The Federal Register published the “Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking” on September 9, with a 30-day public comment period ending October 9. The agencies say the purpose is “to provide greater regulatory certainty and [to] increase Clean Water Act program predictability and consistency.”

This latest proposed rulemaking, however, is yet another iteration of the continued narrowing of the CWA’s applicability, set in motion most recently by the Supreme Court’s 2023 Sackett v. EPA decision. In the court’s efforts to create “bright line” tests for where wetlands are, the court and now EPA and the Corps are radically down-scoping and limiting the extent of jurisdictional wetlands.

The Natural Resources Defense Council estimates that at least 94 percent of wetlands in the continental U.S. are at risk of losing their Clean Water Act protections with the options that are now being considered. This would include nearly all intermittent streams in the western U.S.

The Sackett decision defined a wetland as, first, a “relatively permanent” body of water that must be connected to traditional interstate navigable waters, and second, that wetlands are WOTUS only when they are “as a practical matter indistinguishable from waters of the United States” with a “continuous surface connection,” such that it is difficult to determine where the “water” ends and the “wetland” begins.

Since then, the EPA and Corps have struggled to more explicitly define that point, and in November 2025, they proposed a set of definitions that narrowed the scope of “relatively permanent” to waters standing or flowing year-round “or at least during the wet season.” These proposals drew more than 225,000 public comments.

The agencies have since questioned whether the term “the wet season” is too vague as an exception and are now proposing alternative language to be considered along with — or instead of — the November 2025 proposal.

The agencies’ latest proposal is to call for only “perennial” waters “having standing or continuously flowing water every day of the year during ordinary conditions” to be considered as CWA-protected wetlands. Some quite narrow anomalous conditions specifically for drought or dry spell are suggested as “exceptions,” but with no science offered to support them.

If adopted, this approach would all but eliminate federal protections for the vast bulk of the nation’s wetlands, especially in the arid western states.

In no place do these proposals recognize that most rivers, streams, and coastal areas have floodplains, and that these are natural features that also often directly support wetlands.

The new September 2026 proposal is now subject to public comment through October 9. ASFPM urges interested members to consider filing comments, as the association plans to do as well. Our previous letter, submitted in response to the November proposal, is available here.

The post New Proposal Further Limits Clean Water Act Wetland Protections first appeared on Association of State Floodplain Managers.

The stakes are high as the nation faces increasingly costly flood events. ASFPM’s analysis shows that average annual flood losses have roughly doubled each decade since the 1990s, with annual losses averaging more than $40 billion so far this decade. At the same time, the NFIP Minimum Standards that HUD would reinstate are more than 50 years old and have been shown to be insufficient for today’s flood risks.

ASFPM’s comments point to more modern standards already in place, including ASCE 24-24, which provides stronger protections and will be incorporated into the 2027 International Building Code and International Residential Code. 

ASFPM also challenges the economic rationale for rescinding the FFRMS. The proposed rule focuses heavily on the potential costs of higher construction standards while failing to account for the broader costs of flooding — including damage to homes and infrastructure, impacts on businesses and local economies, rescue and recovery costs, and the long-term effects on residents. These costs are particularly significant for low- and moderate-income households, which are disproportionately located in flood-prone areas and have fewer resources to recover after a disaster.

In its comments, ASFPM recommends that HUD keep the FFRMS intact, or adopt an equivalent standard, while also exploring ways to make flood insurance more affordable and leverage HUD programs to mitigate flood risk to existing affordable housing.

Read the full comment letter   

The post ASFPM Opposes HUD Proposal to Rescind Federal Flood Risk Management Standard first appeared on Association of State Floodplain Managers.

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

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

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

Some key elements of the SAFE Rural Act include:

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

ASFPM, NAFSMA Voice Support for SAFE Rural Act

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

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

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

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

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

The post SAFE Rural Act Aims to Close the Gap in Pre-Disaster Flood Mitigation Opportunities for Rural and Tribal Communities first appeared on Association of State Floodplain Managers.

While federal flood insurance subsidizes risky coastal and waterfront development for wealthier homeowners by lowering the cost of living in these areas, many low-income households in flood-prone areas remain stuck with risky properties and little help.

As a disaster recovery researcher, I’ve witnessed how perverse incentives create different cycles of vulnerability across income levels. The problem with federal disaster insurance today isn’t just about subsidizing wealthier coastal homeowners – it’s equally about leaving low-income households systematically underinsured without resources to either protect themselves or leave.

Federal flood insurance’s moral hazards

The National Flood Insurance Program was established by Congress in 1968 to provide affordable flood insurance to the public while encouraging floodplain management.

Communities that participate in the program are required to adopt regulations to reduce flood risk in their areas for their residents to qualify. The insurance policies, around 4.7 million today, are purchased either through the program or insurance companies but administered and underwritten by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the nation’s disaster response agency. When the policy cost is lower than the risk, the property is being subsidized by the federal program.

The National Flood Insurance Program did succeed in providing accessible insurance for many people, but it also produced a “moral hazard,” where people take on risk without bearing its full consequences. What’s less well understood is that this operates differently by income level.

FEMA is currently working to adjust flood insurance prices to more closely match each property’s actual risk. The program’s Risk Rating 2.0 changes, which began in 2021, aimed to transition policies to full-risk pricing for everyone. The annual premium increases are capped by law at 18% for primary residences, so full-risk pricing won’t be fully reached until around 2037, according to federal estimates.

But there’s another, less visible problem: Federal flood insurance already wasn’t affordable for many people.

In low-income neighborhoods, more than 90% of households are estimated to be underinsured, and their uninsured losses when they experience flooding often exceeds 20% of their annual income.

Many families are unable to afford federal flood insurance premiums – only 37% of all policyholders pay less than $1,000 per year, according to FEMA. Instead, homeowners may skip insurance, gambling that disasters won’t strike. When floods do occur, these households can face catastrophic uninsured losses.

Homeowners and renters may also choose federal flood insurance plans with lower premiums but that provide less coverage in a disaster, and even those plan costs can be high.

Because the federal flood insurance program doesn’t specifically help those who cannot afford premiums, this creates a structural trap: Wealthier homeowners receive government-subsidized insurance support for risky properties, while many lower-income households fall outside the system entirely.

Severe repetitive loss homes

FEMA’s repetitive loss properties also tell a story. Roughly 1% of National Flood Insurance Program properties are considered “severe repetitive loss” homes – those with multiple flood events over a 10-year period. Historically, those properties have accounted for nearly 30% of all claim payments.

Low-income households that can’t afford to move can end up experiencing repeated losses, depleting their savings and leaving them facing persistent instability.

My research in Puerto Rico has shown how this repeated rebuilding deepens vulnerability, trapping families in a cycle where each disaster pushes them further into poverty and housing insecurity rather than allowing them to recover, what sociologists call “downward mobility.”

Breaking both cycles

Addressing these moral hazards requires different responses.

Income-based assistance programs such as FEMA’s Flood Mitigation Assistance grants can help ensure families aren’t priced out of safety. For example, the upfront cost of home improvements that could reduce a home’s flood exposure, such as elevating the home or flood-proofing the property, can be too high for many people to afford, but assistance programs can help.

Voluntary buyout programs can also be effective in helping low-income homeowners relocate from risky properties – if those programs offer fair market value, meaningful relocation support and timely implementation. Prolonged, underfunded buyout processes can be harder for households with less cash available to manage.

The National Flood Insurance Program has another ongoing problem as more people move to flood-risk areas and as property values and storm damage rise. By early 2025, the program was about $22.5 billion in debt to the U.S. Treasury, even after Congress canceled $16 billion in debt in 2017. That debt accumulates $1.7 million in interest daily – costs borne by current and future policyholders through their premiums.

I believe fixing federal flood insurance will require an approach that prices risk accurately for those who can afford it while providing genuine assistance for low-income homeowners, for example, through affordable insurance, aid for projects that reduce homes’ vulnerability or equitable buyouts.

The water will come again. Flooding will strike both the insured mansions on the coasts and the uninsured mobile homes inland. The question is whether U.S. policies will continue leaving different forms of moral hazard for rich and poor or whether the government will finally align the country’s disaster response with reality.

Ivis García is an Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning at Texas A&M University.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post Federal Flood Insurance Carries Two Moral Hazards – Which You Face Depends Largely on How Wealthy You Are 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.

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.

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.

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.

Investing in FEMA’s core hazard mitigation and resilience programs is among the most cost-effective steps the federal government can take to reduce disaster costs, protect lives and property, and support state and local governments. Disaster resilience requires both robust funding and competent administration.

ASFPM recommendations for FY2027 focus on these seven issues:

1. Fully Fund and Stabilize the Flood Risk Mapping Program – $400 Million requested
2. Strengthen and Stabilize Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) – $175 Million requested
3. Restore Confidence and Stability in Pre-Disaster Mitigation (BRIC) – $200 Million Plus 30% State Set-Aside
4. Restore NFIP Operational Capacity
5. Fund an NFIP Means-Tested Affordability Program Through New Appropriations
6. Cancel the NFIP’s Remaining Debt
7. Fund the National Dam Safety Program – $9.96 Million requested

Download the full written testimony

ASFPM will continue to submit testimony to the House and Senate on all key programs that impact flood and floodplain management programs.

The post ASFPM Outlines Seven Key Recommendations for FEMA Funding in FY2027 first appeared on Association of State Floodplain Managers.