mandatory for Public Assistance projects. Right now, it is more of an opt-in and there isn’t any penalty for simply repairing and rebuilding to the same at-risk condition and calling it recovery. That’s an awfully expensive way to learn nothing, all while wasting taxpayer money.  
8. Right-size FEMA’s workforce and protect staff so they can effectively deliver FEMA programs. I don’t buy the FEMA Review Council’s claim that the agency is “bloated.” Too many past National Advisory Council (NAC) reports have documented understaffing, burnout, and workforce strain. This should be about delivering FEMA programs to individuals and businesses in their time of need. Frankly, we’ve been exceedingly lucky this past year that we didn’t have any hurricanes make landfall. By the way, Congress supports this too if you read the most recent, way-too-late appropriations bill and report.
9. Put the NFIP on sound financial footing. Forgive the debt already! The federal government paying itself roughly $700 million a year in interest is not exactly a brilliant financial strategy. Just think of the opportunity costs. I am so sick and tired of hearing that the debt proves the program as it exists today doesn’t work. There have been several changes made over the past decade to strengthen the program. Did you know that every four years Congress subsidizes crop insurance by the same amount of debt that the NFIP has incurred since it was created in 1968? Interesting how nobody treats that as proof the whole program is broken.   
10. Make BRIC a majority allocation program. For 25 years, states and communities have been doing hazard mitigation planning, and all states have high-priority, cost-effective hazard mitigation needs.  Let every state have the ability to get some of this mitigation work done instead of concentrating the funding in roughly the same dozen states every year. 

Your partner in loss reduction,

The post 10 Completely Unofficial and Entirely Unsolicited Ways to Improve FEMA first appeared on Association of State Floodplain Managers.

At the final Review Council meeting, with newly-seated Department of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin chairing, the Review Council approved the report which outlines its recommendations for reforming FEMA, including its role in disaster response, proposed staffing, and major programs. This report represents one of the most consequential federal disaster policy blueprints in decades. While many of the recommendations would require congressional action and are unlikely to be implemented quickly or fully, the report likely signals the Administration’s policy direction and could shape future Stafford Act reform and NFIP reauthorization debates. 

The report now goes to President Trump for consideration. A 30-day public comment period on the report closes June 8.

Themes Driving the Council’s Recommendations 

Many of the major themes for FEMA reform that were reported in the media following the Council’s earlier public hearings remain prominent in the final report; however, some have been modified or dropped completely, reflecting the significant pushback the Council received from the public and various sectors beginning in March 2025.

While the report contains several constructive recommendations, ASFPM is deeply concerned that some of the proposals reflect a misunderstanding of how floodplain management, hazard mitigation, and the NFIP function in practice.

Several themes consistently emerge throughout the report, including: 

• Moving substantially more disaster and emergency management costs and responsibilities to the state, local, tribal, and territorial governments (SLTTs). The report calls for shifting greater responsibility to SLTTs with FEMA serving more as a support role through grant-type funding, and focusing primarily on immediate response and recovery while reducing the agency’s involvement in long-term recovery efforts. A strong theme is to wrap up federal involvement as quickly as possible. 
• Reducing FEMA staffing and operational footprint. The report criticizes what it describes as FEMA’s “bloated” staffing and recommends cutting costs through downsizing. However, the final version of the report has dropped the call for draconian 50% staffing cuts and dispersing large numbers of staff away from FEMA headquarters to FEMA regions, and instead calls for a study of needed staffing.
• Raising disaster declaration thresholds. The Council recommends increasing the impact damage-cost thresholds for Presidential disaster declarations so as to substantially reduce the numbers of declared disasters where FEMA and other federal agencies would be called on to respond. 
• Accelerating the allocation and distribution of federal disaster funds. The report proposes streamlining federal disaster assistance by relying more heavily on direct grants that are based on first-line, less generous formulas to state and local governments, who would then disperse the funds directly to victims and communities. The final draft also recommends using somewhat more generous federal cost-shares than basic levels to help incentivize mitigation.
• Shifting the execution of training to the states while tasking FEMA primarily with curriculum development. By incentivizing the development of training resources at the SLTT level, the Council aims to address what it considers “a lack of a national standard for incident response and recovery.” 

A Detailed Look at the More Concerning Recommendations

The report features 10 main recommendations, but we focus here primarily on its recommendations for NFIP reform, hazard mitigation, and direct assistance programs — areas where ASFPM believes the proposals could have the most consequential implications for floodplain management, disaster recovery, and long-term community resilience.  

NFIP REFORM AND PRIVATIZATION CONCERNS 

ASFPM’s greatest concerns center on the report’s recommendations for the NFIP.   While the report identifies numerous, long-known issues with the program and contains a few positive recommendations, most others tend towards reflecting a fundamental misunderstanding of the comprehensive nature of the NFIP and the program’s history, while others simply defy logic.  

NFIP Debt and Financial Solvency
The report argues that NFIP’s long-term debt, combined with increasing disaster losses and repetitive claims, demonstrates that the program is financially unsustainable in its current form. What the report neglects to identify is that nearly all of the debt in the NFIP is legacy debt that occurred prior to the implementation of Risk Rating 2.0, which was designed primarily to improve the program’s financial solvency and long-term sustainability. Irresponsibly, the final report does not include an earlier recommendation to forgive the NFIP’s debt, and while the report seems to recognize that there is a significant program cost to service the interest on the debt (currently at $700 million/year), it does nothing in terms of recommendations to solve this problem.

For context on the NFIP’s financial solvency issue, it should be noted that the same Congress that oversees the NFIP is the one that has authorized our nation’s crop insurance program. The federal government subsidizes crop insurance by an average of roughly 60% of total premiums, with total taxpayer costs often exceeding $10–$12 billion each year. In 2026, total taxpayer costs for the program are expected to be approximately $14.7 billion, which includes about $12.6 billion for premium subsidies and $5.1 billion for private insurance company expenses. 

Flood Mapping and Risk Data
While the report appears supportive of the need for more and better flood mapping, it is disappointing to see that there was no call to complete flood mapping across the country or to increase funding for the national flood mapping program overall.  We do note that prior to FEMA’s near shutdown last year, FEMA’s flood mapping program was evolving to more fully utilize the more modernized “Future of Flood Risk Data (FFRD)” approach. ASFPM supports the recommendation that the program must improve the accessibility, transparency, and quality of flood risk data and communication tools.  

The report largely has solid recommendations related to risk-based pricing, including continuing FEMA’s new rating system implementation. ASFPM has noted several implementation issues, including lack of transparency, but does support the move and glide path towards more actuarially sound rating. Further, the report’s recommendation to work with Congress to address affordability challenges for select homeowners is broadly supported by ASFPM and others.

Concerns About CRS Changes
The report largely misidentifies the overall goal and intent of CRS, which is to more broadly incentivize and support comprehensive local floodplain management programs that go beyond NFIP minimums — not to transform it into a program that only recognizes measures to reduce measurable actuarial risks to individual structures. This has been a recent concern and ASFPM has written detailed comments to the Federal Register about this change in approach from the Administration regarding the CRS that we believe is a mischaracterization of Congressional intent. (Download the comments ASFPM submitted in May, July and August 2025.)  

Minimum Standards and Federal Oversight
Further, while the report seems to recognize that current FEMA minimum standards are inadequate for buildings in high flood risk areas, it falsely argues that it is not FEMA that should set higher national program standards. Instead, it claims that “State and locally tailored standards would better reflect local flood risk choices and ideally decrease community, state, and federal cost.”   

Once again, this is a missed opportunity — and worse, it gives cover to a FEMA action rumored to have occurred last year which was to kill the ongoing effort to update the 53-year-old NFIP minimum standards. FEMA had started that work in response to a rulemaking petition by ASFPM and the Natural Resources Defense Council. While the report supports raising state and local land use and building code standards to combat increasing disaster costs — a recommendation that coincides with ASCE 24-24 being considered for inclusion in the 2027 International Building Code and International Residential Code — what does “support” mean in the context of the report? Will FEMA actively support such efforts beyond simply recommending them in this report?

The Push Toward Privatization
A highly controversial recommendation focuses on the Council’s presumed need to aggressively move to phase down the NFIP program through “privatization” of flood insurance. We note that this was a theme in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 treatment of NFIP.  During the Council’s tenure, Florida-based Neptune Flood, the nation’s largest private flood insurance company, made a hard press on the Council with a loosely documented proposal that ASFPM and many in the insurance industry believe is unrealistic and over-the-top optimistic. 

The recommendation in the Council’s report leans heavily on questionable assertions such as there being a large amount of capital just waiting for the opportunity to expand into the private flood insurance world. The report also speculated that this could be carried out under current law, by using a phased “take out” and “depopulation plan” for existing NFIP policies, through selling or otherwise enticing blocks of NFIP policyholders with incentives to move to private insurance carriers. Many insurance experts say that such a plan would foster “cherry picking” of the lower-risk policies or more reliable customers that would likely leave the NFIP as the “insurer of last resort” with the riskiest and most expensive policies. Obviously, this is not a good way to reduce the financial exposure of an insurance program. The Council’s report argues that a depopulation strategy has been done successfully by state insurance programs, such as Florida’s Citizens Property Insurance for other perils. 

Unfortunately, the myth of the private sector not being involved in flood insurance endures. The NFIP was created, in part, because the private sector wouldn’t write flood insurance in the 1950s and 1960s and it was viewed as wise public policy to encourage people and businesses to have some form of insurance versus relying solely on disaster assistance. Since that time, the private sector has and continues to write flood insurance policies where it sees a pathway to profitability and their interest and involvement ebbs and flows over time. In 2012 and 2014, the NFIP was reformed to better enable private companies to underwrite flood insurance with numerous reforms that have been successful, and in 2021 FEMA initiated Risk Rating 2.0 which was responsive to the widely held concern of NFIP solvency, but also to level the playing field for the private sector to meaningfully compete with the NFIP.   

The Overlooked Insurance Gap
One major missed opportunity is the report’s failure to meaningfully address the nation’s flood insurance gap — the fact that too few property owners carry flood coverage in the first place. Instead the report frames the NFIP as a destabilized program that should be depopulated rather than one that should meaningfully co-exist with the private insurance market to help make sure all Americans have the insurance coverage they need, while also providing all of the other benefits the NFIP offers. However, the report does identify the NFIP as a program that would benefit from additional thoughtful exploration from other formal groups or experts best positioned to offer cogent solutions to the President and the nation. With this, ASFPM wholeheartedly agrees. 

HAZARD MITIGATION: CONFLICTING GOALS AND MISSED OPPORTUNITIES 

While the report acknowledges the need for greater hazard mitigation to reduce rising disaster costs, it is contradictory to single out the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) for replacement given that it is FEMA’s only state-led mitigation program. This recommendation conflicts with one of the report’s central themes: shifting more authority to states and communities.   

What Actually Delays Mitigation Projects
Slow program delivery remains one of the biggest challenges across FEMA’s mitigation programs. However, the report’s two-phase approach to speed disbursement of mitigation monies would do very little to accelerate completion of hazard mitigation projects. In the first 30 days after a disaster, states are focused on establishing HMGP implementation plans, conducting outreach, coordinating with communities, explaining mitigation options, and helping local officials determine whether to pursue funding and how to meet cost-share requirements. One of the biggest drivers of delay is that FEMA’s initial 30-day HMGP estimate can later be revised significantly downward. Instead, let’s treat the 30-day estimate as a guaranteed funding floor — especially since hazard mitigation investments save taxpayer money.   

Other drivers of delay are strategic funds management (which ironically came about due to DHS Office of Inspector General reports concluding that states were not using funds efficiently), the increasingly frequent occurrences of FEMA entering Immediate Needs Funding due to the depletion of the Disaster Relief Fund, and Congress not doing timely appropriations. 

Environmental Reviews and Federal Oversight
Although not specifically framed as a HMGP reform, under Public Assistance, the report correctly identifies environmental and historic preservation reviews as a major source of project delay. The report also mentions an alternative approach that could be helpful — the HUD-CDBG model, which allows states to perform environmental and historic preservation (EHP) reviews on behalf of HUD. Unfortunately, the report dismisses the HUD-CDBG approach in favor of an unspecified locally certified process. ASFPM is concerned that such an approach would significantly increase state and local liability and further slow the process. 

A practical way to make the environmental and historic preservation review of HMGP projects more efficient is to ensure dedicated FEMA staffing and assistance in the Joint Field Office following a disaster. FEMA could also establish a specialized unit within its Hazard Mitigation Assistance division dedicated to expediting these reviews.    

Federal Priorities vs. State Priorities
Another concern with the proposed two-phase approach for the HMGP is that it takes authority and autonomy away from states. The report suggests that two-thirds of the federal funding available under HMGP should go to “Federal Administration priorities” rather than state hazard mitigation priorities based on a set of eligibility criteria, which is how HMGP functions now. While it is great to see more funding going to flood mitigation priorities (one federal priority listed in the report is to address repetitively flooded properties); it is wrong when it comes at the expense of usurping state hazard mitigation priorities under this program. In short, the proposal represents a significant increase in federal overreach and is contrary to the original intent of Congress when it established the HMGP in 1988.  

Every Administration seems to tweak hazard mitigation priorities, and hazard mitigation professionals at the state and local level are left scrambling to reformulate mitigation projects to align with changing federal preferences for programs like Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) and Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA). It was wrong when the Biden Administration prioritized hazard mitigation funds on climate change initiatives that had little to do with reducing long-term hazard risk, and it would be wrong for this administration to do it too.  States and communities have spent more than 25 years developing and refining hazard mitigation plans to address locally identified risks. Moreover, the report’s proposed federal priorities already align with the purposes of FEMA’s other mitigation programs, namely FMA and BRIC.     

Building State Capability
The key to strengthening state management of hazard mitigation is building and maintaining state capability. While the report repeatedly calls for greater state responsibility, it offers few recommendations that would actually help states build or sustain that capacity.

ASFPM concurs with the notion that for mitigation to work best, states should take on greater program management responsibility; however, it is clear that there was little understanding within the Council — despite having had members who are current and former emergency managers and government executives, largely from disaster-prone states in the South — how hazard mitigation projects are actually developed. The report appears to assume mitigation projects can be fully developed before disasters occur and implemented immediately afterward. This is not reality, and it ignores the program’s own design requirements including voluntary participation, the need for non-federal matching funds, and community/public buy in. Hazard mitigation projects are inherently complex as they are addressing complex issues. That complexity demands time and expertise to guide them through to successful implementation.   

We do note that some of the recommendations listed in the report are reasonable, such as encouraging greater use of pre-negotiated exemptions to streamline environmental reviews, and establishing an eight-year limit on fund availability. Others, however, such as maintaining an inventory of properties in high-risk areas not built to modern building codes, fall well outside the capacity of most states without substantial additional resources. 

Too often, state hazard mitigation programs are largely defined and built using management costs that are only obtained if hazard mitigation grant projects are approved. Capacity programs like the Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) are already oversubscribed. This approach is neither dependable nor consistent. Instead, the report seems to simultaneously make the recommendation to strengthen state management of hazard mitigation and aims to reduce administrative costs by giving fewer resources to strengthen state management.

Administrative Costs and Program Capacity
Under the title of “Maximizing Every Dollar Spent by Reducing Administrative Costs” on page 51, the report makes a number of erroneous assumptions and conflicting conclusions while also correctly identifying some of the factors driving the problems.  For example, federal overhead spending is dictated by Congress and is not increasing — at least not at the state or local level. Prior to Katrina, it was 15% (state management costs were 10% and local management costs were 5%). After Katrina, Congress gave FEMA authority to change the cost structure, which it did, reducing it to 4.89%. This move was widely criticized by practitioners and others as inadequate, and in 2018 Congress restored it to the 15% level through the Stafford Act reforms.  

Further, ASFPM entirely rejects the notion that somehow the programs are structured to keep disasters open as long as possible to maximize administrative costs. This is simply not true — states who oversee the programs are driven by deadlines and the desire to get survivors back to normal as quickly as possible. While the report correctly identifies that program complexity leads to higher administrative costs and proposes to reduce program complexity as an overall goal, it seems to imply that federal agency staff moving to the private sector is somehow underhanded and problematic. In reality, the expertise that former federal staff have often ensures everything from application development to project implementation to go quicker because they are able to better navigate the increasing complexity of the programs. While the size and number of FEMA’s hazard mitigation programs has grown over the past three decades, FEMA’s system of delivering hazard mitigation programs has not been successful, because it does not recognize the need to help build and maintain state capacity to deliver these programs.   

ASFPM has experienced and evaluated numerous models for program management and one particularly effective example exists in the NFIP through the Community Assistance Program. This model provides a consistent, steady level of funding to states to build and maintain a base level of capacity to work alongside FEMA in implementing the NFIP and to ensure that over 22,000 communities remain in compliance with the program.  

For $20 million/year (which is tiny compared to the overall amount of funding for hazard mitigation), this concept could be applied to strengthen state hazard mitigation programs to effectively be FEMA’s partner in administering and delivering the agency’s hazard mitigation programs, which would, in turn, achieve many of the goals that have been elusive, such as faster program delivery.  

ASFPM believes meaningful mitigation reform should focus on building long-term state capability, streamlining program delivery, and providing stable administrative support. Without those investments, efforts to shift more responsibility to states and communities will fall short of the report’s stated goals.  

STAFFORD ACT AND ASSISTANCE CHANGES

Individual Assistance (IA) Overhaul
The Council proposes some radical changes in the Stafford Act’s Individual Assistance program by narrowing FEMA’s role to providing emergency and temporary housing or rental assistance. Long-term housing would be left to private insurance companies. This assistance would be available “only for Americans whose homes are uninhabitable.” This change would exclude properties with minor damage as well as secondary homes. The recommendation would also lower temporary housing payments from 100 percent to 75 percent. 

FEMA payments would be expedited and consolidated into a single payment, and the report says there should be an option for a state-managed program. Homeowner payments would be based on level of need and be capped at 15% of the home’s locally-assessed value. Renters would receive assistance  based on level of need and would cover three months of temporary rental at HUD’s “Fair Market Rate,” with those of greatest need given an option of another three months. The report says the intention is to greatly reduce administrative costs, simplify disaster payments, and “clarify federal responsibilities.”

Parametric Funding for Public Assistance
The Council proposes to employ “parametric funding” to pay PA damage costs. This amounts to “predetermined payments” for storms and flooding events where and when certain thresholds of extreme weather, rainfall, flood depths, wind speeds, or earthquake magnitude are met. Federal payments would range from 50 percent to a maximum of 75 percent. The primary purpose is to avoid “time consuming” initial damage assessments and to speed the start of reconstruction. 

SLTTs would be authorized to manage essentially all planning and normally federally-regulated permitting, in lieu of National Environmental Policy Act  (NEPA) and other federal environmental and preservation requirements. Communities would be required to prepare an initial certified audit within the first year, followed by a close-out audit at project completion to ensure all federal funds were either spent appropriately or returned. All close-outs must be completed within eight years. A stated purpose would be to avoid a federal audit. While the recommendation would undoubtedly help speed funding distribution, it raises serious questions about oversight and protections for taxpayers from fraud. 

Interestingly, one of the things that could make FEMA more efficient and less bureaucratic is to re-establish its standing as an independent cabinet-level agency, which ASFPM has supported since 2004. That recommendation did not make the final report.  

Congress Will Have the Last Word

The Review Council recognizes that most of the report’s recommendations will require legislative action by Congress. Thus, Congress will likely have final say on what ultimately happens to the proposals. The Council also notes that many of the proposals would require extensive work and additional cost to put into place. That is clearly true. ASFPM is also concerned that many of these proposals would not only take years to formulate, but may ultimately be far less effective than FEMA’s current programs, which already undergo continual reform and updating. Indeed, some would be seriously counter-productive. 

The report will likely become a policy document that contributes to federal flood and disaster debates in coming months and years; and elements of the report are already influencing appropriations discussions, FEMA reform legislation, and NFIP policy conversations. Ultimately, the FEMA Review Council’s final report represents a major philosophical shift in federal disaster policy — emphasizing decentralization, privatization, reduced federal involvement, and greater state and individual responsibility.

Although some recommendations warrant further discussion, others raise serious concerns about the future of floodplain management, hazard mitigation and the NFIP. ASFPM will continue educating Congress and congressional staff on the impacts and implications of the report’s recommendations, grounding the discussion in 50 years of practitioner experience, and real-world floodplain management expertise.

The post What the FEMA Review Council Report Gets Right — and Wrong — About Flood Risk Management first appeared on Association of State Floodplain Managers.

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.

The post New ASFPM Report Provides a Snapshot of Floodplain Management Across the Nation first appeared on Association of State Floodplain Managers.

Join us May 31–June 4, 2026, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, as we celebrate the 50th Annual ASFPM Conference and reflect on five decades of policies, programs, and people in floodplain management. Together, we’ll look back at how far we’ve come, share what’s working today, and explore the challenges and opportunities that will define the next 50 years.

Guided by the theme “The Fresh Coast Legacy: 50 Years of Floodplain Management,” this event brings together practitioners, partners, decision-makers, and experts from across the country for meaningful conversations, practical takeaways, and the connections that make this the largest and most comprehensive gathering of flood risk management professionals in the nation.

Whether you attend in person or virtually, this is your chance to be part of a defining moment for the field.

Sunday: Welcome to Milwaukee (and Let’s Get This Started)

The conference begins Sunday with round one of preconference workshops and technical field tours—before we officially kick things off that evening at Welcome Fest, hosted by the Wisconsin Association for Floodplain, Stormwater & Coastal Management (WAFSCM).

This year’s Welcome Fest brings a distinctly Wisconsin flavor with a tailgate theme—complete with food, beverages, music, and games. The highlight? A chance to meet the Milwaukee Brewers Famous Racing Sausages, plus live polka music to keep things moving.

Come hungry, ready to reconnect, and show your team spirit by wearing your favorite college or pro team apparel.

Monday: Dive In and Get Connected

Monday is all about getting oriented, engaged, and ready for the week ahead.

Key meetings take place throughout the day, including a discussion led by ASFPM’s policy team on legislative priorities, along with committee and regional meetings. These sessions blend presentations with open discussion and are a great way to share ideas, compare approaches, and hit the ground running.

You can also:

• Sit for the CFM exam (pre-registration required)
• Participate in training workshops (additional fee)
• Attend a first-timers orientation session (highly recommended if this is your first conference)

At 5:00 pm, the exhibit hall opens its doors. With more than 75 exhibitors, it’s your first chance to explore the latest tools, technologies, and services supporting flood risk management—and connect with the people behind them.

Tuesday: 50 Years in Focus

Tuesday we hit the heart of the conference—starting with a plenary that sets the tone for this milestone year:  Back to the Future: Floodplain Management 50 Years Past and 50 Years Hence

This session takes a thoughtful look at where we’ve been—and where we’re headed. After more than five decades of practice, what approaches have proven effective? Where have we fallen short? And what should we be doing now to reduce flood damages, strengthen resilience, and protect floodplain resources over the next 50 years?

You’ll hear from leaders who have helped shape the profession, including French Wetmore, one of ASFPM’s founders; Mark Riebeau, past CBOR President; Annie Mack Vest, CFM, Executive Director of the Oklahoma Department of Emergency Management; and Lori Peek, Director of the Natural Hazards Center. 

The day continues with a full slate of concurrent sessions and training workshops, followed by time in the exhibit hall.

For those with full registration, Tuesday also includes a special anniversary luncheon hosted by the ASFPM Foundation, celebrating 50 years of ASFPM and 30 years of the Foundation.

Wednesday: A Little Competition—and a Look Ahead

Start your day by lacing up your sneakers for the Running of the Chapters 5K Run/Walk. In the spirit of Midwestern politeness, this year’s race is officially the “Ope! (lemme just squeeze right past ya there) 5K”—or simply, The Ope!

The race is a long-standing tradition that brings a little friendly competition to the conference, with states going head-to-head for bragging rights and the title of most participants. So rally your crew, represent your chapter, and don’t get squeezed out. (Bus transportation provided to Veterans Park)

After the race, it’s back to the main stage for the morning plenary: What’s Next for the NFIP? Perspectives from Those Who Know the Program Best

With the National Flood Insurance Program continuing to evolve—from Risk Rating 2.0 to changes in mapping approaches and recommendations from the FEMA Review Council—this panel brings together former FEMA program leaders to offer candid insights on what’s working, what needs improvement, and which proposals deserve a closer look.

Presenters include Paul Huang, Vice President, Civilian Sector, OST Global; Luis Rodriguez, Program Director for Public Sector Engineering Resilience at AECOM; Laura Algeo, Managing Partner, Operational Strategy at SNA Partners; and Eric Levin, Vice President of Resilience at Tidal Basin Group. 

Later in the day, young professionals won’t want to miss the Career Paths in Floodplain Management session, where emerging professionals can connect with experienced practitioners and gain practical guidance for navigating the field.

Thursday: From Plans to Progress

The final plenary of the conference brings the focus back to what matters most—results.

Owning Our Future: State & Local Success Stories highlights real-world examples of what’s possible in floodplain management. From improving compliance to launching new initiatives and building effective partnerships, these stories offer practical, proven approaches to today’s challenges.

You’ll hear directly from practitioners leading this work, including Kevin Schaffer, Executive Director of the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District; Phetmano Phannavong, Senior Strategic Advisor at AECOM representing the Norfolk, VA Coastal Storm Risk Management project team; and Kelli Higgins-Roche, New York’s NFIP Coordinator. 

And speaking of celebrating success, don’t miss the annual awards luncheon, where we recognize the individuals, organizations, and agencies making a meaningful difference in reducing flood risk across the country.

Closing Night: 50 Years—1970s Style

We wrap up the conference with a celebration that’s been 50 years in the making. 

Join us at The New Fashioned for a 1970s-themed closing reception—complete with live music, hyperbowling, and plenty of opportunities to connect and unwind. Break out your bell bottoms, platform shoes, or your best vintage-inspired look and help us celebrate five decades of progress, community, and commitment to flood resilience.

There’s Still Time to Register

There’s still time to register. Whether you attend in person or online, you’ll get on-demand access to session recordings and the opportunity to earn up to 12 CECs.

Visit ASFPMconference.org to secure your spot.

The post 50 Years Strong: Join Us in Milwaukee for ASFPM’s Milestone Conference first appeared on Association of State Floodplain Managers.

Flood Mitigation Assistance – Under this program, FEMA is making available up to $600 million for states, local communities, Tribal Nations, and territories to reduce or eliminate the risk of repetitive flood damage to buildings insured under the National Flood Insurance Program. The April 30 announcement reflects the amended FY 2024 funding opportunity. Applications are due by Aug. 6, 2026. Communities should contact their state mitigation office for state-specific deadlines for submission, which will be earlier. 

The FMA funding includes:  

• Capability and capacity building activities subtotal: $60 million
• Localized flood risk reduction projects subtotal: $420 million
• Individual flood mitigation projects subtotal: $120 million

Learn more on Grants.gov  

Swift Current – As a part of the FMA program, Swift Current provides funding after Presidentially declared flood disasters to expedite the delivery of mitigation awards. FEMA is making available up to $500 million for individual flood mitigation projects and scoping efforts that result in submission of individual flood mitigation projects for Repetitive Loss (RL), Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL), or Substantially Damaged (SD) properties. Structures eligible for individual flood mitigation projects must have an NFIP policy (including a Group Flood Insurance Policy, or GFIP) in effect prior to the opening of the application period and the policy must be maintained throughout the life of the structure. The availability window closes Dec 30, 2026 and application submission deadlines vary depending on FEMA activation, determined by the date of the major disaster declaration for the flood related event. As with other grants, communities should contact their state mitigation office for any state deadlines.  

Learn more on Grants.gov

The post FEMA Releases $1.1 Billion in Flood Mitigation Funding Opportunities first appeared on Association of State Floodplain Managers.

The primary effect is to extend the regulated flood hazard area to include the 500-year floodplain when shown on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps, and to require buildings to be elevated or protected to at least the 500-year flood elevation. Higher levels of protection are required for essential and critical facilities.

Although ASFPM was a co-sponsor of these actions last week, we could not have made it through the gauntlet of Code Hearings over the past year without our great partners at the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), who led the effort, and Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Flood Mitigation Industry Association (FMIA) as well as individuals who served on the ASCE 24-24 Committee, including Carol Friedland from Louisiana State University and Jessica Mandrick. I’d also like to recognize Rebecca Quinn, Manny Perotin, and Jeff Herd, who represented ASFPM and were instrumental throughout this process, and Del Schwalls who represented ASFPM’s Florida Chapter, FFMA.

The final step in the ICC code update process is the online local government vote, held from May 8-22. It is only fitting that the local building code officials who are members of ICC are the ones to make the final confirmation. We’re optimistic the inclusion of code changes incorporating ASCE 24-24 will be affirmed since, historically, the online local government vote is supportive of the Public Comment Hearing vote.

The reasons for updating flood standards are numerous and, as a nation, we simply cannot afford to stick with outdated standards that are no longer sufficient, as evidenced by the nation’s average annual flood losses topping $40 billion per year. The figure represents direct losses, when you consider total economic losses, estimates are at least $180 billion per year.

Although adopting ASCE 24-24 standards in flood-prone areas will involve modest upfront costs, the long-term payoff is undeniable: smaller insurance premiums, lower annual cost of homeownership, reduced risk, and a more resilient building inventory that will serve families, businesses, and communities for decades to come.

For those looking to get a jumpstart on adopting the ASCE-24-24 standards, ASFPM is providing its members with free digital access to the publication. Learn more

The post ASCE 24-24 to be Included in the 2027 Edition of the International Building Codes first appeared on Association of State Floodplain Managers.

This report captures insights from nearly 90 floodplain management, policy, and AI experts who came together to explore how artificial intelligence can responsibly support flood risk management—while preserving transparency, technically defensible analysis, and professional judgment.

“Floodplain management depends on transparent, defensible flood risk data that can withstand technical, professional, and legal scrutiny, given the direct implications for public safety, financial risk, and property rights,” said ASFPM Foundation President, Dale Lehman, PE, CFM. “AI offers important opportunities to enhance this work, particularly through automation and administrative support that improve efficiency while preserving scientific rigor. However, in a regulatory environment, AI must complement rather than replace explainable, reproducible methods grounded in hydrologic, hydraulic, and coastal science.”

Through a series of presentations, panel discussions, and breakout sessions, the Forum resulted in three key takeaways:

• The effectiveness of AI hinges on the quality and governance of data;
• AI is a powerful tool, but human expertise and ethical oversight remain essential; and
• Realizing AI’s promise requires robust guardrails.

Following the Forum, the ASFPM Foundation—working in coordination with the ASFPM AI Subcommittee—synthesized Forum presentations and participant insights into a report. This report equips floodplain professionals with a foundational understanding of AI—its potential benefits and limitations—to support effective application in floodplain management. It also provides policymakers, including legislators and government agencies, with a clear starting point for understanding the key issues and tradeoffs that should inform national policy on the use of AI in flood risk management.

The report also distilled these discussions into 11 actionable recommendations to support both near- and long-term decision-making and help agencies, practitioners, and partners responsibly integrate AI into floodplain management. The recommendations focus on strengthening data governance; improving coordination across sectors; promoting transparency, trust, and professional oversight; building workforce capacity; and advancing practical AI applications that can be implemented today while preparing for future innovation.

Key actions discussed include expanding education and dialogue through webinars and forums; compiling and sharing AI use cases; establishing governance frameworks and professional standards; promoting data quality and accountability; fostering collaboration and co-development; piloting AI applications—particularly for communication—and exploring regulatory sandbox approaches.

In 2026 and beyond, the ASFPM Foundation will continue working with ASFPM and external partners to advance these recommendations and support the careful, constructive use of big data and AI across floodplain management. If you work at the intersection of flood risk, resilience, data, or public policy, this report offers valuable perspective on where the field is headed and how we can move forward responsibly.  

Read the full report on ASFPM Foundation’s website

This report is dedicated to the memory of Jenni Evans, PhD, a nationally respected meteorologist, educator, and champion for responsible innovation in floodplain management. As a panelist at the Forum, Dr. Evans brought an extraordinary depth of expertise to the intersection of artificial intelligence, advanced computation, and societal resilience. Her commitment to interdisciplinary collaboration, mentorship, and ethical science continues to inspire the ASFPM Foundation and the broader floodplain management community.

ASFPM Foundation gratefully acknowledges the critical financial support and subject-matter expertise provided by the Forum sponsors:

The post ASFPM Foundation Releases Report on Harnessing AI for Flood Risk Management first appeared on Association of State Floodplain Managers.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) introduced last week a bill, S. 4248 – Enhancing Long-Term, Efficient, and Viable Alternatives to Empower Flood-Prone Communities Act, in response to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ pause on certain flood studies and projects that include nonstructural approaches. The bill would require the Corps to resume that work and give nonstructural strategies equal standing alongside traditional infrastructure like dams, levees, and floodwalls.

Sen. Whitehouse told E&E News that when the USACE evaluated flood risk along Rhode Island’s coastline, “it found that nonstructural measures were the best long-term, cost-effective solution.”

At its core, the legislation focuses on a few practical changes:

• Restarting paused projects within 45 days and preventing future blanket pauses
• Reinforcing equal consideration for nonstructural solutions in all Corps studies
• Reducing barriers to implementation, including higher federal cost shares (up to 90–100% for some properties) and more flexibility for local partners
• Authorizing the Corps to develop and utilize planning approaches that are more  appropriate to non-structural designs rather than the standard structural projects

The bill also looks to make it easier to deliver projects at scale—allowing phased implementation and covering costs like temporary housing and relocation support.

A familiar message for floodplain managers

The debate surrounding the Corps’ pause echoes a point ASFPM Executive Director Chad Berginnis made in his Oct. 15 column following testimony by the Corps’ Assistant Secretary Adam Telle last fall: nonstructural approaches aren’t new—and they aren’t niche.

As Berginnis noted, these strategies are often complementary to structural projects, and in many cases—particularly in rural or geographically large areas—more cost-effective than traditional infrastructure. He also emphasized that the Corps already has the authority and technical expertise to deliver these projects at scale, even if implementation processes are still evolving.

For floodplain managers, the takeaway is straightforward: this bill doesn’t introduce new concepts—it reinforces approaches that already work. The difference is whether those tools remain available, funded, and prioritized. ASFPM’s policy team will continue to advocate and support the new legislation, as it addresses major issues that have stymied many worthy and cost-effective nonstructural projects for years.

The bill would require the agency to restart the studies and project construction affected by the pause, and prevent the agency from disbanding its National Nonstructural Committee, which was founded in 1985. We understand the Corps has recently taken the positive step of upgrading the agency’s status afforded nonstructural approaches by establishing a new Center Nonstructural of Expertise to help all Districts and be coordinated from the New Orleans District.

The “pause” was set six months ago to allow the Corps and the Administration to study whether nonstructural projects were an appropriate activity for the Corps, despite clear legislation going back to 1974 that mandates thorough examination of such alternatives in planning and pursuing projects.

Currently, the pause remains in place for many scores of projects across the nation, except for four “pilot” projects under study: a nonstructural portion of Fire Island to Montauk Point in New York; the Green Brook Project in New Jersey, part of the Norfolk Coastal Storm Risk Management Project in VA, and nonstructural elements of the Florida Keys Coastal Storm Risk Management Project. 

The post Bipartisan Bill Aims to Restart Nonstructural Flood Projects first appeared on Association of State Floodplain Managers.

The post Welcome New Members – March 2026 first appeared on Association of State Floodplain Managers.

Overview

Florida’s Senate Bill 948 (SB 948 (2025)), codified as Chapter 2025-166, Laws of Florida and Florida Statutes Sections 83.512 and 689.302, mandates that condo developers, landlords, mobile home park owners, and residential property sellers provide clear, written flood disclosures before leases or sales close. The law aims to ensure transparency about flood risks and past flooding events, protecting buyers and tenants from unexpected losses, and represents a significant step toward transparency in Florida real estate transactions.

Landlord Requirements

Applicability: Residential leases of 1 year or longer.

Disclosure Form: Must be a separate document, not part of the lease.

Information to Disclose:

• Whether the landlord has knowledge of any flooding that damaged the dwelling during their ownership.
• Whether the landlord has filed any insurance claims for flood damage, including through the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
• Whether the landlord has received federal assistance for flood damage, such as FEMA aid.

Tenant Protections: If a landlord fails to disclose, and flooding causes substantial loss (50% or more of personal property value), the tenant may terminate the lease within 30 days and receive a refund for prepaid rent, while remaining responsible for rent owed prior to termination.

Seller and Developer Requirements

Sellers: Must provide a written flood disclosure at or before contract signing, confirming knowledge of past flooding, prior flood-related insurance claims, or federal assistance.

Condo/Co-op Developers: Must disclose flood history for both individual units and common areas. Buyers retain a 15-day cancellation right if disclosures are missing or misleading.

Purpose: Ensures buyers are aware that standard homeowners’ insurance does not cover flood damage, encouraging consideration of separate flood insurance.

Definition of Flooding

The law defines flooding broadly to include:

• Overflow of inland or tidal waters.
• Rapid accumulation of runoff or surface waters from rivers, streams, or drainage ditches.
• Sustained standing water from rainfall.

Role of Realtors

Realtors are responsible for ensuring clients receive and acknowledge flood disclosures, understand insurance limitations, and consider flood insurance options. Proper documentation helps prevent legal and financial issues after closing.

Effective Date

All provisions of the laws took effect October 1, 2025, and apply to leases, sales, and condo or mobile home transactions executed on or after that date.

The post Florida’s New Flood Disclosure Law: What Developers, Sellers, and Landlords Need to Know first appeared on Association of State Floodplain Managers.