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.

The NFIP provides coverage to 4.7 million policyholders across 23,000 communities nationwide. In addition to insurance, the NFIP oversees floodplain management, flood hazard mapping, and flood mitigation to meet its statutory obligations. A small but dedicated federal staff carries out these functions by relying heavily on contracts, cooperative grants, arrangements, and other formal agreements with private insurers, state/local governments, and vendors. Ironically, this approach to administering the NFIP aligns with the Trump Administration’s priorities for state and local governments to play a more significant role in resilience and preparedness and for greater private sector involvement.

However, this public-private operating model is both a strength and a vulnerability. While it limits the federal staffing footprint, the NFIP cannot meet its statutory obligations without the ability to update, renew, and enforce these critical agreements. Disruptions can quickly impair core program functions, and statutory authorization alone is not sufficient to ensure operational continuity. And while the program is now authorized until September 30, 2026, operationally, the NFIP is far from healthy.

We began to see the warning signs last summer and fall. Even though Congress obligated funding, we did not see FY2025 Notice of Funding Opportunities (NOFOs) for three key programs:

• Cooperating Technical Partners (CTP) – a cooperative agreement through which states and regional entities lead flood mapping and remapping efforts
• Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) – a grant program to mitigate at-risk flood-prone structures that have flood insurance
• Community Assistance Program (CAP) – a cooperative agreement through which states help FEMA manage NFIP floodplain management requirements for 23,000 communities  

Although a CAP NOFO eventually came out in August, none emerged for the CTP or FMA programs.  And while CAP awards were largely made by the end of the last fiscal year, states report they have not yet been reimbursed for work done in the first quarter of the fiscal year (Oct-Dec 2025).

Another troubling situation involves the RiskMAP regional task orders. From what I understand, the contracts were ready to go — sitting on the DHS Secretary’s desk — and simply left unsigned as the new federal fiscal year began last October 1. These contracts support much of the nation’s flood mapping. And keep in mind, this is for work that Congress has already appropriated money!

In addition, last fall the Project Management Contract for the RiskMAP program was not renewed. This meant, among other things, that Regional Office support was reduced to manage the project’s scope, budget, and timelines. The Community Engagement and Risk Communication (CERC) contract for RiskMAP was allowed to expire as well, shifting a lot of scope back to FEMA, even as the agency lost staff.  The NFIP Stakeholder Training Development and Delivery Contract, which was the primary contract used to train insurance agents on the NFIP, was also allowed to lapse.

Unfortunately, this pattern of negligent behavior has continued through the winter. As of last week, FEMA cancelled the contract to administer the NFIP Community Rating System (CRS). As a result, program operations— including annual recertifications, cycle verification visits, re-evaluations to increase rank, and entry into the program — are all on hold until FEMA staff assume those duties (which doesn’t seem likely), a new contract is issued, or statute is changed. This contractor had administered and implemented the CRS program on behalf of FEMA since the program’s inception in 1990. Currently over 1,500 communities nationwide participate in the CRS, covering 4.7 million NFIP policyholders — about 76% of the entire policyholder base. The core consequence of the funding reductions is straightforward: American families will pay more for flood insurance.

So, what will happen this spring? At the end of March, the Production and Technical Services (PTS) Standard Operations Contract will expire. This important contract covers things like RiskMAP portfolio management, including quality assurance, as well as levee support, due process support, building sciences, levee safety operations, dam safety, and national mitigation planning support. As it stands, although the existing contract has a 12-month scope, it was only funded for 10 months despite Congress fully funding the flood mapping program!

We also understand that an expiring Customer and Data Services (CDS) contract, which supports the National Flood Hazard Layer and the flood mapping library, was extended on a limited-service basis for 90 days. Meanwhile, the contracts for Letter of Map Change (MT-1 and MT-2) are set to expire in April. And we still have zero visibility on whether FY2025 funding that Congress appropriated will be made available for flood mapping through the CTP program or for flood mitigation through the FMA program. 

There are other contracts on the insurance side of the program that I have less visibility into but will expire this spring and summer if they are not extended.

Here is the bottom line. Due to negligence, incompetence, or both at the highest levels of the agency (whether it was FEMA leadership or DHS leadership — this is squarely a leadership issue), the NFIP is in critical condition. Despite it being authorized by Congress until September 30, 2026, the program is not getting the operational attention and support it needs.  

The NFIP’s delivery model depends on a small number of FEMA staff overseeing a program largely executed through grants, agreements, and contracts. When contracting breaks down — and staffing is insufficient to coordinate, process, and execute the contracts — the system begins to fail. These problems are further exacerbated when FEMA has essentially been under a gag order preventing most communication between them and their local, state, tribal, territorial, and nonprofit partners.

I, for one, am not sad to see what I believe was incompetent leadership depart DHS.  I can only hope that Senator Mullin, who is the President’s nominee to be the Secretary of DHS, will not only be a better leader but will care enough about the families and businesses of this country to ensure that FEMA — and the NFIP — recover and return to a stable condition.

Your partner in loss reduction,

Editor’s note: Updated March 17, 2026 to provide additional context to the CRS contract issue.

The post NFIP Code Blue first appeared on Association of State Floodplain Managers.

Let’s not sugar coat it — 2025 was a challenging year. While we did not have a direct hit from a hurricane on the mainland, we saw significant flooding all over the country, and yet not a single request from a governor for a hazard mitigation disaster declaration has been granted since March. (By contrast, President Trump routinely approved Hazard Mitigation disaster declaration requests from governors during his first administration). Our pre-disaster hazard mitigation programs, administered by agencies such as FEMA, EPA and HUD, are either stuck or have been canceled.

We’ve seen friends and colleagues leave many of our key federal agencies in droves. Regardless of your political persuasion, what I have experienced in 30 years of working with FEMA and other agencies is that, overwhelmingly, the folks working at those agencies believe in the mission of the agency, have responded to the call to public service, and are outstanding human beings. I am grateful for having worked with them and for their dedication to public service. And for those still working in our federal agencies — your work and dedication are deeply appreciated.

State and local floodplain managers are on the front lines of managing flood risk, explaining the need for development permits, doing substantial damage determinations, conducting training, doing public outreach, and answering mutual aid calls. Many times, these actions are done against a backdrop of challenges from political leaders or a public that seemingly doesn’t care about risk. I am deeply grateful for your service and for the opportunity to meet so many of you at the dozen or so ASFPM Chapter meetings I attended this year.

Private sector partners are continuously innovating to help communities, states, and even the federal government overcome technical challenges and capacity limitations so as to meet their flood risk reduction goals. I am amazed that today we have technical marvels like glass “flood walls,” low-cost flood sensor systems, and consultants who have every type of expertise imaginable. I am grateful for their time, talent and expertise.

And then we have our partner organizations.  When I say it takes a village, I mean it takes all of us, working together to make meaningful impacts on flood risk reduction. ASFPM routinely works with over a dozen other organizations and has forged many additional partnerships throughout 2025.  I am grateful to work alongside so many organizations toward a common goal.

Finally, I am grateful for the community of ASFPM members. I’d like to think that membership in ASFPM has some unique tangible meaning to each of you, and as the CEO of this wonderful organization, I am deeply, deeply grateful for your investment in our association. I like to tell new Congressional staffers when we talk about NFIP reform, for example, that ASFPM has been here nearly since the beginning — providing input on nearly every NFIP reform bill since the 1970s. And while our ideas for reform have changed over time to reflect what we have learned, we will continue to advocate for good and meaningful public policy focused on the mission of flood loss reduction and protecting our natural floodplain functions.

In closing, I want to say that it is easy to despair, to be angry seeing everything that has happened this year, and to enter 2026 with a lot of anxiety.  I am choosing, instead, to be grateful and see opportunity. I know this to be true — given the time, talent, and dedication of all of you, we cannot help but be successful! While it is true that today we are facing unprecedented uncertainty from the federal government, it is also true that most floodplain management is “done” at the state and local level. I believe that is where we can make some great improvements, whether it be adopting stronger codes, or developing home-grown hazard mitigation, flood mapping and flood warning programs. I promise that ASFPM is committed to helping you improve your programs and achieving your flood loss reduction goals.

Happy Holidays!

The post In a Challenging Year, Much to Be Grateful For first appeared on Association of State Floodplain Managers.

Despite all of the turmoil happening at FEMA right now, and the agency’s near complete stoppage of its hazard mitigation function, it is important to understand that flood hazard mitigation has never been FEMA’s responsibility alone. Historically, these efforts have been carried out by a number of federal agencies, including the USACE, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), an agency within the Department of Agriculture.

In this month’s column, I’d like to take a look back at the important history of the USACE’s nonstructural flood mitigation authorities, review its current status, and argue why nonstructural solutions should be a significant element of USACE activities going forward.

A Brief History of the Corps’ Nonstructural Authorities

The USACE got its first authority to evaluate and consider nonstructural options in 1974 through Section 73 of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA), which requires consideration of nonstructural alternatives in flood damage reduction studies. The nonstructural options can be considered independently or in combination with structural measures.

OK, let’s pause for a quick explanation. Nonstructural measures reduce flood damage without significantly altering the nature or extent of flooding. This is accomplished by changing the use made of the floodplains, or by accommodating existing uses to the flood hazard. Examples are flood proofing, relocation of structures, structure elevation, buyouts, flood warning and preparedness systems (including associated emergency measures), and regulation of floodplain uses. By contrast, structural measures are those that change and/or control the flood water flow to reduce the probability of flooding (dams, levees/flood walls, channels modification, etc.).

In 1981, Section 202 of the Water Resources Development Act gave USACE a unique and flexible authority to implement whatever measures were deemed by the Chief of Engineers to be necessary to reduce flood damages in the areas affected by the 1977 flood in the Tug and Levisa Forks and Upper Cumberland River Basins of West Virginia, Kentucky and Virginia. The result? A groundbreaking flood damage reduction plan that used both structural and nonstructural measures to achieve a cost-effective and socially acceptable solution to the flooding problems.  A good read on the Tug Fork project can be accessed via a downloadable PDF from the ASFPM library. This project and the resulting experience, ongoing research by USACE on floodproofing options, and the 1985 creation of the USACE’s National Nonstructural / Flood Proofing Committee (NFPC now called the National Nonstructural Committee or NNC), resulted in USACE having the majority of the nation’s expertise in the application of nonstructural flood solutions by the end of the 1980s. Remember, FEMA didn’t even have authority to do hazard mitigation projects until the Stafford Act passed in 1988, and the agency really didn’t implement much mitigation until after the 1993 Mississippi River flood!

By the early 1990s, when I started my career in floodplain management, nearly every authoritative standard, manual, or other publication on nonstructural approaches or floodproofing solutions came from the Corps. Through the 1990s and 2000s, the NFPC worked within USACE and with project planners to promote nonstructural solutions and awareness of USACE’s authority and responsibility to evaluate nonstructural solutions. Outside organizations, including ASFPM, sought and often were successful in changing the law to ensure that nonstructural solutions were on “equal footing” with structural solutions as they were evaluated and implemented through changes in subsequent WRDAs.

The 2000s also saw the launch of the Silver Jackets program, which helped strengthen ties with states and often focused on a number of nonstructural approaches. In the 2010s, USACE partnered with ASFPM and FM Approvals to create the Flood Mitigation Certification Program where the water testing lab U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) is used to test floodproofing technologies.

Progress, Setbacks, and the Path Ahead

Unfortunately, for much of this time since 1974, nonstructural solutions have been slow to fully take root within USACE. A 2009 USACE newsletter explained the problem:

Nonstructural measures…have not yet been fully integrated into the culture of Corps planning. Although they can perform cost effectively for risk reduction, nonstructural measures have nontraditional implementation requirements and specific policy guidance which detract from their consideration by some Corps planners.

So, while USACE’s nonstructural authorities have been around for more than 50 years, culturally within USACE they had not been broadly embraced or accepted. We’ve seen over the years where leadership would sometimes embrace nonstructural solutions and at other times were hostile to them.  

However, that has changed significantly in the last 5 to 10 years. Today, sources tell me that there are over 88,000 individual structures identified to be mitigated with nonstructural solutions either within approved projects or in projects being developed across the country.  The grassroots demand for nonstructural solutions is coming from communities who are local project sponsors and want resilience without the expensive long-term operations and maintenance costs for upkeep of levees and floodwalls. Illustrating this shift, today, the USACE is implementing two massive projects with a substantial nonstructural component:

• The Southwest Louisiana Storm Risk Management and Ecosystem Restoration Project looks to elevate over 1,000 homes in the 25-year floodplain in an area spanning over 4,700 square miles.  
• The Fire Island to Montauk Point project (FIMP) looks to elevate and floodproof over 4,000 structures in the 10-year floodplain along 83 miles of shoreline in New York.

When considering USACE’s project development process, nonstructural solutions can almost always be complementary to structural solutions in many projects. In other areas, especially in small rural communities or in geographies spanning a large area, nonstructural solutions are far more cost effective than a structural solution. And while USACE is working out its own processes for implementing nonstructural solutions effectively, it nonetheless has the expertise as the nation’s leading water resources agency to do nonstructural solutions on a much larger scale than other agencies.

So, to end where I began, if I could advise Mr. Telle, I would say this: For over 50 years, USACE has the authority, expertise, and responsibility to consider and implement nonstructural solutions.  While there will be growing pains and necessary adjustments to USACE policies to efficiently implement nonstructural solutions more broadly throughout the agency, project plans from the district level are revealing what we already know — communities want more than just levees and floodwalls. USACE is one of the few agencies with the capability to do these projects at scale, and nonstructural solutions will typically be much more viable than structural solutions in the rural communities that are of particular importance to you.

Your partner in loss reduction,

The post Nonstructural Flood Mitigation: A Legacy Worth Strengthening at USACE first appeared on Association of State Floodplain Managers.

The most consequential of this summer’s flood events is the Texas flash flood on the Guadalupe River that devastated Camp Mystic and resulted in over 138 deaths and at least $18 billion in damages. In the aftermath of this terrible flash flooding, ASFPM fielded more than two dozen media inquiries on topics ranging from flood mapping and pre-disaster mitigation to warning systems and steps parents can take to ensure their kiddos’ safety.

In reflecting on those interviews, along with reviewing numerous media reports and data about the event itself, five key lessons emerged:

1. Regulatory gaps leave camps and campgrounds vulnerable.

NFIP minimum standards and most community floodplain regulations only deal with development (i.e., turning a shovel full of dirt) and typically not temporary residential/overnight uses in the floodplain like camping, especially if a building isn’t being constructed or improved. A zoning code may provide some use requirements or restrictions. Although emergency action plans (EAPs) are best practices and most counties have a local emergency management department to provide technical assistance, EAPs are not usually required. While there may be either state and local standards and inspection/licensure requirements through health departments, any requirements for emergency procedures from a public health perspective are typically generic, if they exist at all. Inspections tend to be “check the box” and focused on actions like posting the plan in public spaces, etc. 

It seems that local floodplain management ordinances could be improved to specifically address campgrounds, including requiring permits and inspections for operations and prohibiting the construction of new, overnight cabins in the highest risk areas like floodways. And for consistency purposes, state model ordinances could have clarifying language.

2. Advanced warnings only work when paired with an action plan.

Flood warnings, whether they be from sirens or from NWS alerts, are limited in effectiveness if you don’t have a specific EAP to accompany it. A siren or a weather radio is not, by itself, an effective flood warning system. An effective system requires specific instructions and practiced procedures to take action after the warning. This is especially important when time is limited, such as a flash flood situation.

There has been a lot of social science research and new innovations on warning systems in the past 25 years. The Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) was created in 2006. It was established by Executive Order 13407, which was signed on June 26, 2006. The order mandated the creation of a more effective, reliable, and comprehensive system for delivering public alerts and warnings. FEMA was designated as the lead agency for developing IPAWS in 2004.  

The Warning Lexicon was created in 2023 and is a tool designed to help risk communicators write effective warning messages, particularly for Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA), by providing a standardized set of statements about hazards, their impacts, and recommended protective actions. It’s based on research and a theoretical framework called the Warning Response Model, which identifies five key elements of effective warning messages: hazard, impacts, location, guidance, and time. The lexicon aims to improve the clarity, speed, and effectiveness of warning messages by offering a common language and actionable statements for various hazards. Pages 37-39 of the Lexicon’s supplemental information has a warning message framework for flash floods.  A great background read on the Warning Lexicon and the creation and evolution of flood warnings can be found here. Also, the DHS Science and Technology Directorate has had an effort since 2016 focusing on the development and commercialization of low-cost flood sensors. A fact sheet can be found here.

In short, the development of tailored flood warning systems (defined here as a network of technologies and procedures designed to monitor and alert individuals and authorities about potential flooding, allowing for timely response and mitigation efforts) has never been easier or more customizable to specific situations than it is today.

3. EAPs for flash flooding in camps/campgrounds are non-existent or insufficient.

I reviewed several EAPs for campgrounds or RV parks. One trend was a tendency for flash floods to be lumped in with severe weather events. Flash flooding as a hazard must be broken out from generic severe weather events and needs to have automatic triggers and specific evacuation routes and points. For example, the evacuation/shelter point for a tornado — the lowest part of a building, for example — will get you killed in a flash flood.  In an informal review done on several EAPs for campgrounds and RV parks, while some features of an effective EAP are present, I couldn’t find any that have all the necessary elements of what an effective EAP should have.

4. Plans must be practiced to be effective.

EAPs must be exercised with all responsible staff and campers so that it becomes automatic in the case of an unexpected, middle-of-the-night event. Based on numerous articles I read, it seems that staff at Camp Mystic and nearby Camp La Junta were not familiar with the EAPs. And what about the campers? By exercising the plan with campers, you not only make the camp safer but you create an opportunity to teach those curious young minds a little bit about flooding and floodplain management.

One underutilized exercise approach that is core to emergency management and would seem to be helpful here — either to develop or improve EAPs and/or to facilitate better awareness of the flood hazard and EAP — is a tabletop exercise. A tabletop exercise (TTX) is a discussion-based simulation used to evaluate and improve emergency response plans. It involves a facilitated discussion where participants analyze a hypothetical hazard scenario, identify potential problems, and develop solutions, all within a low-stress, informal environment.  The development of a tabletop exercise focused on campgrounds dealing with a flash flood that comes in the middle of the night (essentially the Camp Mystic scenario) would seem to be helpful.

5. Parents need awareness and must ask the right questions.

Parents are almost entirely unaware of a camp’s flood risk or whether a camp has effective emergency plans. ASFPM participated in several interviews discussing this point including this one from NPR.  It is clear that not only should parents be more educated on emergency plans but by asking campgrounds the right questions it will certainly prompt campground owners to ensure that their EAPs are updated and that there is awareness of them.

As a floodplain manager and as a parent of an 8-year-old daughter who attended her first Girl Scout day camp the Monday after the Texas tragedy, I am embarrassed to admit that I failed in doing my own due diligence on the camp she was attending when it comes to flood risk. However, in examining the lessons that are to be learned from the Texas tragedy, I argue that we have the know-how, technology, and approaches to significantly reduce the deaths and injuries related to flash floods. Let’s honor those who lost their lives by committing to closing the gaps in oversight, preparedness, and communication to make our nation’s camps safer.

Your partner in loss reduction,

The post The Camp Gap – What We Can Learn from the Camp Mystic Tragedy first appeared on Association of State Floodplain Managers.

For those of you who have been paying attention to the tortured path that FEMA is walking these days, one takeaway is becoming increasingly clear: states and communities must prepare for a future where FEMA — and likely the federal government as a whole — plays a much smaller role both before and after a disaster. We are already seeing this in the hazard mitigation space with the cessation of BRIC funding and the President’s refusal (so far) to approve new disaster declarations for HMGP.

So, the key question is: What can states and communities do today to help make up for the shortfall of resources at the federal level? I am excited to unveil three concrete actions ASFPM is taking to support our members and help fill the emerging gaps.  

1. Free member access to ASCE 24-24. In today’s News & Views, you’ll see our announcement about the interactive digital version of ASCE 24-24 now being available at no cost to ASFPM members. If you are not familiar with it, ASCE 24-24 is the most significant update of floodplain management standards in over 50 years (since the creation of the NFIP minimums in 1973). It was developed through a rigorous consensus process and published this past January. 

While not yet a reference standard for the NFIP, ASFPM is already working with other organizations to get it into the International Building Code for the 2027 update. But there’s no need to wait, many states and communities have the ability to adopt the new ASCE 24-24 standard directly into their state model floodplain management regulations and/or local floodplain management ordinances — in fact, some have already started the process. ASFPM is working on a multi-phased approach to get ASCE 24-24 adopted throughout the nation (much more information to come), but a first step we can take is to remove the cost barrier by making the standard available to members.

2. More frequent state mentoring calls. Based on feedback received at the conference in New Orleans, we are increasing the frequency of our state mentoring calls with state floodplain managers and state hazard mitigation officers. These sessions will focus on real-world examples and approaches of state-led efforts to reduce flood risk. It’s a chance to learn from one another and strengthen the network of professionals doing this vital work.

3. New in-person training for state NFIP coordinators. After several years of development, later this month we will be launching a two-day in-person training workshop for new state NFIP coordinators on the essentials of state floodplain management. We have had so much interest that we will be holding a second workshop in September. The workshops will be led by experienced state floodplain managers who understand the challenges and opportunities of this role better than anyone. We are thrilled to welcome the first class to our headquarters in Madison, Wisconsin in a few weeks.

Looking Ahead, Together

Without a doubt, these are challenging times. Federal uncertainty can feel like the ground is shifting beneath our feet. But at the end of the day, I am incredibly proud that ASFPM can help be part of the solution going forward. Together we will work to help determine how states and communities can become better equipped to handle a world with increased flood risk and decreased federal support. After all, building better state and local capacity has been part of our DNA for nearly 50 years.

As always, if there’s something you’re tackling in your state or community that you need help with or a resource you wish existed, please reach out. Your feedback helps us focus our efforts where they’re needed most. Please drop me an email at chad@floods.org.  

Your partner in loss reduction,

The post Stepping Up Together: New Tools and Trainings to Meet the Moment first appeared on Association of State Floodplain Managers.

Consider just a few of the public policy questions that have arisen recently:

1. Should FEMA exist? Or, should FEMA be reformed — and if so, what are the reforms?
2. What is the role of the federal, state, and community in emergency management?
3. How should states and communities better invest in preparedness, response, and recovery?
4. Should the federal government be in the business of hazard mitigation or in long-term recovery for that matter?
5. Do floodplain standards matter? What if post-disaster rebuilding requirements get in the way? 
6. Should we continue with a 50-year-old standard for floodplain management (the NFIP minimums)? 
7. Why should climate change be a priority?
8. Why does science and research matter? 

Here is the problem: Many of the responses I hear to these answers are not truthful, support the position of the ideological camp the respondent represents, or invoke some loftier fuzzy goal rather than being a thoughtful or serious response. 

Case in point: I met with the staff of one of my newly elected Senators recently. I posed the question: What happens, due to budget cuts, when only 50% of FEMA shows up after you have been asked to sign onto a federal disaster declaration as part of the Congressional delegation? How do you respond to a flood survivor who is also your constituent? Do you think they will get the service level that they — or you — expect? The response that I received didn’t answer the question at all. And that was unfortunate, because there are some great ideas on how to reform FEMA being proposed by Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals — and agency staffers too. Wanting a government that works effectively and efficiently for the people it serves (us) is not confined to one party or ideology. But instead of an honest answer, I got the soundbite. 

Folks, we must have radically honest conversations about these important public policy questions, and we cannot let our leaders off the hook with a soundbite response. Policy changes have consequences that matter to our families, businesses, and communities. This includes the Kozlanski family in Scranton, Pennsylvania whose lives have been on hold since a 2023 flood. Their hope was in a BRIC project that was almost ready to be used for the flood buyout when, just last week, they were notified that the approved grant was being canceled. Any floodplain manager who has had to deal with the aftermath of a flood and used FEMA’s mitigation programs knows what it is like to be so close to the finish line — only to be told that the federal government is reneging on its commitment. It is shameful, as was FEMA’s announcement that almost seemed to celebrate the ending of a program that Congress and several previous administrations had deemed worthy of investment (see the great commentary by David Maurstad in this issue).  

When I think about ASFPM’s mission, especially when it comes to policy issues, there’s still so much work to do if we’re serious about reducing flood losses nationwide. But at the end of the day, it is all about the mission. How can we reduce flood losses in the nation? How can respect the natural benefits and functions of floodplains? How can we engage policymakers in a serious discussion about these issues? 

I am seeing a few green shoots that give me some hope. There have been two House hearings on the future of FEMA where I saw both Democrats and Republicans having an honest conversation about the agency. (Watch the recording of the March 4 and March 25 hearings.) Just last week, Senators Tim Sheehy (R-MT) and Adam Schiff (D-CA) introduced a bipartisan bill to incentivize hazard mitigation through tax credits (ASFPM has long advocated for changes in tax policy to give incentives for hazard mitigation). But as we are now in the middle of flood season in the Midwest, and hurricane season will start in June for our coastal states I worry. How will cuts to NOAA and the National Weather service impact preparedness and response to the next flood disaster? Will the president even approve a request from a governor for HMGP in a future disaster?

Despite the policy maelstrom happening around us, I’m hopeful that with dedication to the mission — backed by facts, science, and information — we can find policymakers who want to assist their constituents in their time of greatest need and help keep their communities safe from future events. And through radical honesty in our discussions, we can make change for the better.

Your partner in loss reduction,

The post Now Is the Time for Radical Honesty in Flood Policy first appeared on Association of State Floodplain Managers.

First, I want to take a moment to recognize the good work and collective effort of the civil servants in our federal workforce. You are in the eyewall of the hurricane (the eye would be too calm, right?).  Over the span of my 30+ year career working with multiple federal agencies, your collective passion and effort are admired and appreciated. To my FEMA colleagues, your dedication to the mission of helping others in our great nation, and your constant willingness to do whatever is needed is appreciated. I sincerely thank you for your service. Please do not forget the mission, and irrespective of the circumstances that are happening right now, the nation will always need strong federal leadership that includes a well-functioning FEMA.

Second, I’ve always believed that with change comes opportunity. Floods affect everyone, conservatives, liberals, and independents. Consider that our nation’s average annual flood losses exceed an eye-watering $40 billion per year. The Trump Administration has indicated that they are focused on the security, prosperity, and safety of the American people, to which I say perfect! Who can argue that good floodplain management doesn’t result in increased security, prosperity, and safety? Of course, this means recognizing that our changing climate has resulted in more extreme weather and flooding events, more powerful and destructive hurricanes, and rising sea levels. It also means recognizing that better codes and standards for buildings are necessary, and that when we look at costs to property owners, we cannot simply look at the cost of construction or rebuilding; rather, we must look at the total cost of ownership including insurance and the costs of being affected by a disaster time and time again. Finally, ensuring security, prosperity, and safety means that we’ve fully recognized and identified our nation’s flood hazards — both existing and new threats.  

Third, I am excited about the idea of government efficiency and I hope that meaningful progress can be made in this area. When I was a state employee early in my career, I embraced an initiative championed by Ohio’s late Governor George Voinovich called Quality Services through Partnership. It really was about making government more efficient through process improvement initiatives and delivering better, more streamlined services to the citizens of Ohio. Through the years, ASFPM has identified many areas where federal government programs could be made more efficient and effective and we look forward to working with Congress and the Trump Administration to make those things happen. 

Finally, I am excited about examining the proper roles and responsibilities of the federal government, states, communities, and private sector. In many areas, I would argue that the states do need to take a greater role with robust investments in capacity building. ASFPM welcomes having an honest conversation about what the FEMA of the future can and should do….and what it should not do.  ASFPM has never supported FEMA being in under the Department of Homeland Security; rather, we think it should be an independent agency with the FEMA Administrator serving at a Cabinet-level position. And while we adhere to the long-held belief that disaster management is locally executed, state managed, and federally supported, I wonder if that is truly the way it is happening today. Was that what happened in your community following its most recent disasters?

As a proud alumnus and enthusiastic supporter of the recently crowned national champion Ohio State Buckeyes, I am reminded of the words of former coach and now Ohio Lieutenant Governor Jim Tressel who said this about change and uncertainty: “Nothing is going to be all good or all bad in the future; you’re going to experience some of both no matter what you do…Whether you experience more good or more bad in your future is primarily decided by you — the decisions you make, the thoughts you think and the actions you take.”

Change is coming — whether we’re ready or not. But by taking decisive action now, we can ensure that change leads to a future of resilience, not regret.

Your partner in loss reduction,

The post Rising to the Challenge: Ensuring Flood Resilience in an Era of Change first appeared on Association of State Floodplain Managers.

FEMA Review Council

On January 24, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order establishing a FEMA Review Council. This Council is tasked with reviewing and recommending improvements to federal disaster assistance programs within 180 days.

ASFPM agrees there are systemic challenges to address, including reducing the complexity of disaster assistance, streamlining federal mitigation programs, incentivizing resilience, addressing severe repetitive loss, and building capacity at the state and local levels. 

Regardless of whether we get invited to be part of the 20-member FEMA Review Council, ASFPM stands ready to serve as a resource, drawing from decades of experience and member expertise to recommend actionable solutions. In addition, we are working with partner organizations to restart both the Stafford Act Coalition and The Flood Map Coalition, which had been dormant since the pandemic.  

The complexity of federal disaster programs has long been a concern for ASFPM and its members. Flooding continues to be the most common and costly natural disaster in the country, with more frequent and costly disasters on the rise. Between 2019-2023, there were 16 days on average between U.S. billion-dollar disasters, compared to 82 days in the 1980s, according to Climate Central. These numbers highlight the importance of building state and local capacity while ensuring federal programs are more accessible and effective for those that need them.

ASFPM will continue working to:

• Advocate for streamlined access to hazard mitigation programs, ensuring smaller communities can fully participate and benefit.
• Promote strong incentives for state and local governments to strengthen their capacity to manage and reduce flood risks.
• Push for significant reductions in the administrative burden placed on communities and disaster survivors, enabling faster and more effective recovery.
• Equip states and communities with the tools and resources needed to proactively address and mitigate flood risk, including robust funding for a National Flood Mapping Program, and meaningful support for and reforms of the National Flood Insurance Program.
• Integrate resilience as a cornerstone of federal flood policies to better protect communities and infrastructure.

Pause in Federal Aid 

Yesterday, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) ordered a temporary pause in grants, loans and other federal financial assistance, this includes both new awards as well as the disbursement of funds under existing awards. There are many uncertainties around the vaguely worded OMB memo, including the biggest, which is whether President Trump has the authority to unilaterally halt funding that has already been allocated by Congress. We are trying to learn more about this issue, which could impact state and local governments and nongovernmental organizations, including ASFPM. Earlier this afternoon we learned that a coalition of organizations filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to block this effort by the OMB. 

FFRMS Remains in Effect for HUD and FEMA

The Administration’s Day 1 Executive Order rescinded the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard (FFRMS), which has become a ping-pong ball depending on who’s in office, however the rules finalized by FEMA and HUD last year remain in effect until we hear otherwise. We are still waiting on clarification from both agencies. These standards are critical for reducing long-term risk in flood-prone areas and must be upheld to protect communities and taxpayers alike.

Interestingly, and completely unrelated to the Administration’s first week of activities, the ASCE 24-24 was just released and it significantly raises the bar when it comes to floodplain management standards. We are working on numerous things related to this standard, and we will share those with members shortly. It’s important to note that as a consensus standard and the reference standard for flood design and elevation criteria in the International Building Code, its adoption is not subject to changes in federal policy.

Dismissal of Advisory Committees

A less reported activity from a busy first week was the dismissal of members from FEMA’s advisory council, including the National Advisory Council (NAC), on which I was currently serving, as well as the Technical Mapping Advisory Council and National Dam Safety Review Board, where we had members serving. This move is very disappointing. These councils have provided invaluable input on key issues, and ASFPM recognizes and deeply appreciates the significant contributions many of you have made in these roles.

Budgets Remain Unclear

Federal budgets for FY25 and FY26 remain in flux. Ongoing negotiations, the debt ceiling, and disaster aid supplemental funding are all part of the complex discussions that could significantly influence multiple agencies’ resources and priorities. ASFPM is closely monitoring developments to ensure floodplain management programs, flood hazard mapping/data programs, and flood hazard mitigation are adequately supported.

Looking Ahead

ASFPM is committed to working with the Administration, Congress, and the FEMA Review Council to advance solutions that improve the safety and security of all communities across the nation. Our focus remains on reducing flood risk, increasing disaster resilience, and ensuring that federal programs support local and state efforts effectively.

For a deeper dive into these issues, join us this Thursday for the ASFPM’s National Policy briefing. During the webinar, we’ll discuss these topics in detail and share updates on our advocacy efforts.

We know this is a lot to digest and there are still many unknowns. We will continue to share information on these and other items as we learn more. As always, thank you for your continued dedication to flood resilience and your support of ASFPM’s mission. Together, we can navigate these new challenges and ensure a stronger, more resilient future. 

Your partner in loss reduction,

The post Trump’s Executive Orders, FEMA, and ASFPM’s Role in Helping to Shape the Future first appeared on Association of State Floodplain Managers.

Although the devastation is undeniable, if there’s one potentially positive outcome it’s the surge in public attention on our nation’s flood issues. In fact, in an interview just one week after Helene made landfall, I was asked by a reporter what would be the big message I would like to give to those affected. And the response was crystal clear in my mind:

This is the opportunity to rebuild resiliently. Never, ever think these rare events couldn’t happen again within a week, or a month, or a year, even if it is called a 500-year or 1000-year event. It will happen again, so instead of thinking of “getting back to normal” as soon as possible, pause and think how you can take this opportunity to be resilient.

At the time of the interview, Milton was not a known threat, and these back-to-back hurricanes have certainly added to the complexity of how we respond. But here we are. What comes next?

After previous flood events of national significance — think Katrina, Sandy, Harvey — ASFPM did several things that I truly think contributed to the rebuilding and recovery effort. We are now applying those same strategies in response to Helene and Milton. Here are the three big things that we’re doing to help:

• Working with the media. ASFPM has been getting requests for interviews on a daily basis, which allows us to bring our expertise to bear on the current event and dispel rumors and myths. Some of the focus in these conversations include the need to consider mitigation and resilience when rebuilding, that the longer-term recovery and mitigation effort is a joint responsibility of all levels of government and the private sector and individuals, and how the new Federal Flood Risk Management Standard could have an impact on rebuilding. It also gives us a chance to put these events into context of the larger arc of rising flood damages in the nation and how programs like the NFIP actually work.  
• Creating a dedicated webpage with curated resources for members, floodplain managers, and the public. More than ever, there is a lot of information available from all sorts of sources — some good, some not so good. Our post-flood resources webpage highlights official information from the responsible agencies at the federal and state level, shares links on how to dispel rumors, curates well-researched articles that discuss flood risk management issues unique to these events, and features some ASFPM resources that could be helpful to local floodplain managers and the public as they recover. We’ll be adding more content to the page in the coming weeks.
• Making progress on policy priorities. Large flood events provide an opportunity to get out some key messages based on our longstanding ASFPM priorities and policy positions. We work with the Administration as well as Congress and, in the past, have worked with individual states to develop and implement long-term policy solutions to help reduce flood risk (e.g., after Harvey, ASFPM was asked to participate in the Governor’s Commission to Rebuild Texas). Some of these priorities include promoting NFIP reforms, speeding up flood mitigation grant programs, and having robust flood mapping everywhere in the nation. ASFPM will soon publish a detailed list of policy recommendations for consideration after Helene and Milton.

For those of you in the ASFPM family who have been affected by Helene and Milton, our thoughts and prayers are certainly with you! These are the times that it truly takes a community to help a community and we will no doubt have hundreds if not thousands of members engaged in the long-term recovery after Helene and Milton. If there is a silver lining, however, it’s that sometimes it takes a disaster to realize that we must make changes if we are to move forward in a responsible and resilient way. Let’s not let that opportunity slip past; add your voice to the conversation and be a champion for the positive change we need to truly reduce flood losses in the nation.

Your partner in loss reduction,

The post After Helene and Milton, What Comes Next? first appeared on Association of State Floodplain Managers.