Retrofitting flood-prone residential structures helps achieve an important objective of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), to break the cycle of repetitive flood damage. Many buildings have been flooded, repaired, and flooded repeatedly. In some floodplains, this cycle occurs every few years. FEMA estimates that buildings that meet or exceed the NFIP minimum floodplain management requirements incur, on average, 65 percent less flood damage than buildings that predate adoption of local floodplain management requirements. In general, buildings that were constructed before the adoption of local floodplain management requirements may not have been constructed with features that reduce flood damage. Owners of these buildings may be interested in the retrofitting measures and best practices described in this publication.

The focus is the retrofitting of one- to four-family residences subject to flooding situations without wave action. The publication presents various retrofitting techniques that provide both active and passive efforts and employ both dry and wet floodproofing measures. These include elevation of the structure in place, relocation of the structure, construction of barriers, dry floodproofing (sealants, closures, sump pumps, and backflow valves), and wet floodproofing (flood damage-resistant materials and protection of utilities and contents).

Existing data and current standards have been used to inform this publication. Detailed sections on evaluation, planning, and retrofitting design measures, along with updated case studies of completed retrofitting projects, are included. The publication was used to update content for the FQS training course related to Retrofitting Flood-Prone Residential Structures.

Download FEMA P-529

The post Updated Edition of Engineering Principles and Practices for Retrofitting Flood-Prone Residential Structures (FEMA P-259) Available first appeared on Association of State Floodplain Managers.

The 51-47 vote confirmed more than 70 nominees as part of one package, including the administrator of the Transportation Security Administration, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers and the director of the Indian Health Service. 

Hamilton’s confirmation vote follows a bit of a rollercoaster for him at FEMA. He ran the agency in an acting capacity for the first few months of 2025 before being fired after testifying to Congress that he personally did “not believe it is in the best interest of the American people to eliminate the Federal Emergency Management Agency.”

He then spent several months working as a senior adviser in the Education Department before being hired as the senior vice president of response and recovery at LTS, Inc., a consulting firm in Virginia. He stayed there until April, when he became a senior adviser/senior counselor at the Department of Homeland Security. 

‘Fair and reasonable’

Trump formally nominated Hamilton as his pick for FEMA administrator in May without the hype he’s doled out for some of his other picks.  

Hamilton testified before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in June that if confirmed to run the agency he wouldn’t provide more resources to Republican regions of the country over Americans who vote for Democrats. 

“What I can tell you is that if confirmed, my focus will be to ensure that FEMA is objective, is fair and reasonable, follows the law, and is consistent in the approach to how we adjudicate and process claims and requests for disasters,” he said. 

Shifting responsibilities to states

During his time away from the federal government, Hamilton spoke about his experiences running FEMA in an acting role on an episode of the “Disaster Tough” podcast released in September.

“I was not hired to abolish FEMA. That was never a part of the conversation and that’s never something that I would have agreed with,” he said at the time. “And I was very clear, I wanted some reform. I wanted to cut wasteful spending. I wanted to downsize the agency. There’s no denying that. And I think most of those things could be done wisely and properly.”

Any offloading of responsibilities from the federal government to states, he said, would include “a gradual phasing out.”

“We needed to give the states some time to see what that entails and to respond accordingly,” he said on the podcast. “Not just, ‘Hey, the water is now shut off. You’re on your own.’ That’s not wise. That’s not being a good partner.”

Trump has spoken throughout his second administration about shifting some of the responsibility for natural disaster preparedness and response to state governments. 

“We want to wean off of FEMA and we want to bring it down to the state level,” Trump said in June 2025. “We’re moving it back to the states so the governors can handle it. That’s why they’re governors. Now, if they can’t handle it, they shouldn’t be governor.”

Trump established a FEMA Review Council to propose changes, which it did in May, though neither the president nor Congress has taken significant steps in the months since to implement any of the suggestions.

Funding debate

Congress approved a budget of $32 billion for FEMA for the current fiscal year with $26.4 billion of that for the disaster relief fund. 

The Trump administration asked lawmakers to cut funding for non-disaster FEMA grants by $1.3 billion in the spending bill for the upcoming fiscal year, which is set to begin Oct. 1. 

The White House budget office wrote in its proposals that reduced funding for those programs would refocus “the agency on sound emergency management while encouraging States and communities to build resilience and use their unique local knowledge and resources in disaster response.”

House Republicans proposed a total spending level of $34.1 billion for FEMA in fiscal 2027. Of that, $28.39 billion would be dedicated to the disaster relief fund. 

The Senate Appropriations Committee has yet to release its annual funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security, which includes FEMA. 

Republished from News From The States. View original article.

The post Senate Confirms Hamilton as FEMA Administrator first appeared on Association of State Floodplain Managers.

The document also includes project-specific recommendations for a wide range of mitigation activities, example cost-effectiveness narratives, and application submission instructions. While not a replacement for the HMA Guide, it serves as a practical reference for developing stronger, more complete HMA subapplications and may help speed up the review process and reduce requests for additional information.

Download FEMA document

The post FEMA Releases Application Support Material for HMA Projects Under $1 Million first appeared on Association of State Floodplain Managers.

The Swift Current program is specifically designed to expedite funding to states, territories and tribal nations that recently experienced a severe flooding disaster. The program funds community-led projects that reduce or eliminate the risk of repetitive flood damage to structures and buildings insured by the National Flood Insurance Program. This grant is made available after a Presidentially declared emergency or major flood-related disaster.

FEMA said this latest funding cycle includes programmatic changes aimed at reducing the administrative burden and hurdles on applicants and expediting the delivery of funding, such as removing project scoping activities as an eligible project type and allowing the consolidation of activation application periods when multiple qualifying disasters occur during this funding opportunity cycle.

For each qualifying flood event, FEMA will provide a deadline to eligible applicants. Local governments interested in this funding opportunity should contact their State Hazard Mitigation Officer. For more information on this FY 2026 FMA Swift Current funding opportunity—including eligibility criteria, application deadlines, cost-share and other essential details—visit Grants.gov.

The post FEMA Opens $600M Swift Current Funding Opportunity for FY 2026 first appeared on Association of State Floodplain Managers.

While ASFPM is pleased to see funding opportunities for two critical floodplain management programs, the changes outlined in the CAP-SSSE NOFO and the funding level for CTP have raised significant concerns among ASFPM members and other state partners. ASFPM has already heard from members who are seeking more information and guidance on what these changes mean for their programs.

“We are disappointed that significant changes to these programs are being made without meaningful input from the state and local partners who rely on these funds to support floodplain management and flood mapping efforts,” said ASFPM Executive Director Chad Berginnis. “The timing of the announcement — released the day before many state fiscal years begin — also creates significant challenges for grantees trying to understand and respond to the new requirements.”

Berginnis noted that CAP-SSSE and CTP represent some of FEMA’s strongest examples of federal-state-local partnerships in disaster resilience.

“Yet, instead of empowering states and communities so they can work in partnership with FEMA to reduce flood risk and make our nation more resilient, these changes would do the opposite — despite support from Congress for flood mapping and floodplain management,” he said.

CAP-SSSE

The FY 2026 CAP-SSSE funding opportunity makes $15 million available — the same amount available in the previous year. Among the changes outlined in this year’s NOFO:

• Community NFIP compliance audits will be conducted by states going forward, with states expected to use FEMA’s new Compliance Audit Tool.

• Federal funds cannot be used for state staff conference attendance, professional membership dues, professional certifications, or communication and promotion of flood topics.

The CAP-SSSE application period closes August 11, 2026. View the CAP-SSSE NOFO.

CTP

The FY 2026 Cooperating Technical Partners (CTP) grant program funding opportunity makes $41 million available to communities that participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. This is less than half of the funding levels in recent years. From FY 2022–2024, the average amount of funding available through each CTP NOFO was $83.3 million. In addition, no CTP NOFO was issued in FY 2025, even though Congress had fully appropriated funding for FEMA’s mapping program.

The CTP application period closes August 17, 2026. View the CTP NOFO.

ASFPM will continue reviewing the details of both NOFOs and will provide additional information and analysis as more details become available

The post New FEMA NOFOs Bring CAP Changes, CTP Funding Cuts first appeared on Association of State Floodplain Managers.

Taken together, these trends could signal a fundamental rethinking of how flood risk is assessed, managed, and financed across the United States. 

Recent developments—including leadership changes at the federal level and the conclusion of the FEMA Review Council—have accelerated the momentum for reform of various programs related to flood risk management, disaster grant funding, and mitigation programs. The Council’s findings reinforce FEMA’s core strengths in funding and financial support but also highlight opportunities to give states and local governments primary responsibility for natural hazard resilience with the federal government in a supporting role. 

Historically, the NFIP has operated as a federally-driven program, with FEMA providing: 

• Detailed regulatory standards (e.g., 44 CFR §60.3) 
• Flood hazard mapping via Flood Insurance Rate Maps 
• Enforcement of compliance and program participation  
• Oversight of more than 22,000 participating communities 

This model has delivered national consistency—but may have been limiting to state-level flexibility and local customization. Now we’re seeing a push towards a structural shift from top-down to bottom-up. What could emerge is a locally customized and implemented, state-led, federally supported paradigm being driven by two significant forces: deregulation and shifting authorities to states. 

Driver #1: Deregulation and Statutory Alignment 

One of the most consequential forces behind this shift is the growing emphasis on regulatory simplification and statutory alignment. For decades, federal agencies operated under legal “deference” in interpreting statutes into regulations. However, recent legal and policy developments have challenged that paradigm, prompting a reassessment of whether existing regulations truly align with congressional intent. 

The implications are significant: 

• Regulations not clearly grounded in statute may be subject to revision or repeal 
• Agencies are being directed to review and potentially eliminate rules deemed to be overreaching 
• Executive actions have also called for the acceleration of deregulation timelines 

Within the NFIP, this raises important questions. A review of program components suggests that many regulatory elements—particularly those governing mapping and land use requirements—may not fully align with statutory language. If pursued, statutory realignment could: 

• Simplify program requirements 
• Reduce administrative burden 
• Alter how flood risk data is created, updated, and delivered to end-users 
• Redefine minimum floodplain management standards 

This is not merely a technical exercise—it is a potential reshaping of the program’s foundation. 

Driver #2: Shifting Authority to States 

In parallel, federal policy trends are increasingly favoring state- and locally driven implementation. Recent signals include: 

• Reduced federal prescriptiveness in resilience and preparedness programs 
• Greater flexibility (and responsibility) for state-level decision-making 
• Streamlining or elimination of certain federal planning and technical assistance support 
• Emphasis on “partners who deliver” at the state and local level 

By devolving authority, the federal government is effectively betting on increased innovation at the state level, more responsive and context-sensitive decision-making, and stronger alignment between land use and risk. However, it also introduces variability—and potential inequities—in outcomes across jurisdictions. 

What Could the Future NFIP Look Like? 

While uncertainty remains, a plausible future NFIP begins to take shape. Today’s model follows a standard where the federal government (FEMA) sets detailed standards and controls implementation, produces and maintains flood maps, monitors compliance, and offers two main incentives: insurance access and grant funding.  

One potential future of the NFIP is one where FEMA retains its core statutory authorities of identifying flood-prone areas and assessing adequacy of floodplain management standards on the state and local levels, and realigns states and communities as the leaders in implementation and customization. Flood risk data becomes a central federal asset that is broadly accessible and the system relies more heavily on financial incentives from the federal level. 

Risks and Opportunities 

This potential direction of the NFIP presents a complex blend of opportunity and uncertainty for states, communities, and flood resilience stakeholders. If this potential future becomes reality, many states may find themselves with increased flexibility, but also with significantly greater accountability if regulatory structures shift and responsibilities become more decentralized. A move toward state-led and locally customized flood risk management opens the door to more tailored, context-sensitive solutions that reflect local priorities, development pressures, and risk tolerances. At the same time, it introduces real challenges, particularly for states and jurisdictions with limited technical capacity, constrained resources, or less experience managing flood risk programs at scale. 

This potential transition is not simply about doing less at the federal level—it is about doing things differently across all levels of government. States may need to stand up or expand programs that were previously federally driven, from flood hazard mapping and data management to regulatory enforcement and resilience planning. Communities, in turn, may face new expectations around land-use decisions, mitigation investments, and risk communication. Meanwhile, variability in how different states interpret and implement these responsibilities could lead to uneven outcomes, with implications for equity, insurance markets, and long-term resilience.  

In this environment, the ability to navigate change proactively becomes a defining advantage.

As the NFIP continues to evolve, states, communities, and floodplain management professionals will need to closely monitor policy developments and be prepared to adapt to changing roles and responsibilities. While the ultimate direction of reform remains uncertain, the decisions made in the coming years could have significant implications for flood risk management, insurance availability, and community resilience nationwide.

Regardless of the path forward, effective collaboration among federal, state, and local partners will remain essential to ensuring that communities have the tools, resources, and information needed to understand and reduce flood risk.

About the Authors

Jennifer Marcy is the National Flood Risk Management Practice Director for AtkinsRéalis has over 20 years of experience working with federal, state, and local floodplain management authorities, and professional organizations on all aspects of National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) implementation. She understands Federal, state, and local floodplain management programs, and has worked with FEMA to implement program improvements associated with the NFIP. This includes NFIP implementation and capability building nationwide, the promotion of higher regulatory standards, and other floodplain management programmatic and technical support.

Celinda Adair is the National Lead for Flood Risk Solutions for AtkinsRéalis. She has 18 years of experience in floodplain management, CRS, outreach and training, community planning, federal and state grant support, and hazard mitigation. She is a former State NFIP Coordinator for the State of Oregon, FEMA Risk MAP program coordinator for the State of Montana, and CRS Coordinator and Planner for Thurston County, Washington (a Class 2 CRS community).   

The post NFIP at a Crossroads: Rethinking Flood Risk Governance in an Era of Deregulation and Decentralization first appeared on Association of State Floodplain Managers.

In its 9-page comment letter, ASFPM states that it supports efforts to improve FEMA’s effectiveness, reduce disaster losses, strengthen resilience, and ensure responsible stewardship of taxpayer resources. At the same time, the association emphasizes that meaningful reform must be grounded in how these programs operate in practice and informed by the experience of the professionals who implement them every day.

Among its recommendations, ASFPM urges policymakers to focus on:

• Completing the nation’s flood hazard mapping needs;
• Modernizing NFIP minimum standards;
• Addressing NFIP legacy debt;
• Strengthening flood insurance affordability and participation;
• Preserving the state-led nature of hazard mitigation programs;
• Building state capability through dedicated capacity programs;
• Authorizing CAP-SSSE and Cooperating Technical Partners;
• Establishing a hazard mitigation capability program modeled after CAP-SSSE;
• Improving mitigation project delivery through streamlined processes and adequate staffing; and
• Ensuring FEMA maintains and supports the workforce and technical expertise necessary to fulfill its mission.

ASFPM’s comments were among 148 submissions received during the public comment period, which closed June 8. The letter builds on a May 18 ASFPM analysis examining the strengths and shortcomings of the Review Council’s recommendations.

Read the full comment letter.

View all submitted comments.

The post ASFPM Weighs in on FEMA Review Council Final Report 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 announcement follows a federal court order earlier this month requiring FEMA to restart the BRIC program after nearly a year of uncertainty.

According to FEMA, this new BRIC funding opportunity (DHS-25-MT-047-00-98) is specifically designed to:

• Prioritize infrastructure resilience by funding construction projects that are ready to implement and incentivizing the adoption of the latest hazard-resistant building codes. 
• Move money faster by eliminating phased projects, simplifying the National Competition scoring system and removing subapplication scoring by the National Review Panel. 
• Shift responsibility and authority to states, territories and Tribal Nations by removing funding for hazard mitigation planning and non-financial direct technical assistance provisions.   

Eligible applicants include states, the District of Columbia, U.S. territories and federally recognized Tribal Nations. Eligible subapplicants include local governments, communities, special districts and Tribal Nations applying through a state or territory.

Breaking down the numbers

For the Fiscal Years 2024-25 funding cycle, these are the available categories: 

• $112 million for states and territories (up to $2 million federal cost share for each applicant).
• $50 million Tribal Set-Aside (up to $2 million federal cost share for each applicant).
• $56 million for State or Territory Building Code Plus-Up (up to $1 million federal cost share per applicant) and $25 million for Tribal Nation Building Code Plus-Up to carry out eligible building code adoption and enforcement activities.
• $757 million for National Competition (up to $20 million federal cost share per subapplication).

Learn more on Grants.gov  

As an additional update, President Trump has extended the FEMA Review Council’s term through May 29, or until 10 days after the council submits its report—whichever comes first. 

The post BRIC Funding Alert: $1 Billion NOFO Now Open first appeared on Association of State Floodplain Managers.

In the March 6 ruling, U.S. District Judge Richard G. Stearns addressed the ongoing delays in restoring the program, giving FEMA a strict 21-day-deadline to issue BRIC’s Notice of Funding Opportunity for Fiscal Year 2024. The order means the agency has to unfreeze the roughly $750 million in grants that have been in limbo since the original NOFO was cancelled in April 2025. 

In addition, FEMA has 14 days from the date of the order to communicate the status of current BRIC projects to the plaintiff states and file status reports with the court outlining remaining steps to reverse the termination of the BRIC program, including a schedule for the FY2025 and FY2026 BRIC funding cycles.  

“We are encouraged by the court’s clear timeline for restoring the BRIC program. Mitigation is a race against time, and this ruling provides the necessary framework for the agency to honor its commitments to the state and local partners who are on the front lines of disaster resilience,” said Chad Berginnis, ASFPM Executive Director. “We look forward to working closely with FEMA as they resume this vital program, ensuring that proactive investments in community safety remain a top priority.”

How the Legal Battle Reached This Point

This latest judgment will hopefully bring to an end a long legal battle between the 23-state coalition and the administration. On July 16, 2025, the coalition filed a lawsuit to prevent FEMA from terminating its BRIC program. On December 11, 2025, the court ruled in favor of the states, declaring the termination of the congressionally appropriated program unlawful and ordering FEMA to take all necessary steps to reverse course.

In February, the coalition filed a motion asking the District of Massachusetts to enforce its December 11 order, saying FEMA had offered no indication that it had complied with the order at that point.

“The uncertainty and ongoing delay continue to threaten the very existence of the states’ projects, leaving state emergency management agencies and local municipalities scrambling to fill funding gaps,” the states said in the motion. “Ultimately, plaintiff states continue to face the loss of an urgently needed program designed to protect against natural disasters and save lives.”

In response to that most recent filing by the states, the administration argued in a March 3 filing that “FEMA is currently reviewing the BRIC program” and “the goal of this review is to improve the BRIC program—not terminate it.” The agency also said the process has been slowed by staffing shortages and lapses in funding but added that it is working to comply with the court’s order.

In his March 6 decision, Judge Stearns acknowledged the tangible steps FEMA has taken toward compliance with the December 11 ruling but noted that several requirements remain unimplemented. He also recognized that some delays may stem from staffing shortages and the current budget freeze at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. However, he concluded that the court’s directives are “reasonable steps” the agency can—and must—take even while leadership transitions at the DHS are underway.

“The judge’s order in this case was unequivocal: FEMA must restore the BRIC program,” Washington state Attorney General Nick Brown said in a press release. “We will keep fighting to make sure FEMA stops wasting time and carries out the program as Congress intended.”  

The lawsuit was co-led by attorney generals from Massachusetts and Washington and joined by the following states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin.

A copy of Judge Stearns’ March 6 “Order to Enforce” is available here

The post FEMA Ordered to Restart BRIC Program first appeared on Association of State Floodplain Managers.