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.

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.

The coalition also noted that the recent record-long federal government shutdown caused the NFIP to lapse for more than a month, disrupting mortgage and commercial lending processes nationwide.

“As the federal government has reopened, we urge Congress to include authorization of the NFIP beyond the current fiscal year in future legislative proposals. More importantly, it is time to end the cycle of short-term extensions and program lapses that fuel instability in real estate markets and communities dependent on reliable flood coverage and mitigation support,” the organizations wrote.

The coalition expressed support for ongoing bipartisan efforts in the Senate Banking Committee and House Financial Services Committee to develop a long-term authorization package. Proposed reforms outlined in the letter include nationwide modernization of FEMA’s flood maps, expanded mitigation assistance, and strengthened public-private partnerships between the NFIP and private insurers to broaden coverage options and improve affordability.

The NFIP has over 4.6 million flood insurance policies providing $1.3 trillion in coverage, with over 22,700 communities in 56 states and jurisdictions participating. Since 2017, 34 short-term NFIP reauthorizations have been enacted. The NFIP is currently authorized through January 30, 2026, requiring congressional action to prevent another lapse. In the letter, the organizations emphasized their readiness to work with Congress to “break this cycle of lapses and short-term extensions and deliver the certainty that communities and markets need to move forward.”

Read the letter 

The post ASFPM Joins National Coalition Urging Congress to Enact Long-Term NFIP Reauthorization first appeared on Association of State Floodplain Managers.

In our letter, we explained how a potential push toward privatization of the NFIP with a focus on insurance only, ignores the nationwide public benefits of the NFIP’s mapping, mitigation, floodplain management, and community compliance programs. More importantly, the premise rests on market assumptions that are not supported by history or current realities. 

Download the letter

The post Letter to FEMA Review Council, Oct. 23, 2025 first appeared on Association of State Floodplain Managers.

What happens during a lapse? 

• The NFIP cannot issue new or renew existing flood insurance policies until the program is reauthorized. Consumers who had a pending flood policy application or renewal should confirm with their agent that they have coverage.
• Homeowners with active NFIP policies will still be covered until their expiration date, including a 30-day grace period. 
• The NFIP will continue to adjust and pay claims for its policyholders, as long as funds are available. If those funds are depleted, claims payments would be delayed until additional funds become available as the NFIP collects premiums or Congress provides for additional borrowing authority.
• Private flood insurance is not affected. 

What does the lapse mean for homebuyers?

• In some cases, homebuyers may be able to assume the seller’s existing NFIP policy.  
• Lenders may continue making loans during an NFIP lapse, but must still conduct flood determinations, provide accurate borrower notices, and follow all other flood insurance regulations. They are also expected to manage safety, soundness, and legal risks, and consider private flood insurance options. (see Federal Reserve press release)
• Private flood insurance remains an option and should be strongly considered.

Are floodplain regulations on hold during the lapse?

• No. Communities must continue enforcing their local floodplain management regulations. Local ordinances are adopted as a condition of a community’s participation in the NFIP. They are legally adopted local land use standards and FEMA will expect communities to continue administering and enforcing their regulations, even when the NFIP is lapsed. 

What is ASFPM doing? 

• Maintaining regular communication with Congressional leaders and the White House.
• Collaborating with partner organizations in efforts that advance long-term NFIP reauthorization. 
• Engaging with members of Congress to highlight the impacts of the lapse and emphasize the NFIP’s importance to communities nationwide.
• Elevating awareness of the issue through targeted outreach, policy statements, and media engagement.

NFIP’s last long-term reauthorization was in 2012 with the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act. Since the end of 2017, there have been 33 short-term reauthorizations.

Additional news & resources

• FEMA guidelines (2024) 
• FDIC – Joint press release with FCA, FRB, NCUA, and OCC
• Fannie Mae (scroll to section titled “Requirements During a National Flood Insurance Program Lapse”) 
• Freddie Mac – Guidance Related to the Federal Government Shutdown 
• Associated Press – National Flood Insurance Program is set to expire Tuesday, halting new policies and some home loans
• Realtor.com – Congress Let the National Flood Insurance Program Expire. Here’s Who’s in Trouble First
• The Insurer – NFIP lapse creates opportunity for private flood insurance market
• National Low Income Housing Coalition – Authorization for National Flood Insurance Program Lapses Amid Shutdown

The ASFPM Policy Team will continue to provide updates as we learn more. If you have any questions, please reach out to us here.

The post The NFIP has lapsed. Here’s what it means. first appeared on Association of State Floodplain Managers.

ASFPM seeks the reauthorization and reform of the NFIP with the following priorities for FY2025:

FLOOD RISK MAPPING

Reauthorize, fund, and enhance the National Flood Mapping Program

• Reauthorize NFIP program and increase funding to a level that will enable the completion of the national mapping effort, as specified in the 2012 Biggert-Waters (BW-12) NFIP reauthorization, and help ensure all communities have modern, accurate, and updated flood map data. An authorization of at least $800 million per year is critical to substantially map all riverine and coastal flood areas in the nation, while incorporating the additional mapping tasks required in BW-12 within five years:
  • expedite the completion of flood mapping for every community in the United States by 2028 to get accurate flood mapping in place ahead of development and taxpayer investment in infrastructure;
  • prioritize the elimination of the paper map inventory through conversion to digital format and provide technical assistance to assure all communities have up-to-date mapping of their flood risk;
  • require all Zone A areas to be model-based with updated topography;
  • prohibit digital conversion of flood maps unless a new engineering model-backed study is conducted; and
  • encourage the creation of a metric for the flood mapping program, beyond NVUE, that focuses on the extent of mapping/data in the nation.
• Ensure mapping efforts include all BW-12 NFIP floodplain mapping requirements, shown as layers on the digital maps:
  • utilize future condition projections of relative sea-level rise, increased storm frequency and intensity, updated and future-expected precipitation and projections of future development;
  • map all populated areas and areas of possible population growth located within the 100-year and 500-year floodplains and provide analysis and data for the 10-, 25-, and 50-year events;
  • map areas of residual risk, including areas that are protected by levees, dams, and other flood control structures, ensuring this information is publicly accessible; and
  • identify the level of protection provided by flood control structures, now and into the future.
• Promote use of Base Level Engineering (BLE) to support floodplain management implementation in Zone A areas by providing elevation data, and providing technically credible flood risk information outside of mapped areas for use in floodplain management and land use planning.
• Encourage different naming conventions for non-FIRM, non-FIS products, instead of calling them “non-regulatory products.”
• Transition to a new national “floodway” standard that is based on a No Adverse Impact approach that doesn’t exacerbate future flood conditions, more fully preserves flood conveyance (half of the floodway is lost using the current one-foot rise encroachment and developed as flood fringe), recognizes and protects higher state floodway standards, and withstands judicial scrutiny.
• Promote integration of floodplain and wetland (natural resources) mapping.
• Support funding for the creation and utilization of data necessary for enhanced mapping efforts, including floodway data reflecting endangered species, critical habitat, impervious surfaces, and data necessary for implementation of a higher elevation standard above the Base Flood Elevation.  
• Begin national implementation of FEMA’s Future of Flood Risk Data approach to developing and providing comprehensive flood hazard and risk data (beyond the 100-year floodplain). 
• Encourage FEMA to coordinate with other federal agencies to:
  • prioritize the completion of high-quality, nationwide topography (3-DEP) to accurately depict flood-hazard areas;
  • update precipitation data used in flood studies (Atlas 14/15) at least every five years on a nation-wide basis, and include future conditions scenarios; and
  • expand and improve the stream gage and tidal gage networks.
• Authorize, in statute, the Cooperating Technical Partners program, recognizing its longtime successful approach to addressing community flood mapping concerns. 
• Evaluate the need for additional flood risk zones to reflect new mapping scenarios, including pluvial flooding.
• Develop guidance on FEMA’s 2-D mapping effort including appropriate usage.
• Ensure continuity of the Technical Mapping Advisory Council (TMAC) from Administration to Administration.

FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT

Update and enhance the NFIP and FEMA floodplain management program to provide states and communities the tools necessary to address and reduce flood risk

• Update the NFIP regulations and standards, including public input from the FEMA 2021 Request for Information, as per the ASFPM/NRDC petition for rulemaking. At a minimum, changes should include:
  • adopting much more stringent standards for subdivisions and land use to avoid increased development in the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) and prohibition of critical actions where possible;requiring minimum freeboard of 2 feet (or 3 feet for coastal areas or critical actions) above base flood elevation.;extending the special flood hazard area to include the flood hazard areas determined by the required freeboard or climate informed science; andproviding changes that help eliminate the Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) properties (including better SRL tracking, increasing Increased Cost of Compliance (ICC) funding caps and funding availability); and
  • consider adoption of the new standards of ASCE 24-24.
• Improve delivery of the Community Assistance Program and explore authorizing the CAP-SSSE program in statute.
  • work with FEMA to identify and address the concerns of states as the CAP transformation (Tiered State Framework) is implemented, including increased administrative burdens.

• Enhance the Community Rating System (CRS)
  
  develop CRS incentives that benefit the community as well as policyholders by directing a portion of the CRS savings provided by premium discounts to the community to incentivize flood risk mitigation;
  • change CRS credits to provide credit for activities that increase standards and discourage and avoid development in the SFHA; and
  • incorporate appropriate recommendations for changes from the 2021 FEMA Request for Information on re-imagining the CRS program.
• Ensure the goals and implementation of Federal Flood Risk Management Standard (FFRMS) are incorporated into the NFIP reauthorization so that federal taxpayer assets and investments consider, plan for, and account for current and future flood risk.
• Ensure that NFIP regulations allow for, encourage, and support maximum inclusion of state/community higher standards where applicable.
• Provide consistent national guidance to resolve issues and reduce bureaucracy surrounding the Endangered Species Act, floodway encroachments resulting from floodplain restoration activities, and Letters of Map Change.
• Review the appropriate use of LOMR-F exemptions.
• Ensure timely and efficient access to flood insurance claims data sharing, as well as access for property owners and potential and existing buyers and renters, and local and state floodplain and emergency managers, appropriate research entities, and risk/mitigation programs:
  • recognize the existing exemption to the Privacy Act included in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to allow access to certain claims and insurance-related data, including repetitive loss and claims information and building address and locational information, yet still protect personally identifiable information of the property owner; and
  • provide NFIP-participating states a pathway to authorizing legislation to provide full flood-risk disclosure for all property transactions (purchase and rental agreements) prior to closing on sales or signing of rental contracts.

FLOOD INSURANCE

Ensure that the flood insurance program is readily available, financially stable, and accurately reflects the risks associated with a property:

• Remove the $35,000 cap on emergency phase policies.
• Raise the cap on policy limits.
• Require an ‘equivalency fee’ (equal to federal policy fee) on all private flood insurance policies for base coverage to help pay for flood mapping and floodplain management as these are essential tools to help communities and states manage flood risk and also will help private insurers remain viable.
• Explicitly require that private flood policies that are sold to meet the federal mandatory purchase requirement are sold only in NFIP-participating communities.
• Direct FEMA to establish a repository for all flood insurance claims data for NFIP and private flood insurance that is shared with communities and states. Require that private-sector flood insurance providers share comparable policy data in the same frequency and detail as FEMA shares with the private sector and as FEMA makes available to states and local floodplain managers.
• Require language in state insurance regulations to ensure private flood insurers report claims data to the appropriate state agency and communities so states and communities can identify and track substantial damage and repetitive loss properties.
• Eliminate “discretionary acceptance” for private flood insurance policies that allow lenders to decide whether or not to accept private policies meeting the coverage requirement in SFHAs — this is in direct conflict with the current NFIP statute.
• Ensure that consumers know the coverage limits and other differences between private flood insurance policies and NFIP policies by requiring private policies to include a summary of differences between NFIP and private policies.
• Continue to require that private flood policies have, at a minimum, comparable coverages and deductibles as NFIP policies, including a requirement to pay for mitigation similar to the Increased Cost of Compliance benefit.
• Ensure that the NFIP does not become the “insurance program of last resort/residual program,” resulting in having only the highest risk policies in the NFIP portfolio.
• Provide for continuous coverage between private and NFIP policies, but only if an equivalency fee is imposed and the private policies meet the mandatory purchase requirement.
• Ensure flood insurance claims are adjusted and paid fairly and timely.
• Oppose any exemption of certain classes of buildings from mandatory purchase. However, flood insurance should not be required for any accessory building with a value less than the minimum deductible (currently $1,000).
• Oppose exclusion of commercial buildings from flood insurance availability.
• Improve insurance agent knowledge of flood insurance, flood risk management, and basic principles within the NFIP by requiring training and continuing education, such as a minimum four hours/year of such education, for renewal of a property and casualty insurance license.
• Consider some limitation on the maximum number of insurance claims per property. This will help limit taxpayer exposure, but the limitations must be tied to an offer for mitigation assistance.
• Consider requiring that all property owners obtain and maintain flood insurance.

Address Affordability

• Implement a targeted, means-tested, affordability mechanism for flood insurance that does not create a new subsidy or cross-subsidy within the NFIP.
• Rather than providing subsidies to NFIP insurance, consider better ways to prioritize funding and and support mitigation efforts by individual property owners and the community as a whole.
• Ensure fiscal soundness of the National Flood Insurance Program
  • forgive the current $22.5 billion NFIP debt owed to the U.S. Treasury due to past extreme storm events; and
  • adopt some form of a “sufficiency standard” as an automatic long-term mechanism within the NFIP that ensures, after a certain threshold of catastrophic events, the debt will be paid by the U.S. Treasury. Among other things, the sufficiency standard would consider the reserve fund balance, utilization of reinsurance, and ability of the policy base at that time to repay.
• Eliminate the policy surcharge. If the policy surcharge remains, use the proceeds of the surcharges, imposed by the HFIAA 2014 legislation to support the Increased Cost of Compliance (ICC) program funding, boost cost-effective mitigation, and reduce losses to the National Flood Insurance Fund and taxpayer-funded disaster relief.

Support and enhance Increased Cost of Compliance (“ICC”)

• Increase ICC limit to at least $120,000 to ensure that insured properties are rebuilt to current building standards and codes. This is needed to reflect substantial increases in building construction and mitigation costs over past decades.
• Require FEMA to modify current policies and fully implement all aspects of ICC already in statutes, within one year of this NFIP reform, including:
  • require ICC claims to be paid in addition to the maximum claim limit under the standard NFIP policy;
  • require ICC to be triggered by non-flood-related damage events, and;
  • expand eligible items to be paid under ICC to be substantially similar to eligible items under the FEMA HMA grants, including cost of building acquisition and removal from high-risk areas.

Strengthen Insurance Rating

• Require that flood mitigation measures (i.e., elevation, floodproofing, vents) be more robustly factored into flood insurance rates to reverse the current disincentivization of flood mitigation and higher floodplain management standards.
• Adjust the policy declaration page to ensure transparency of loss and expense constants.

• Establish an independent expert National Flood Insurance Advisory Council which would be empowered to review FEMA’s rating system and provide recommendations on the dataset(s) that support the connection between insurance and flood risk management, encourage true risk mitigation, such as freeboard and utility elevations, and ensure consumers are aware of and covered for their true flood risk.
• Improve tools that can be accessed and used by trained floodplain managers to provide “what if” advice to communities and residents on how all mitigation measures, including higher development standards, will lower premium rates.
• Inform/educate consumers that the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (“FIRMs”) will no longer be used to set insurance rates, but will be used for in/out determinations and local floodplain regulation requirements. Consider renaming the Flood Insurance Risk Maps (FIRMs) so it is understood that they are for regulation and not for insurance rating.
• Ensure previously made mitigation investments are equitably recognized under the new rating system with transparency in the data set.

MITIGATION 

Emphasize the importance of mitigation in managing flood risk.

• Explore requiring annual flood mitigation assistance (FMA) funding requests to support mitigating 5% of the repetitive loss properties/year.
• Ensure FMA funding is available not just for FEMA-declared repetitive loss properties, but also for high-at-risk properties that may not yet have suffered a serious loss or losses.
• Ensure that FEMA mitigation programs, including FMA, allow for the full use and resources of the Uniform Relocation Act and that funding to address displacement or other federal/state environmental laws do not count as costs under FEMA’s benefit-cost analysis (e.g., removal of asbestos siding on mitigated properties),
• Provide more flexibility in FEMA’s management costs for its FEMA mitigation programs to support and ensure that state programs have the means and capacity to provide all communities with the technical assistance needed to apply for and administer mitigation projects and actions (e.g., get mitigation funding to property owners when a community may not have the capacity to apply for and administer grants).
• Require future conditions to be considered in planning and designs for mitigation projects.
• Ensure that Stafford Act mitigation programs (BRIC and HMGP) support the flood loss reduction goals of all of the NFIP programs and priorities:
  • prioritize traditional mitigation activities to ensure structure buyouts, elevation, and acquisition and relocation are competitive, fully considered, and appropriately funded in the mitigation programs grant process;
  • extend 1206 funding from six to 24 months to increase mitigation opportunities and be consistent with other programs; and
  • provide a larger state set-aside in grant programs to foster local/state traditional mitigation activities, and support administrative and enforcement efforts.
• Enhance funding of pre-disaster mitigation planning for inevitable flooding.
• Support pre-disaster mitigation of at-risk structures, especially repetitive loss.
• Evaluate nonstructural and nature-based mitigation on equal footing with larger, traditional structural projects in all mitigation grants, and ensure consistency with the Council on Environmental Quality’s Principles, Requirements, and Guidelines for benefit-cost evaluation, as applicable.
• Support mitigation program/policy changes to assure fairness and access to all communities and populations.
• Ensure that state and local mitigation plans identify and address demographic and environmental concerns, and such data are considered in awarding mitigation funding.
• Re-evaluate the use of traditional benefit-cost methodology as a criteria or decision tool for existing and future risk for mitigation projects. Loss of life and homes, accessibility to all populations, health and safety, and ecosystem protection and restoration currently and in the future must be established as basic criteria in benefit-cost analysis. Technical assistance is needed for disadvantaged communities.
• Help more homeowners retrofit their homes to the growing threat of more frequent and severe flooding through increased and more flexible NFIP-related funding.
• Establish a pilot program to fund proactive buyout of undeveloped land. Better utilize non-profit entities for buyouts of open space by broadening the concept of beneficial use, e.g., allow NGOs to buy the land and sell, make available, or donate lands to the community.
• Enable use of a pre-flood acquisition process, which allows property owners to remain in their structure until the next flood or they decide to move out.
• Require FEMA to develop and execute a comprehensive repetitive loss strategy, including a requirement to go to full actuarial rates after a certain number of claims, unless a mitigation offer is accepted and used. Such a comprehensive strategy should be explored to include potential mitigation for residential properties that have repetitively flooded, but have not always carried NFIP or private insurance.

Download the detailed priorities as a PDF

The post ASFPM Outlines Detailed Priorities for FY25 NFIP Reauthorization and Reform 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.