Empowering States for Resilient Infrastructure by Diffusing Federal Responsibility for Flood Risk Management
State and local failure to appropriately integrate flood risk into planning is a massive national liability – and a massive contributor to national debt. Though flooding is well recognized as a growing problem, our nation continues to address this threat through reactive, costly disaster responses instead of proactive, cost-saving investments in resilient infrastructure.
President Trump’s Executive Order (EO) on Achieving Efficiency Through State and Local Preparedness introduces a nationally strategic opportunity to rethink how state and local governments manage flood risk. The EO calls for the development and implementation of a National Resilience Strategy and National Risk Register, emphasizing the need for a decentralized approach to preparedness. To support this approach, the Trump Administration should mandate that state governments establish and fund flood infrastructure vulnerability assessment programs as a prerequisite for accessing federal flood mitigation funds. Modeled on the Resilient Florida Program, this policy would both improve coordination among federal, state, and local governments and yield long-term cost savings.
Challenge and Opportunity
President Trump’s aforementioned EO signals a shift in national infrastructure policy. The order moves away from a traditional “all-hazards” approach to a more focused, risk-informed strategy. This new framework prioritizes proactive, targeted measures to address infrastructure risks. It also underscores the crucial role of state and local governments in enhancing national security and building a more resilient nation—emphasizing that preparedness is most effectively managed at subnational levels, with the federal government providing competent, accessible, and efficient support.
A core provision of the EO is the creation of a National Resilience Strategy to guide efforts in strengthening infrastructure against risks. The order mandates a comprehensive review of existing infrastructure policies, with the goal of recommending risk-informed approaches. The EO also directs development of a National Risk Register to document and assess risks to critical infrastructure, thereby providing a foundation for informed decision-making in infrastructure planning and funding.
In carrying out these directives, the risks of flooding on critical infrastructure must not be overlooked. The frequency and cost of weather- and flood-related disasters are increasing nationwide due to a combination of heightened exposure (infrastructure growth due to population and economic expansion) and vulnerability (susceptibility to damage). As shown in Figure 1, the cost of responding to disaster events such as flooding, severe storms, and tropical cyclones has risen exponentially since 1980, often reaching hundreds of billions of dollars annually.
Financial implications for the U.S. budget have also grown. As illustrated in Figure 2, federal appropriations to the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) have surged in recent decades, driven by the demand for critical response and recovery services.
Infrastructure across the United States remains increasingly vulnerable to flooding. Critical infrastructure – including roads, utilities, and emergency services – is often inadequately equipped to withstand these heightened risks. Many critical infrastructure systems were designed decades ago when flood risks were lower, and have not been upgraded or replaced to account for changing conditions. The upshot is that significant deficiencies, reduced performance, and catastrophic economic consequences often result when floods occur today.
The costs of bailing out and patching up this infrastructure time and time again under today’s flood risk environment have become unsustainable. While agencies like the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) maintain and publish extensive flood risk datasets, no federal requirements mandate state and local governments to integrate this data with critical infrastructure data through flood infrastructure vulnerability assessments. This gap in policy demonstrates a disconnect between federal, state, and local efforts to protect critical infrastructure from flooding risks.
The only way to address this disconnect, and the recurring cost problem, is through a new paradigm – one that proactively integrates flood risk management and infrastructure resilience planning through mandatory, comprehensive flood infrastructure vulnerability assessments (FIVAs).
Multiple state programs demonstrate the benefits of such assessments. Most notably, the Resilient Florida Program, established in 2021, represents a significant investment in enhancing the resilience of critical infrastructure to flooding, rainfall, and extreme storms. Section 380.093 of the Florida Statutes requires all municipalities and counties across the state to conduct comprehensive FIVAs in order to qualify for state flood mitigation funding. These assessments identify risks to publicly owned critical and regionally significant assets, including transportation networks; evacuation routes; critical infrastructure; community and emergency facilities; and natural, cultural, and historical resources. To support this requirement, the Florida Legislature allocated funding to ensure municipalities and counties could complete the FIVAs. The findings then quickly informed statewide flood mitigation projects, with over $1.8 billion invested between 2021 and 2024 to reduce flooding risks across 365 implementation projects.
To support the National Resilience Strategy and Risk Register, the Trump Administration should consider leveraging Florida’s model on a national scale. By requiring all states to conduct FIVAs, the federal government can limit its financial liability while advancing a more efficient and effective model of flood resilience that puts states and localities at the fore.
Rather than relying on federal funds to conduct these assessments, the federal government should implement a policy mandate requiring state governments to establish and fund their own FIVA programs. This mandate would diffuse federal responsibility of identifying flood risks to the state and local levels, ensuring that the assessments are tailored to the unique geographic conditions of each region. By decentralizing flood risk management, states can adopt localized strategies that better reflect their specific vulnerabilities and priorities.
These state-led assessments would, in turn, provide a critical foundation for informed decision-making in national infrastructure planning, ensuring that federal investments in flood mitigation and resilience are targeted and effective. Specifically, the federal government would use the compiled data from state and local assessments to prioritize funding for projects that address the most pressing infrastructure vulnerabilities. This would enable federal agencies to allocate resources more efficiently, directing investments to areas with the highest risk exposure and the greatest potential for cost-effective mitigation. A standardized federal FIVA framework would ensure consistency in data collection, risk evaluation, and reporting across states. This would facilitate better coordination among federal, state, and local entities while improving integration of flood risk data into national infrastructure planning.
By implementing this strategy, the Trump Administration would reinforce the principle of shared responsibility in disaster preparedness and resilience, encouraging state and local governments to take the lead in safeguarding critical infrastructure. State-led FIVAs would also deliver significant long-term cost savings, given that investments in resilient infrastructure yield a substantial return on investment. (Studies show a 1:4 ratio of return on investment, meaning every dollar spent on resilience and preparedness saves $4 in future losses.) Finally, requiring FIVAs would build a more resilient nation, ensuring that communities are better equipped to withstand the increasing challenges posed by flooding and that federal investments are safeguarded.
Plan of Action
The Trump Administration can support the National Resilience Strategy and National Risk Register by taking the following actions to promote state-led development and adoption of FIVAs.
Recommendation 1. Create a Standardized FIVA Framework.
President Trump should direct his Administration, through an interagency FIVA Task Force, to create a standardized FIVA framework, drawing on successful models like the Resilient Florida Program. This framework will establish consistent methodologies for data collection, risk evaluation, and reporting, ensuring that assessments are both thorough and adaptable to state and local needs. An essential function of the task force should be to compile and review all existing federally maintained datasets on flood risks, which are maintained by agencies such as FEMA, NOAA, and USACE. By centralizing this information and providing streamlined access to high-quality, accurate data on flood risks, the task force will reduce the burden on state and local agencies.
Recommendation 2. Create Model Legislation.
The FIVA Task Force, working with leading organizations such as the American Flood Coalition (AFC), and Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM), should create model legislation that state governments can adapt and enact to require local development and adoption of FIVAs. This legislation should outline the requirements for conducting assessments, including which infrastructure types need to be evaluated, what flood risk scenarios need to be considered, and how the findings must be used to guide infrastructure planning and investments.
Recommendation 3. Spur Uptake and Establish Accountability and Reporting Mechanisms.
Once the FIVA framework and model legislation are created, the Administration should require states to enact FIVA laws in order to be eligible for receiving federal infrastructure funding. This requirement should be phased in on clear and feasible timelines, with clear criteria for what provisions FIVA laws must include. Regular reporting requirements should also be established, whereby states must provide updates on their progress in conducting FIVAs and integrating findings into infrastructure planning. Updates should be captured in a public tracking system to ensure transparency and hold states accountable for completing assessments on time. Federal agencies should evaluate federal infrastructure funding requests based on the findings from state-led FIVAs to ensure that investments are targeted at areas with the highest flood risks and the greatest potential for resilience improvements.
Recommendation 4. Use State and Local Data to Shape Federal Policy.
Ensure that the results of state-led FIVAs are incorporated into future updates of the National Resilience Strategy and Risk Register, as well as other relevant federal policy and programs. This integration will provide a comprehensive view of national infrastructure risks and help inform federal decision-making and resource allocation for disaster preparedness and response.
Conclusion
The Trump Administration’s EO on Achieving Efficiency Through State and Local Preparedness opens the door to comprehensively rethink how we as a nation approach planning, disaster risk management, and resilience. Scaling successful approaches from states like Florida can deliver on the goals of the EO in at least five ways:
- Empowering state and local governments to take the lead in managing flood risks, ensuring that assessments and strategies are more reflective of local needs and conditions.
- Distributing the responsibility for identifying and mitigating flood risks across all levels of government, reducing the burden on the federal government and allowing more tailored, efficient responses.
- Reducing disaster response costs by prioritizing proactive, risk-informed planning over reactive recovery efforts, leading to long-term savings.
- Strengthening infrastructure resilience by making vulnerability assessments a condition for federal funding, driving investments that protect communities from flooding risks.
- Fostering greater accountability at the state and local levels, as governments will be directly responsible for ensuring that infrastructure is resilient to flooding, leading to more targeted and effective investments.
“Melbourne Florida Flooding” by highlander411 is licensed under CC BY 2.0.
This action-ready policy memo is part of Day One 2025 — our effort to bring forward bold policy ideas, grounded in science and evidence, that can tackle the country’s biggest challenges and bring us closer to the prosperous, equitable and safe future that we all hope for whoever takes office in 2025 and beyond.
PLEASE NOTE (February 2025): Since publication several government websites have been taken offline. We apologize for any broken links to once accessible public data.
- Several states have enacted policies advancing FIVAs or resilience programming, demonstrating this type of program could readily achieve bipartisan support.
The Resilient Florida Program, established in 2021, marks the state’s largest investment in preparing communities for the impacts of intensified storms and flooding. This program includes mandates and grants to analyze, prepare for, and implement resilience projects across the state. A key element of the program is the required vulnerability assessment, which focuses on identifying risks to critical infrastructure. Counties and municipalities must analyze the vulnerability of regionally significant assets and submit geospatial mapping data to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). This data is used to create a comprehensive, statewide flooding dataset, updated every five years, followed by an annual Resilience Plan to prioritize and fund critical mitigation projects.
In Texas, the State Flood Plan, enacted in 2019, initiated the first-ever regional and state flood planning process. This legislation established the Flood Infrastructure Fund to support financing for flood-related projects. Regional flood planning groups are tasked with submitting their regional flood plans to the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB), starting in January 2023 and every five years thereafter. A central component of these plans is identifying vulnerabilities in communities and critical facilities within each region. Texas has also developed a flood planning data hub with minimum geodatabase standards to ensure consistent data collection across regions, ultimately synthesizing this information into a unified statewide flood plan.
The Massachusetts Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness (MVP) Program, established in 2016, requires all state agencies and authorities, and all cities and town, to assess vulnerabilities and adopt strategies to increase the adaptive capacity and resilience of critical infrastructure assets. The Massachusetts model reflects an incentive-based approach that encourages municipalities to conduct vulnerability assessments and create actionable resilience plans with technical assistance and funding. The state awards communities with funding to complete vulnerability assessments and develop action-oriented resilience plans. Communities that complete the MVP program become certified as an MVP community and are eligible for grant funding and other opportunities.
- Infrastructure vulnerability assessments differ from federally mandated hazard mitigation planning programs in both scope and focus. While both aim to enhance resilience, they target different aspects of risk management.
Infrastructure vulnerability assessments are highly specific, concentrating on the resilience of individual critical infrastructure systems—such as water supply, transportation networks, energy grids, and emergency response systems. These assessments analyze the specific vulnerabilities of these assets to both acute shocks, such as extreme weather events or floods, and chronic stressors, such as aging infrastructure. The process typically involves detailed technical analyses, including simulations, modeling, and system-level evaluations, to identify weaknesses in each asset. The results inform tailored, asset-specific interventions, like reinforcing flood barriers, upgrading infrastructure, or improving emergency response capacity. These assessments are focused on ensuring that essential systems are resilient to specific risks, and they typically involve detailed contingency planning for each identified vulnerability.
In contrast, federally mandated hazard mitigation planning, such as FEMA’s programs under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, focuses on community-wide risk reduction. These programs aim to reduce overall exposure to natural hazards, like floods, wildfires, or earthquakes, by developing broad strategies that apply to entire communities or regions. Hazard mitigation planning involves public input, policy changes, and community-wide infrastructure improvements, which may include measures like zoning regulations, public awareness campaigns, or building codes that aim to reduce vulnerability on a large scale. While these plans may identify specific hazards, the solutions they propose are generally community-focused and may not address the nuanced vulnerabilities of individual infrastructure systems. Rather than offering a deep dive into the resilience of specific assets, hazard mitigation planning focuses on reducing overall risk and improving long-term resilience for the community as a whole.
- A proven methodology can be drawn from the Resilient Florida Program’s Standard Vulnerability Assessment Scope of Work Guidance. This methodology integrates geospatial mapping data with modeling outputs for a range of flood risks, including storm surge, tidal flooding, rainfall, and compound flooding. Communities overlay this flood risk data with their local infrastructure information – such as roads, utilities, and bridges – to identify vulnerable assets and prioritize resilience strategies.
For the nationwide mandate, this framework can be adapted, with technical assistance from federal agencies like FEMA, NOAA, and USACE to ensure consistency across regions and the integration of up-to-date flood risk data. FEMA could assist localities in adopting this methodology, ensuring that their vulnerability assessments are comprehensive and aligned with the latest flood risk data. This approach would help standardize assessments across the country while allowing for region-specific considerations, ensuring the mandate’s effectiveness in building resilience across the local, state, and national levels.
- This requirement will diffuse the responsibility of flood risk management to state and local governments by requiring them to take the lead in conducting FIVAs. Under this approach, the federal government will shift from being the primary entity responsible for identifying flood risks to a more supportive role, providing resources and guidance to state and local governments.
State governments will be required to establish and fund their own FIVAs, ensuring that each region’s unique geographic, climatic, and socioeconomic factors are considered when identifying and addressing flood risks. By decentralizing the process, states can tailor their strategies to local needs, which improves the efficiency of flood risk management efforts.
Local governments will also play a key role by implementing these assessments at the community level, ensuring that critical infrastructure is evaluated for its vulnerability to flooding. This will allow for more targeted interventions and investments that reflect local priorities and risks.
The federal government will use the data from these state and local assessments to prioritize funding and allocate resources more efficiently, ensuring that infrastructure resilience projects address the highest flood risks with the greatest potential for long-term savings.
As the efficacy of environmental laws has waned, so has their durability. What was once a broadly shared goal – protecting Americans from environmental harm – is now a political football, with rules that whipsaw back and forth depending on who’s in charge.
The Federation of American Scientists supports the Senate version of the Fix Our Forests Act.
The federal government needs to strengthen energy systems through investments in energy infrastructure across energy generation, transmission, and use.
The Federation of American Scientists supports The Heating and Cooling Relief Act of 2025. With summer right around the corner, it is more important than ever to ensure life-saving home cooling is affordable to all Americans.