In its comments, ASFPM emphasized that the proposed definition goes well beyond what is required by the Supreme Court’s 2023 Sackett v. EPA decision and would substantially weaken federal protections for wetlands, streams, and floodplains that play a critical role in reducing flood risk and protecting public safety. As ASFPM noted, “If adopted, this rule will have a highly counterproductive result, particularly endangering countless communities from water pollution and from dredge and fill and watershed altering activities exacerbating flooding risks, many of which otherwise could have been avoided or mitigated.”

ASFPM’s comments focused on several overarching concerns, including:

• Significant reductions in federal jurisdiction over wetlands and streams, particularly in states that rely solely on the federal Clean Water Act framework
• Increased flood risk resulting from the loss of natural flood storage, conveyance, and buffering functions provided by wetlands and floodplains
• Insufficient consideration of floodplain management and public safety, despite the Clean Water Act’s long-standing role in reducing disaster losses
• Greater regulatory and administrative burdens on states, tribes, and local governments, many of which lack the authority or resources to fill the gaps left by federal rollbacks

Overall, ASFPM concluded that flood risk management and public safety have been “woefully and dangerously ignored” in the proposed rule and urged EPA and the Corps to develop a more balanced, science-based approach that reflects the Clean Water Act’s purpose and the realities of watershed-scale flooding.

Read the ASFPM comment letter for more details on the association’s concerns and recommendations

ASFPM’s comments were among the 742 letters submitted in response to the proposed rule, both for and against—a relatively high number given the short, 45-day comment period that coincided with multiple major holidays. View the letters on Regulations.gov.

The post ASFPM Urges EPA and the Corps to Reconsider WOTUS Proposal first appeared on Association of State Floodplain Managers.

The post ASFPM Engages USACE on Nonstructural Flood Solutions first appeared on Association of State Floodplain Managers.

Key points from ASFPM’s comments include:

• FEMA plays a critical role in making communities, and the nation, more resilient. Its work across all four phases of disaster management—preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation—has helped protect lives, property, and local economies.
• Eliminating FEMA would undermine decades of progress in disaster management. ASFPM strongly opposes any proposal to dissolve or eliminate the agency.
• Restoring FEMA’s independence as a Cabinet-level agency would improve accountability, streamline operations, and allow the Administrator to advocate more directly for the urgent needs of disaster survivors.
• The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) must remain intact and housed within FEMA. Its four pillars—floodplain mapping, flood insurance, regulations, and mitigation—are foundational to national flood risk management and directly support FEMA’s broader mission.
• Incentivizing state leadership in hazard mitigation is essential. ASFPM supports restructuring mitigation programs to reward proactive state investments—such as maintaining complementary state programs, adopting resilient building codes, and advancing mitigation planning. Tools like a Public Assistance Disaster deductible and state allocations of BRIC funds could accelerate project delivery, simplify administration, and build long-term capacity. These changes should be phased in thoughtfully to give states time to prepare.

In short, ASFPM urged the Review Council to keep FEMA but fix what’s broken.

We stressed the importance of strengthening FEMA’s capacity and leadership at a time when natural disasters are becoming more frequent and severe. Continued investment in FEMA’s core hazard mitigation and resilience programs remains one of the most cost-effective strategies the federal government can pursue to reduce disaster costs, support state and local governments, and protect communities nationwide.

Read the full comment letter

NRDC produced a summary of the 4,661 public comments posted to the regulations.gov docket as of May 12. Of those comments, 98% expressed support for FEMA. By the close of the comment period on May 15, more than 13,000 comments had been submitted.

The post ASFPM Submits Recommendations to Strengthen FEMA first appeared on Association of State Floodplain Managers.

This transition also brings a special opportunity to engage and educate new lawmakers — whether newly elected to Congress or newly assigned to key committees — on the critical role of floodplain management and federal flood programs. Building relationships with these policymakers and their staff is essential to ensuring they understand the value of these programs in reducing flood risks, protecting lives and property, and supporting resilient communities nationwide.  

Recognizing these dynamics, the ASFPM Policy Team has established the following priorities to guide our engagement with the 119th Congress and federal agencies throughout 2025:  (Download PDF)

LEGISLATION

I.  NFIP Reform: Work collaboratively with Congress to seek increased authorization of appropriations to support expedited completion of national flood mapping; enact flood insurance affordability measures; ensure a long-term sound financial framework; address the issues between NFIP and private insurance; increase the role of mitigation in managing flood risk; authorize and increase authorization of Community Assistance Program funding for states to no less than $20 million annually to better help communities manage and mitigate flood risk.

II.  Stafford Reform – BRIC Reform: Work collaboratively with Congress to establish a state assistance program that provides base funding to states in order to build a base level of capacity to provide technical assistance to all communities accessing, applying for, and implementing mitigation grant funding programs; adjust the Stafford Act to include language to provide balanced access to the funds for state and local small-scale mitigation priorities in addition to large-scale infrastructure projects; recognize and reward other state and local mitigation efforts, such as higher floodplain management standards and enhanced state mitigation plans in grant scoring criteria; modernize and reform FEMA’s disaster assistance programs to be more efficient and to incentivize state and local actions to reduce disaster impacts; and reduce bureaucracy in the delivery of all Stafford Act-related mitigation programs, including when and how it is appropriate to use big data sets like the National Risk Index, modernize management costs, and delegate hazard mitigation programs to capable states.  

III. FY2026 Appropriations: Seek maximum authorization of appropriations in FY2026 budgets for flood programs in federal government, including flood mapping ($800 million annually), technical assistance/capability programs at FEMA and the US Army Corps of Engineers, USGS 3_DEP and stream gaging, NOAA Atlas 15, and the Digital Coast. Significant cuts to most discretionary programs are expected, so advocacy and outreach will be tremendously important.

IV. Climate Resiliency: Where applicable, work with the Trump Administration and Congress to incorporate climate preparedness and adaptations into federal flood policies and programs.

V. Digital Coast: Work with NOAA and other Digital Coast partners to raise the need to reauthorize the Digital Coast Act in 2025, while seeking appropriations for the program in FY2026 and beyond. Work with Congress to seek bipartisan support for reauthorization. Update relevant appropriations committees on Digital Coast successes and need for viable appropriations in outgoing years. 

VI. Farm Bill:  Work with NGO partners and Congress to support conservation-related provisions and expansion of the availability and utilization of flood easements in the Farm Bill reauthorization.

AGENCY ACTIONS

I. New Agency Outreach: Seek to educate, inform, and advocate for federal flood programs at agencies as new appointees and staff are installed. Commit to ongoing communication to provide subject matter expertise on floodplain management and flood programs with the federal government. Continue to update our federal partners on flood risk management, mapping, and mitigation issues, and use of natural and nature-based approaches.

II. Better Flood Risk Management Standards for Federal Investments: While a new Executive Order will likely halt some agency work, we will continue to work with FEMA and HUD as they provide guidance and technical support to implement the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard (FFRMS) and/or other measures to reduce the impact and cost of flooding on people and communities and protect federal infrastructure investments and other taxpayer-funded projects. We will also work with all relevant agencies to highlight the need for some type of standard that goes beyond the NFIP minimums.  

III. Advisory Council Assistance. Actively engage with and provide information, assistance, and recommendations to the FEMA Review Council established by EO 14180. Promote activation and continuation of the FEMA Technical Mapping Advisory Council, the National Advisory Council, and other bodies providing technical and policy input on floodplain management. 

IV. NFIP Minimum Standards: Actively participate in any potential rulemaking or other agency actions that may occur. Keep Congress informed on the importance of this effort and explain the need for stronger NFIP minimum standards.

V.  Flood Insurance Affordability: Collaborate with organizational partners to continue to inform and educate consumers on changes to NFIP affordability; work with FEMA to improve the rate impact of flood mitigation measures so that we continue to incentivize mitigation grant programs, land-use standards, and NFIP policy retention. Continue to provide input to FEMA on the mitigation discount estimator tool and other informational outputs.

VI. Disclosure Issues: Promote meaningful flood disclosure law requirements and support incentives for states to adopt such laws; work to overcome issues related to Personally Identifiable Information (PII) and NFIP claims data, as well as other data sharing (such as public official information), while maintaining personal data security.

VII. Precipitation Updates: Work with NOAA and other partners to ensure timely updates to nationwide rainfall frequency data, including data and estimates that reflect future conditions (Atlas 15) and extreme precipitation methodology (PMP).

VIII. National Levee Safety Programs: Work with agencies responsible for implementation of the National Levee Safety Program to provide effective guidance for states to implement or improve state Levee Safety Programs.

IX. Corps of Engineers WRDA 2024. Work with the Army Corps of Engineers, especially across their Continuing Authorities (CA) programs, to develop early implementation guidance and direction for CA and other new authorizations. 

X. Federal Agency Rulemaking: Participate in relevant opportunities to respond to the federal rulemaking process, including Floodplain Management Standards, Community Rating System redesign, Individual Assistance, Principles, Rules & Guidelines, and others that arise.

STATE WORK

I. State Issues that Arise: When requested, assist individual states on issues impacting them. Continue to track currently identified state issues and update members as needed.

II. State Higher Development Standards: Encourage states and communities to adopt development standards similar to those in the HUD and FEMA FFRMS rules.

RELATIONSHIPS

I. Maintain Involvement in Current Coalitions, Caucuses, and Working Groups: Continue to represent ASFPM issues and priorities at all current affiliation meetings. Update/create MOUs as appropriate with NGOs and agency partners. Current priorities include Stafford Coalition and Flood Map Coalition and informal coalitions of NGOs concerned with floodplain management and natural and beneficial functions.  

II.  Increase Opportunities to Leverage Efforts with Other Professional Groups: Engage with additional professional coalitions, alliances, and working groups with whom ASFPM shares interests to amplify efforts to address, protect, and improve federal flood policies and programs, including the National Emergency Management Association (NEMA), International Association of Emergency Managers (IAEM), American Planning Association (APA), American Flood Coalition (AFC), and the National Association of Wetland Managers (NAWM). We also will continue to strengthen partnerships with BuildStrong America, Flood Mitigation Industry Association, and the Coastal States Organization. 

III.  Develop Relationships with Additional Federal Agencies: Engage with additional agencies with whom we have limited or no recent interaction, such as HUD, the Small Business Administration (SBA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Department of Transportation (DOT), General Services Administration (GSA), and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to increase ASFPM’s partnerships at the federal level to spur agency collaboration to reduce flood risk. 

The post ASFPM Legislative and Policy Plan for Calendar Year 2025 first appeared on Association of State Floodplain Managers.

“Ignoring reality doesn’t make it go away. Rebuilding hospitals, highways and sewage plants in the path of floods puts people in danger when the next storm hits and means the federal government will be back, paying to rebuild this infrastructure again and again,” said Rob Moore, director of flooding solutions at NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council). “We already know what the cycle of flood-rebuild-repeat looks like. This means that billions of dollars in disaster aid will be wasted and people will be put in harm’s way.” 

The flood protection standard ensures that public buildings, bridges and roads, public utilities, and other infrastructure that are damaged in a flood are sited and rebuilt so they are less vulnerable to future flood damages. The standard requires that facilities be rebuilt with an additional margin of safety for flooding and, in coastal areas, that projects be sited and designed with future sea level rise in mind.

Between 2015 and 2024 FEMA spent more than $60 billion to rebuild public buildings and infrastructure in the aftermath of flood disasters, the majority of which were built to local or state codes that proved inadequate and do not take into account future flood risks or sea level rise.  This includes:

• $9.9 billion for roads and bridges
• $1.1 billion for levees, seawalls, and other water management infrastructure
• $27.3 billion for utilities, including water and sewer plants
• 19.1 billion for public buildings, including publicly owned affordable housing units
• $3.0 billion for parks and other facilities

Failing to implement this standard means the federal government will continue to throw good money after bad, rebuilding public buildings and infrastructure to a less protective design standard that a recent disaster has already demonstrated to be inadequate.  

“The Trump administration will squander billions in taxpayer dollars to rebuild things that are very likely to be washed away again — not to mention knowingly putting people in harm’s way,” said Chad Berginnis, executive director of the Association of State Floodplain Managers. 

FEMA is not the only agency likely impacted. President Trump revoked the executive order establishing the flood protection standard upon assuming office in January. This is the second time he’s revoked this standard, undermining federal efforts to make the nation more prepared for rising seas and flood risks. 

###

BACKGROUND MATERIAL

The FFRMS was developed because it is no longer safe or adequate to build for the flood risks of the past. More extreme rainfall and rising seas are exacerbating flood risk across the nation. FEMA already spends billions of dollars per year helping communities rebuild flood damaged infrastructure, but is not built to FFRMS standards. Since 2015, the federal government, through FEMA, has spent $60 billion to rebuild flood-damaged public buildings, roads, and water and electric utilities to standards that are less safe than FFRMS standards. As climate change exacerbates flooding, federal taxpayers will increasingly be on the hook for post-flood recovery. 

Public Assistance for 2020-2024 Flood-Related Disasters* (millions)

Categories C through G only. Incident types: coastal storm, dam/levee break, flood, hurricane, severe storm(s), tropical storm, tsunami, typhoon.

Public Assistance for 2015-2019 Flood-Related Disasters (millions)

Categories C through G only. Incident types: coastal storm, dam/levee break, flood, hurricane, severe storm(s), tropical storm, tsunami, typhoon.

Top 10 States: Public Assistance for 2015-2024 Flood-Related Disasters

Categories C through G only. Incident types: coastal storm, dam/levee break, flood, hurricane, severe storm(s), tropical storm, tsunami, typhoon. Excludes U.S. territories.

Top 10 Counties: Public Assistance for 2015-2024 Flood-Related Disasters

Categories C through G only. Incident types: coastal storm, dam/levee break, flood, hurricane, severe storm(s), tropical storm, tsunami, typhoon. Excludes U.S. territories.

The post FEMA Halts Rule That Protects Against Future Floods first appeared on Association of State Floodplain Managers.

I read this report a couple of days before leaving for a trip to Washington, DC where ASFPM’s policy team spent two days meeting with various House of Representative members and educating their offices on the nation’s critical floodplain management needs. In many of the meetings, we discussed flood mapping. Why? Because it is one area where chronic underinvestment has led to a staggering increase in flood losses. When we’ve only mapped about one-third of the nation’s floodplains, we can’t possibly hope to practice good land use, have effective codes and standards, know where we should prioritize buying flood insurance, and think that nationwide we are going to show real progress in slowing or stopping the increase in flood losses. So what is the solution? I will summarize it in one sentence: Finish the job mapping the country using FEMA’s Future of Flood Risk Data framework incorporating the Technical Mapping Advisory Council’s 2023 Report’s recommendations on flood mapping while also completing the rulemaking effort to update the NFIP minimum building and land use standards. See that was easy, right? OK, so let’s unpack this a bit.

First, we need to convince Congress that we have a flood mapping problem in the country. While the
Biden Administration had requested $363 million on flood map funding earlier this year, the House’s
proposed flood mapping budget for FY25 is only $312.75 million, which is a 14% reduction from the President’s request.  

And, at current funding levels, we are making almost no progress in mapping the streams, rivers, and other areas that have not yet been mapped. ASFPM’s latest version of its Flood Mapping for the Nation report estimates it will cost between $3.2 and $11.8 billion to complete the job mapping the nation’s flood hazards. As we said several times to Congressional staffers over the past couple of days, for less than the cost of flood damages of one Category 1 Hurricane Debby, we could fund the entire effort to update the nation’s flood maps. 

Second, FEMA needs to transition its Future of Flood Risk Data (FFRD) initiative from a conceptual design and testing phase and into nationwide implementation. The FFRD initiative has been around for several years and we are now at the point where some pilots are being conducted and mock ups of various data products are being produced. From what I have seen, FEMA is on the right track and the new products do a good job of much more comprehensively communicating flood risk that actually exists (spoiler alert — flood hazards are typically a whole lot more extensive than what we see on existing FIRMs). I also believe that this will elevate the FEMA flood mapping and risk data products to meet public expectations that what FEMA produces reasonably reflects the actual flood risk in a given area.

Third, the FFRD approach needs to incorporate two very important TMAC recommendations from its 2023 report: 1) map and separate Special Flood Hazard Areas from more comprehensive and forward looking Floodprone Areas (FPAs), and 2) to have these areas based on the 95% confidence limit. I urge everyone to read this report and the rationale behind these two recommendations. To explain our current situation in the context of the statistics cited at the beginning of this column, something isn’t quite right with our maps when we have significantly higher flood losses outside of the mapped floodplain. Remember, today’s flood maps are based on a 50% confidence limit which means it is a 50/50 chance that the map reflects the actual 100-year flood (and the 50% confidence limit was a compromise made in the early days of the NFIP). No wonder we keep seeing headlines after many flood events about these large losses outside of known floodplains.

Finally, FEMA needs to complete a comprehensive update of the NFIP’s minimum land use and building standards which — if we follow the TMAC recommendations — would apply in Special Flood Hazard Areas and Flood Prone Areas. We would end the dynamic that is really plaguing communities all over the country with housing subdivisions being built in areas that were never mapped because they were farm fields with low/no risk and, as a result, built with minimum resilience to today’s and tomorrow’s floods.

FEMA’s minimum floodplain standards haven’t substantially changed in more than 40 years and we have learned much in that time. On January 5, 2021, ASFPM and the Natural Resources Defense Council, petitioned FEMA to initiate rulemaking to update these standards. FEMA’s response to the petition was favorable. In the years since, FEMA has issued a Request for Information (RFI) and according to the Administration’s current regulatory agenda, the long term goal (defined as no regulatory action will occur in the next 12 months) is FEMA “will propose regulations to better align the NFIP minimum floodplain management standards with FEMA’s current understanding of flood risk, flood insurance premium rates, and risk reduction approaches to make communities safer, stronger, and more resilient to increased flooding.”  

Unfortunately, we are only about two-thirds the way through 2024 and already we have seen massive flood losses. As a nation we are on pace to once again double our average annual flood losses this decade to over $40 billion annually. We have to do something to stop the hemorrhaging and finally finishing the job of getting accurate flood maps for the entire nation is a good place to start.

Your partner in loss reduction,

The post Why Finishing the Nation’s Flood Maps Is More Critical Than Ever first appeared on Association of State Floodplain Managers.

In its final rule for Federal Flood Risk Management Standard (FFRMS) published in the Federal Register on April 23, HUD is requiring any new or rebuilt HUD-funded homes to be elevated 2 feet above the local flood level and enlarges the flood zones where the elevation requirement applies.

ASFPM Executive Director Chad Berginnis praised the new rule and said he expects that states, counties and municipalities will work to adopt stronger elevation requirements to match HUD’s new standard.

“This rule is a win for the country and a win for flood resilience,” Berginnis told E&E News. “We have got to change the trajectory of losses in the country, and it’s only by having higher standards that we’re going to get there.”

The rule also establishes a preference for (but does not yet require) use of a Climate Informed Science Approach (CISA) to determine the floodplain of concern for HUD-funded projects, when possible. The floodplain identified using CISA provides the elevation and flood hazard area that results from using a climate-informed science approach based on best-available, actionable hydrologic and hydraulic data.

“In updating flood risk standards, HUD is providing communities the flexibility to calculate their true risk. People of modest means are more likely to live in a flood-prone place and have a longer time recovering when disaster strikes,” said Marion McFadden, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development. “This rule will ensure HUD supported properties have the best chance of being undisturbed when flooding occurs. It is the responsibility of the federal government to ensure that taxpayer investments are built to withstand foreseeable risk — and has the added benefit of reducing the cost of flood insurance for property owners.”

HUD estimates approximately 10% of new Federal Housing Administration (FHA) single family homes constructed each year are within the 100-year floodplain, and many of those homes are already located in areas where state or local standards are higher than HUD’s previous standard. The updated standard reduces FHA homeowners’ exposure to losses caused by flooding, reduces insurance costs, and most importantly protects the risk to life faced in areas of greater flood risk.

“After many years in the making, this is the best possible standard that HUD could have issued,” said Shana Udvardy, senior climate resilience policy analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “For decades, the federal government has been relying on a standard based on the past climate. This rule will change that business-as-usual practice, which wasted taxpayer dollars, put people in harm’s way and allowed for the limited affordable public housing stock to be flooded, in some cases again and again. This puts an end to that foolhardy cycle.”

Flooding is the most common and costly weather-related disaster in the United States costing taxpayers billions of dollars a year in economic losses, health impacts and funding to recover damages and rebuild or repair property. In 2023, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the expected annual flood damages in 2020 to homes with federally backed mortgages were $9.4 billion and projected to increase to $12.8 billion annually by 2050. The impact on individual and multifamily homeowners is estimated to be equally staggering, with just 1 inch of floodwater resulting in losses ranging from $10,000 to $27,000 depending on the size of the home. When the elevation and floodproofing standards required by the rule are applied, HUD estimates the total combined benefits for each year of construction will result in approximately $56.4 million to $324.3 million in savings over the lifetime of the properties (40 years). These savings are a result of cost reductions due to decreased flood insurance premiums, reduced flood damage to buildings, cost avoided for homeowners and tenants, reduced expenses associated with relocation or temporary housing, and loss of income due to flooding events.

Some industry groups, including the National Association of Home Builders and the Mortgage Bankers Association, raised concerns about the new elevation standard when HUD proposed it in 2023. The NAHB issued a statement that they are “disappointed” in the final rule.

New Flood Standard Revisions

The final FFRMS rule includes the following revisions to the proposed rule based on public and interagency comments received, including comments ASFPM submitted last June:

• Climate Informed Science Approach (CISA) – HUD revised the rule to indicate that the Department’s adoption and intent to require use of any federal tool to implement CISA will include an additional, subsequent publication of a Federal Register notice explaining the intent to do so and soliciting public comment.  Grantees can, however, use a federal tool on a voluntary basis prior to publication of the FR notice. The rule was also revised to more clearly allow local CISA tools and resources on a voluntary basis, if local data is available, actionable, and meets certain criteria as defined in the rule.

• Substantial Improvement Elevation Requirements – HUD removed the substantial improvement trigger for elevation from Part 200 to alleviate concerns that the low-funding threshold could frequently trigger “substantial improvement” in particular communities. HUD wanted to avoid limiting homeowner eligibility for rehabilitation mortgage insurance programs to address necessary improvements such as roof repair in areas with lower home values. Part 200 continues to require a two-foot elevation for those newly constructed homes within the 100-year floodplain as was proposed in the draft rule. The FFRMS elevation requirements continue to apply to substantial improvement and new construction under all HUD programs subject to Part 55.

• Manufactured Housing Elevation – HUD revised the Part 55 section of the rule to include manufactured housing in the definitions of substantial improvement and new construction to explicitly identify new siting of manufactured housing units as subject to elevation requirements when Part 55 compliance is required. Note: The Part 200 section of the rule does not apply to manufactured housing except to implement installation requirements at 24 CFR part 3285.
• On Site Floodways – HUD revised the rule to expand the incidental floodway provision to allow rehabilitation of existing structures located in the floodplain when there is also a floodway on the property/parcel. This revised provision expands eligible activities to include rehabilitation within the footprint of an existing structure but maintains the longstanding requirement of obtaining a permanent covenant to preserve all floodplain areas from future development and new construction on the parcel.

HUD has created a webpage with additional guidance/FAQ on the new rule that we encourage ASFPM members to review.

The post ‘A Win for Flood Resilience’: HUD Rolls Out New Flood Standard first appeared on Association of State Floodplain Managers.

In the letter, the coalition notes that only one-third of the nation’s floodplains and coastal miles have been mapped by FEMA to date and that appropriations at the $350 million level would not only be more consistent with the Administration’s request and reported House bill, but also help move the nation to better coverage with up-to-date flood maps more quickly.

In addition to ASFPM, other organizations to participate in the sign-on letter are: American Property Casualty Insurance Association, Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of America, National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies, National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, National Association of Professional Insurance Agents, National Association of REALTORS, National Flood Association, National Society of Professional Surveyors, National Wildlife Federation, The Pew Charitable Trusts, and US Geospatial Executives Organization. Download the letter.

Join the ASFPM Engage Campaign

There’s still time to add your voice to the call for sufficient flood map funding by participating in the outreach campaign on our ASFPM Engage platform, if you haven’t already done so. It only takes a few minutes.

Like previous outreach efforts, the letter and talking points are already written. You simply need to enter your contact information, review the letter, add some local perspective (optional), and then click send. The system automatically emails the letter to your two U.S. Senators.

The current draft of the Senate appropriations bill allocates $275.5 million for floodplain mapping. This is less than the $350 million in the House appropriations bill and far less than the $800 million ASFPM believes is needed to map all of the nation’s streams and coastlines and incorporate future condition scenarios, as required by law. 

Since the authorization cap will not support our desired level of funding, the best course of action at this time is to request that the Senate appropriation for FY2023 match the $350 million currently in the House of Representatives appropriations bill.

No one knows better than our members that, as a nation, our flood maps are incomplete, inaccurate, and/or out-of-date. As flood disasters continue to grow in intensity and frequency, we need to ensure the Senate is aware that up-to-date and accurate flood maps are essential to understanding, avoiding, and minimizing damage, loss of life, and taxpayer costs from disasters. 

Please visit ASFPM Engage today and join us in this fight.

The post ASFPM Joins Coalition to Make the Case for Flood Hazard Mapping Funding first appeared on Association of State Floodplain Managers.