Flooding: Selected Federal Assistance and Programs to Reduce Risk

October 18, 2022 R47286

Flooding: Selected Federal Assistance and
October 18, 2022
Programs to Reduce Risk
Nicole T. Carter,
Recent flood disasters and concerns about future flood risks have raised congressional and public
Coordinator
interest in communities’ ability to adapt to, withstand, and recover rapidly from floods. Federal
Specialist in Natural
programs support a range of actions: construction of infrastructure projects such as levees,
Resources Policy
protection and restoration of natural features that capture floodwaters, purchase of flood-exposed

structures, incentives for communities that participate in the National Flood Insurance Program
Diane P. Horn,
(NFIP) to reduce their risks, and others.
Coordinator
Specialist in Flood
Assistance Programs: Grants, Loans, and Projects
Insurance and Emergency
Multiple federal agencies administer programs to assist state, local, tribal, and territorial
Management
government entities in reducing flood risks. Assistance takes various forms, as shown in the table

below. Each federal program shown in the table has its own objectives, statutory limitations, and
Joseph V. Jaroscak
rules. For example, the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program is triggered by a major disaster
Analyst in Economic
declaration pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
Development Policy
U.S.C. §§5121 et seq.), and the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities Program is

funded by a 6% set-aside from the Disaster Relief Fund after every major disaster declaration. In
Eva Lipiec
contrast, Congress enacts supplemental appropriations to fund Community Development Block
Analyst in Natural
Grant−Disaster Recovery.
Resources Policy

Table 1.Selected Federal Programs That May Be Used to Support
Reducing Flood Risk and Enhancing Resilience to Floods
Anna E. Normand
Analyst in Natural
Agency or
Type of Federal
Resources Policy
Department
Program or Activity
Assistance

Federal Emergency
Flood Mitigation Assistance Program
Grant
Jonathan L. Ramseur
Management Agency
Specialist in Environmental
(FEMA)
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
Grant
Policy
Building Resilient Infrastructure and
Grant

Communities Program
Megan Stubbs
Safeguarding Tomorrow Revolving Loan
Grants to capitalize state
Specialist in Agricultural
Fund Program
revolving funds
Conservation and Natural
Resources Policy
U.S. Army Corps of
Authorized projects and Continuing
Federal studies and

Engineers (USACE)
Authorities Programs
construction projects
U.S. Department of
Watershed and Flood Prevention
Grant

Agriculture (USDA)
Operations Program for rural communities
Emergency Watershed Protection—
Federal acquisition of
Floodplain Easements
easements
National Oceanic and
National Coastal Resilience Fund (with the
Grants and cooperative
Atmospheric
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation) and
agreements
Administration (NOAA)
coastal zone management and habitat
restoration grants or cooperative
agreements
Environmental Protection
Clean Water Act State Revolving Fund
Grants to capitalize state
Agency (EPA)
revolving funds
Water Infrastructure Finance and
Credit assistance (e.g.,
Innovation Act
direct loans)
U.S. Department of
Community Development Block Grant and
Grants
Housing and Urban
Community Development Block Grant-
Development (HUD)
Disaster Recovery
Congressional Research Service

Flooding: Selected Federal Assistance and Programs to Reduce Risk

Agency or
Type of Federal
Department
Program or Activity
Assistance
Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program
Loan guarantee
Source: Congressional Research Service.
Note: Many of these programs provide assistance for multiple natural hazards or multiple categories of eligible activities; they may
not assist exclusively flood-related projects.
Flood Insurance: Incentives for Communities to Reduce Risks
Congress established the NFIP in the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. §§4001 et seq.). For federal flood
insurance to be available to homeowners and business owners in a community, the NFIP requires participating communities
to develop and adopt flood maps and enact minimum floodplain standards based on those flood maps. The NFIP encourages
communities to adopt and enforce floodplain management regulations such as zoning codes, building codes, subdivision
ordinances, and rebuilding restrictions. The federal government also encourages communities to reduce their flood risk by
incentivizing risk reduction through the NFIP in three ways: the Flood Mitigation Assistance Program, the Community
Rating System, and Increased Cost of Compliance coverage.
Role of Congress and Policy Issues
Congress is engaged in authorization, appropriation, and oversight of these programs. For some programs, House and Senate
Appropriations Committees may consider Member requests for specific activities (e.g., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
Environmental Protection Agency funding for specific projects). Members of Congress and other decisionmakers may face
various related policy questions, including the following:
 How effective are these programs at motivating state, local, tribal, and territorial government entities to
prepare for floods and manage their current and future flood risks?
 Would program changes improve the nation’s long-term flood resilience, including by reducing risk in
economically disadvantaged communities?
Other potential considerations for Congress are discussed in this report.
Congressional Research Service

Flooding: Selected Federal Assistance and Programs to Reduce Risk

Introduction
Recent flood disasters have raised congressional and public interest in reducing flood risks and
improving communities’ ability to adapt to, withstand, and rapidly recover from floods. Congress
has established various federal programs to assist state, local, tribal, and territorial government
entities in reducing flood risks. This report provides information about these federal programs. It
is organized into the following sections:
 A primer on flood risk;
 Descriptions of selected federal assistance programs; and
 An introduction to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and related
programs intended to incentivize communities to reduce flood risks.
This report covers federal programs available to state, local, tribal, and territorial government
entities to reduce flood risk and improve flood resilience in their communities.1 However, the
report is not comprehensive. For example, it discusses programs that assist with funding flood
risk reduction infrastructure (e.g., levees) but does not discuss programs targeted at reducing
flood risks for specific types of infrastructure (e.g., transportation-specific programs).
Primer on Flood Risk
According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), from 1980 through
2021, the United States sustained 36 flood events and 57 tropical cyclone events with associated
costs of more than $1 billion per event. The cumulative costs for these events were $169 billion
and $1,157 billion, respectively.2 Although not all cyclone costs are flood-related (e.g., wind
damage), these data indicate the effect of flood-related events on the nation.
Components of Flood Risk
Risks associated with floods often are characterized as a combination of the following elements:
 Hazard, which is the local threat of a flood (e.g., the probability of a particular
community experiencing a storm surge of a specific height);
 Vulnerability, which is the pathway that allows a flood to cause consequences
(e.g., level of protection, performance of shore-protection measures); and
 Consequences of a flood (e.g., loss of life, property damage, economic loss,
environmental damage, social disruption).

1 This report does not cover assistance provided directly to individuals and businesses, such as loans from the Small
Business Administration and agricultural conservation programs under the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
With the exception of some funds that may be targeted to specific locations affected by a disaster, this report does not
include federal assistance that targets specific geographic regions and/or programs available only to tribes. This report
does not address assistance for reducing transportation-related flood risks. Programs to address dam safety are
addressed in CRS In Focus IF10606, Dam Safety: Federal Programs and Authorities, by Anna E. Normand.
2 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Centers for Environmental Information,
“Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters: Summary Stats,” at https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/billions/
summary-stats. These estimates are of insured and uninsured direct costs (e.g., physical damage to buildings; time-
related losses such as business interruption and loss of living quarters); the estimates are Consumer Price Index-
adjusted.
Congressional Research Service

1

Flooding: Selected Federal Assistance and Programs to Reduce Risk

Floods hazards can take various forms. Inland floods occur when rivers overtop their banks
(fluvial flooding) or when intense rainfall causes water to accumulate locally (pluvial flooding).3
In urban areas, pluvial flooding can result from rainfall exceeding the capacity of drainage
infrastructure (often referred to as stormwater systems or storm sewers). Other flood hazards
include rapid seasonal melting of snow and the accumulation of debris, such as vegetation or ice,
which stops water from draining away. Coastal flooding can occur from a combination of tides,
waves (including tsunamis), and storm surge and may be compounded by contributions from
local fluvial and pluvial flooding.
The relationship between climate change and flooding is complex,4 and the scientific
understanding of the meteorological and hydrological drivers in this relationship is evolving.5 For
example, the U.S. Global Change Research Program’s October 2017 Climate Science Special
Report stated the following about flooding observations for the United States:
Detectable changes in some classes of flood frequency have occurred in parts of the United
States and are a mix of increases and decreases. Extreme precipitation, one of the
controlling factors in flood statistics, is observed to have generally increased and is
projected to continue to do so across the United States in a warming atmosphere.6
Another factor in flood risk for coastal communities is sea level rise. Higher sea levels amplify
the impacts of storm surge and high tides. In February 2022, NOAA released the 2022 Sea Level
Rise Technical Report,7 which provides sea level rise projections for U.S. coastal waters through
2150. The report indicates that relative sea level along the conterminous U.S. coastline is
projected to rise, on average, between 10 and 12 inches over the 30-year period from 2020 to
2050, which would be as much as the rise measured over the previous 100 years (i.e., 1920 to
2020).8

3 Pluvial flooding occurs when precipitation intensity exceeds the capacity of natural and engineered drainage systems.
Recent events, such as the lives lost and damage caused by Hurricane Harvey’s rains in Texas in 2017 and extreme
rainfall in New York City in 2021, have brought attention to pluvial flooding, particularly in U.S. urbanized areas.
4 For example, according to one 2018 study, for the northeastern United States under a midrange emissions pathway
(referred to as RCP 4.5), there is an anticipated frequency increase of extratropical storms with tropical characteristics
and increased rainfall associated with these storms for the Northeast by the late 21st century (Maofeng Liu et al.,
“Projection of Landfalling—Tropical Cyclone Rainfall in the Eastern United States Under Anthropogenic Warming,”
Journal of Climate, vol. 31 (2018), pp. 7269-7286). In contrast, for the southeastern United States, it is uncertain
whether more or less net precipitation will result due to forecasts of fewer but wetter storms (ibid.).
5 The combining of hazards can lead to a multivariate event, in which multiple climate drivers or hazards that may not
be extreme on their own occur jointly in the same time frame, leading to extreme impacts. Research indicates that
conterminous U.S. low-lying coastal areas along the Gulf of Mexico and the southeastern and southwestern coasts may
be particularly vulnerable to compound flood hazards (Ahmed A. Nasr et al., “Assessing the Dependence Structure
Between Oceanographic, Fluvial, and Pluvial Flooding Drivers Along the United States Coastline,” Hydrology and
Earth System Sciences, vol. 25, no. 12 (2021), pp. 6203-6222).
6 Donald J. Wuebbles et al., Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, vol. I, U.S. Global
Change Research Program, 2017, p. 231. This statement is from a key finding. The report classified the confidence in
that finding as medium, which indicates the evidence is suggestive but competing schools of thought remain (p. 7).
7 William V. Sweet et al., Global and Regional Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the United States: Updated Mean
Projections and Extreme Water Level Probabilities Along U.S. Coastlines, NOAA Technical Report NOS 01, 2022.
8 Sea level rise varies regionally because of changes in both land and ocean height. For more information on sea level
rise, see CRS Report R44632, Sea-Level Rise and U.S. Coasts: Science and Policy Considerations, by Peter Folger and
Nicole T. Carter.
Congressional Research Service

2

Flooding: Selected Federal Assistance and Programs to Reduce Risk

Approaches to Managing Flood Risk
Over the decades, U.S. flood policy has evolved from a focus on controlling floodwaters to
supporting multiple means to manage flood risks. Early efforts focused on flood control and flood
damage reduction using engineered structures such as dams and levees, with the federal role in
such flood control works emerging in the 1910s.9 In the late 20th century, the approach shifted to
flood risk reduction and mitigation,10 which expanded the measures employed to include buyouts,
easements,11 elevation of structures, evacuation, and other life-saving and damage-reducing
actions. More recently, the concept of flood resilience—the ability to adapt to, withstand, and
rapidly recover from floods—and federal assistance to support it have become prominent.12
Approaches to address flooding can be grouped into three general categories: protect,
accommodate, and retreat.
 The protect approach most commonly relies on reducing the pathways for a flood
to cause consequences. Protect approach responses can include hard engineering
structures such as levees, dams, seawalls, groins, and storm surge barriers. This
approach also may incorporate dune construction and beach nourishment. A
protect approach may support protection or development of natural features that
provide flood management benefits (e.g., coastal wetlands creation, coastal
mangrove protection, undeveloped floodplains, living shorelines).13 These
features are referred to as natural and nature-based features,14 or green
infrastructure in stormwater applications (e.g., bioswales, which consist of
narrow rain gardens often between a sidewalk and curb or in a parking lot).
 The accommodate strategy aims to reduce the impact of flooding through
changes in human behavior while maintaining the use of flood-prone areas.
Accommodation implies accepting the occurrence of flooding and preparing for
it (e.g., through development of evacuation routes). Accommodation activities
frequently involve land use planning, building codes, floodplain regulations, and
flood proofing of structures.
 Some communities may make a decision to retreat from certain locations or to
relocate particular assets. A relocation or retreat strategy can be implemented
through various policy approaches, such as acquisition of flood-vulnerable
structures (often referred to as buyouts) and zoning or other policies aimed at
preventing development or rebuilding in high-risk areas.

9 Flood Control Act of 1917 (39 Stat. 948).
10 Mitigation is a term most commonly used by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and is less
frequently used to describe the programs administered by other agencies described in this report. FEMA defines
mitigation as “any sustained action to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property from natural hazards
and their effects” (FEMA, Hazard Mitigation Assistance Guidance, February 27, 2015, p.1).
11 A floodplain or flowage easement is a right granted by a landowner to allow the land to be temporarily inundated.
12 Numerous definitions and understandings of resilience and resiliency exist. Many of the federal programs described
herein may use unique definitions of resilience and resiliency or may use the terms without defining them.
13 Living shorelines provide nature-based erosion control and shoreline stabilization by incorporating vegetation or
other natural elements alone or in combination with some type of harder shoreline structure (e.g., oyster reefs) for
added stability.
14 For more background on natural and nature-based features, see CRS Report R46328, Flood Risk Reduction from
Natural and Nature-Based Features: Army Corps of Engineers Authorities, by Nicole T. Carter and Eva Lipiec.
Congressional Research Service

3

link to page 9

Flooding: Selected Federal Assistance and Programs to Reduce Risk

Figure 1 illustrates a suite of flood resilience and risk reduction improvements, including both
structural and nonstructural measures, for coastal communities. A similar suite of options may be
available for communities along rivers. Urban communities may employ various measures to
manage stormwater in addition to their stormwater collection and retention infrastructure; these
measures may include bioswales, permeable pavement, green streets and alleys, and green
roofs.15
Figure 1. Examples of Measures to Reduce Coastal Flood Risk

Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, North Atlantic Coast Comprehensive Study: Resilience Adaptation to Increasing
Risk, January 2015, p. 7, at http://www.nad.usace.army.mil/Portals/40/docs/NACCS/NACCS_main_report.pdf.
Notes: Other options to reduce risk are available, including various forms of zoning and building codes (e.g.,
flood proofing of structures’ lower floors). NNBF = natural and nature-based features.
Policy Considerations
Floods remain a significant hazard in the United States, and flood mitigation, protection,
emergency response, and recovery roles and responsibilities are shared. Local governments are
responsible for land use and zoning decisions that shape floodplain, coastal, and urban and
suburban development. State and federal programs, policies, and investments influence
community decisions on managing flood risk. Increasing flood hazards in some parts of the
country are increasing the risk to existing developments. In addition, new development in flood-
prone areas increase the assets and people exposed to flood hazards, also increasing overall flood
risk.
Recent major flood events have renewed concerns about the nation’s and the federal
government’s financial exposure to flood losses, as well as the economic, social, and public
health impacts of floods on individuals and communities. Part of the challenge for Congress and
other policymakers in reducing flood risks and improving resilience is the distribution of
responsibilities among federal entities and state, local, tribal, and territorial government entities.
Some tension exists between the broader interest in reducing the federal government’s exposure
to costs for disaster response and recovery, on the one hand, and nonfederal (including private)
roles in shaping how structures and facilities are built in coastal areas, floodplains, and elsewhere,
on the other. In the United States, local and state governments have the primary responsibility for
guiding land use in floodplains, establishing and enforcing building codes and ordinances, and
constructing public works to protect communities. At the same time, Congress has authorized the
executive branch agencies to take action on numerous aspects of flood resilience and risk
reduction and disaster response and recovery. Because flood risk may be reduced or exacerbated
by decisions and actions made by state, local, tribal, and territorial governmental entities, the

15 These measures and others are described and illustrated at Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “What Is Green
Infrastructure?” at https://www.epa.gov/green-infrastructure/what-green-infrastructure.
Congressional Research Service

4

Flooding: Selected Federal Assistance and Programs to Reduce Risk

demand on federal programs (e.g., disaster assistance, federal risk reduction and mitigation
projects) faces considerable uncertainty.
Some potential questions for Congress and other policymakers include the following:
 How do federal programs provide incentives or disincentives for states, local
governments, territories, and tribes to prepare for flood and manage flood risks?
 How cost-effective are the level, type, and geographic distribution of federal
actions for flood resilience and risk reduction?
 To what extent do federal flood programs reduce or exacerbate flood risk for
economically disadvantaged communities, minority populations, and
communities with more low-income residents?
 How do federal programs shape how state, local, tribal, and territorial
government entities combine or select flood control infrastructure, natural or
nature-based features, removal of people and structures from harm’s way, and
adaptations to coexist with floods?
 Is the current suite of federal assistance programs overlapping and potentially
redundant, or complementary?
 How would changing implementation or funding of federal flood-related
assistance programs and the NFIP affect long-term net benefits in avoided federal
disaster assistance, lives lost, and economic disruption?
 What cost-effective changes to federal programs could support communities in
addressing both current and future flood risks, as flood hazards change in
different watersheds and communities with a warming climate?
In addressing the nation’s flood risk and resilience, policymakers may choose to prioritize some
federal roles over others, increase or redistribute activities and funding across existing federal
programs, reorient or eliminate existing programs, or establish new programs.
Selected Federal Assistance
Congress has created various federal programs that may be able to assist state, local, territorial,
and tribal entities with flood risk reduction and flood resilience for communities. Actions and
investments to reduce flood risk by state, local, tribal, and territorial government entities have
received support from hazard mitigation assistance programs administered by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as well as the Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) programs of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has
acquired floodplain easements and has supported the construction of small levees and dams in
rural areas. NOAA supports coastal zone management and habitat restoration and coastal
resilience projects that may contribute to flood risk reduction. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) is the principal federal agency engaged in construction of federally authorized flood
control measures (e.g., levees, engineered coastal dunes).16 The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) supports loans for stormwater infrastructure.

16 Other federal entities operating flood-related infrastructure include the Bureau of Reclamation in the Department of
the Interior, which operates multipurpose water projects in 17 western states; the Tennessee Valley Authority, which
has multipurpose dams; the International Boundary and Water Commission, which operates U.S.-Mexico border dams
Congressional Research Service

5

link to page 12 link to page 12 link to page 12 link to page 12 link to page 6 Flooding: Selected Federal Assistance and Programs to Reduce Risk

Table 2 summarizes selected federal programs.17 The table organizes the programs into three sets:
flood-specific programs, resilience programs and multi-hazard mitigation programs, and
multipurpose programs (i.e., programs with broader objectives, such as water quality, for which
flood-related activities may be a component). Each program described in Table 2 was created for
a specific purpose and has statutory limitations. For example, some programs are triggered only
after certain disaster declarations, whereas others are part of regular agency operations. Program-
specific discussions later in this report provide more information on programs listed in Table 2.
The table also identifies funding provided for the various programs by the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA),18 one of the largest investments in infrastructure, including for
flood-related work, in many years. Table 2 provides information on annual appropriations for
FY2022 and funding that was enacted in FY2022 that may be available beyond FY2022.19

and levees; the Bureau of Indian Affairs; and the four federal land management agencies—Bureau of Land
Management, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and U.S. Forest Service.
17 See footnote 1 for a description of the scope of the programs discussed in this report.
18 P.L. 117-58.
19 The majority of the funds discussed in this report do not expire. Exceptions are noted in the more detailed tables.
Congressional Research Service

6

link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 14
Table 2. Selected Federal Programs That Support Flood Risk Reduction and Resilience
(dollars in millions (M))
FY2022
IIJA Funding,
Agency/
FY2022
Supp. Funding,
by FY of IIJA Funding
Program
Dept.
Type of Assistance
Funding
Other Than IIJAa
Flood-Specific Programs

Flood Mitigation Assistance
FEMA
Grant
$800 Mb
—
FY2022 through FY2026: $700 M per
year
Flood Damage Reduction Projects USACE
Federal share of project $866 M
$3,000 M for flood-
FY2022: $4,950 M for flood-related
related construction,
construction projects. $120 M for
of which $1,500 M is
studies, including flood-related studies
for states affected by
FY2023: $50 M for construction of
Hurricane Ida; $130
coastal shore protection projects. $30 M
M for flood-related
for flood pilot program for rural and
studies
economically disadvantaged community
feasibility studies
FY2024: $50 M for construction of
coastal shore protection projects
Flood-Related Continuing
USACE
Federal share of project $19.5 M
Up to $65 M for
FY2022: $465 M available for all
Authorities Programs
flood-related
Continuing Authorities Programs,
Continuing
including flood-related and non-flood
Authorities Programs related programs
Emergency Watershed
USDA
Floodplain easement
—
$275 M
FY2022: $300 M to remain available until
Protection—Floodplain Easements
expended
Resilience Programs and Multi-hazard Mitigation Programsc

Building Resilient Infrastructure
FEMA
Grant
$2,295 M
Not directly; see
FY2022 through FY2026: $200 M per
and Communities
program description
year

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
FEMA
Grant
Determined per
Not directly; see
—

disaster
program description

CRS-7

link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 14
FY2022
IIJA Funding,
Agency/
FY2022
Supp. Funding,
by FY of IIJA Funding
Program
Dept.
Type of Assistance
Funding
Other Than IIJAa
Safeguarding Tomorrow Revolving
FEMA
Grants to capitalize
FY2022 through
—
FY2022 through FY2026: $100 M per
Loan Fund Program
state revolving funds
FY2026: $100 M per
year
year
Watershed and Flood Prevention
USDA
Grant
$100 M (discretionary)
—
FY2022: $500 M to remain available until
$47 M (mandatory)
expended
Multipurpose Programsc

National Coastal Resilience Fund
NOAAd
Cooperative agreement $34 M
$25 M
FY2022 through FY2026: $98.4 M per
year
IRA 2022 Funding, NOAA
NOAA
Grant or cooperative
—
IRA 2022: $2,600 M
—
Program—Not Specifiede
agreement
Coastal Zone Management
NOAA
Formula-based grant,
$79 M
—
FY2022 through FY2026: $41.4 M per
competitive grant, or
year
cooperative agreement
IIJA Habitat Restoration
NOAA
Cooperative agreement —
—
FY2022 through FY2026: $98.2 M per
year
Clean Water State Revolving Fundf EPA
Grants to capitalize
$1,195 M
—
FY2022: $1,902 M
state revolving funds

FY2023: $2,202 M
FY2024: $2,403 M
FY2025: $2,603 M
FY2026: $2,603 M
Water Infrastructure Finance and
EPA
Credit assistance (e.g.,
$63.5 M to cover
—
—
Innovation Act Program
loan or loan guarantee)
subsidy costs to

provide an estimated of
$5,500 M of credit
assistance
Community Development Block
HUD
Grant
$3,300 M
—
—
Grant

Section 108 Loan Guarantees
HUD
Loan guarantee
$300 M loan-
—
—
commitment ceiling

CRS-8

link to page 14 link to page 14
FY2022
IIJA Funding,
Agency/
FY2022
Supp. Funding,
by FY of IIJA Funding
Program
Dept.
Type of Assistance
Funding
Other Than IIJAa
Community Development Block
HUD
Grant
—
$5,000 Mg
—
Grant −Disaster Recovery

Source: CRS.
Notes: EPA = Environmental Protection Agency; FEMA = Federal Emergency Management Agency; FY = Fiscal Year; HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development; IIJA = Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58); IRA 2022 = P.L. 117-169, which is commonly referred to as the Inflation Reduction Act of
2022; NOAA = National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; USACE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; USDA = U.S. Department of Agriculture. Subsidy costs are
the present value of estimated future government losses from loans and loan guarantees.
a. Supplemental appropriations in this column were provided in P.L. 117-43 unless shown otherwise (e.g., IRA 2022). This column does not include IIJA funding
available in FY2022.
b. FEMA announced that the Flood Mitigation Assistance Program saw a five-fold increase in annual appropriations with the FY2022 annual appropriations level of $800
million. The source of the additional $100 million was not identified in the notice of funding opportunity. See Department of Homeland Security, Flood Mitigation
Assistance, Notice of Funding Opportunity Fiscal Year 2022, August 12, 2021, pp. 5-7.
c. These programs provide assistance for multiple natural hazards or multiple categories of eligible activities. Therefore, funding levels provided may not be exclusively
for flood-related projects.
d. Congress authorized NOAA to work with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to administer this program.
e. Congress directed NOAA to use these funds “for the conservation, restoration, and protection of coastal and marine habitats, resources, Pacific salmon and other
marine fisheries, to enable coastal communities to prepare for extreme storms and other changing climate conditions, and for projects that support natural
resources that sustain coastal and marine resource dependent communities, marine fishery and marine mammal stock assessments, and for related administrative
expenses.”
f.
States implement this program. Historically, the majority of the program’s funding has supported wastewater infrastructure activities; the program also can support
stormwater and green infrastructure. P.L. 117-103 set aside 27% ($444 million) of the FY2022 CWSRF appropriation ($1.639 billion) to Community Project
Funding/Congressional Directed Spending. Such funds will be distributed directly to recipients instead of to states’ revolving fund programs. Thus, the reservation of
funds effectively decreases the total amount available for allotment as state capitalization grants to $1.195 billion.
g. FY2023 began with a continuing resolution, P.L. 117-180. In addition to continuing FY2022 appropriations amounts through December 16, 2022, P.L. 117-180.
provided an additional $2,000 M for the Community Development Block Grant−Disaster Recovery for major disasters in 2021 and 2022.

CRS-9

link to page 12 link to page 50 link to page 12 link to page 15 link to page 12

Flooding: Selected Federal Assistance and Programs to Reduce Risk

In some instances, various activities supported by the programs in Table 2 may be conducted in a
coordinated manner. Each state and territory has a Hazard Mitigation Officer who helps compile a
state or territorial mitigation plan, administers certain mitigation funding, and generally has
knowledge of the state’s or territory’s existing mitigation resources and its history of programs
and funding awards in this area. A few federal programs also allow for funds provided through
them to be used to satisfy the nonfederal cost-sharing requirement for another federal program
(e.g., see Table 16 on CDBG). Although the subsequent discussions examine geographic
eligibility generally, some programs may not be eligible in certain areas designated under the
Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA; P.L. 97-348); for a discussion of CBRA, see the box titled
“Coastal Barrier Resources Act.”20 The descriptions of the programs in Table 2 are grouped by
the federal agency or department administering them. The program descriptions are presented by
agency in the following order: FEMA, USACE, USDA, NOAA, Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), and HUD.
Coastal Barrier Resources Act
Congress enacted the Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982 (CBRA; P.L. 97-348) to address development
pressures on undeveloped coastal barriers and adjacent areas. Administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
CBRA and subsequent amendments to it designated undeveloped or relatively undeveloped coastal barriers and
other coastal areas as CBRA system units and otherwise protected areas. Most federal spending that would support
additional development is prohibited in the CBRA system units. CBRA does not prohibit or regulate any
nonfederal activity; it only prohibits funds from the federal government and federal programs from being used to
support additional development within any system unit. Additionally, CBRA does not preclude federal
expenditures to restore system units to former levels of development after natural disasters (e.g., reconstruction
of roads and water or sewer systems to former dimensions and capacity). Unlike the broader spending
prohibitions that apply to system units, the only CBRA prohibition that applies to otherwise protected areas is a
prohibition on federal flood insurance. Figure 2 illustrates example system units and otherwise protected areas.
Figure 2. Coastal Barrier Resource Designations near Charleston, SC

Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), using data from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Table 2 provides information on regular funding for FY2022 (i.e., annual appropriations for some
programs), supplemental appropriations related to disasters, and funding from the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58). For example, IIJA funds become available for
multiple programs in FY2022; some IIJA funds also become available in subsequent fiscal years.
Each supplemental act often establishes specific conditions, requirements, or uses for funds

20 For maps of all the areas designated by the Coastal Barrier Resource Act (CBRA; P.L. 97-348) as CBRA system
units, see mapping tools available at FWS, “Coastal Barrier Resources Act,” at https://www.fws.gov/program/coastal-
barrier-resources-act/maps-and-data.
Congressional Research Service

10

link to page 12 link to page 12 link to page 12 Flooding: Selected Federal Assistance and Programs to Reduce Risk

provided therein. Act-specific criteria and detailed information is not shown in Table 2 but may
be discussed in the more detailed program-specific summaries.
The federal financial assistance programs shown in Table 2 are not the only way in which federal
agencies assist state, local, tribal, and territorial government entities. The federal government
works to reduce flood risks in part through federal efforts to improve knowledge of flood hazards
and risks. The box titled “Federal Flood Information: Example of Flood Mapping” provides an
example of how federal investments in science, monitoring, and modeling help communities
understand their flood risks.
Federal Flood Information: Example of Flood Mapping
The federal government, along with nonfederal entities, is involved in monitoring and modeling flood risk. Federal
entities engaged in understanding flood hazards and mapping inundation include the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), the Department of the Interior’s U.S. Geological Survey, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, among others. Federal agencies survey
coastlines and conduct research to understand coastal processes, hazards, and resources and report on weather-
related hazards, including hurricane-related storm surge. The National Science Foundation also supports research
on related topics. FEMA’s Risk Mapping, Assessment, and Planning (Risk MAP) program plays a key role in flood
risk reduction by providing information to identify flood hazards and assess flood risks and by partnering with
states and communities to provide flood hazard and risk data to guide risk-reduction and resilience-enhancing
actions.
Technological advancements have improved understanding of weather, climate, hydrology, and hydraulics. Of the
many types of data used to estimate flood risk and produce flood maps, elevation data are fundamental to
producing refined estimates and maps. Federal agencies and state, local, and private entities use remote sensing
and other technologies to collect more accurate and precise elevation data for various applications, including maps
related to flood risk.
Actions by the Administration shape how these programs are administered and how federal
funding can be used. In 1977, President Carter signed Executive Order (E.O.) 11988 (“Floodplain
Management”), which required federal actions (including the programs shown in Table 2) to
avoid supporting development in the 100-year floodplain if alternatives were available.21 In 2015,
President Obama signed E.O. 13690, which, among other things, established a Federal Flood Risk
Management Standard (FFRMS) for federally funded projects that required a higher level of
flood resilience than E.O. 11988.22 Federally funded projects were to be flood resilient (through
elevation of structures and facilities or other means) if located within a floodplain determined
pursuant to criteria in E.O. 13690. In addition to complying with E.O. 11988 and the FFRMS,
federal agencies and departments may adopt policies consistent with their authorities that address
flood risk for their programs and activities (e.g., establishing elevation requirements for program-
funded structures, defining flood mitigation and flood control projects eligible for authorized
programs).

21 The 100-year floodplain is the area that will be inundated by a flood event having a 1% chance of occurring in any
given year (also referred to as the 100-year flood). The 100-year floodplain also would be inundated by floods that are
larger (and less likely to occur in a given year) than the 100-year flood.
22 The Federal Flood Risk Management Standard (FFRMS) was first published on January 30, 2015. It was updated and
published on October 8, 2015, as Appendix G to the interagency implementing guidance for E.O. 11988 and E.O.
13690. E.O. 13690 required federal agencies to apply the FFRMS as a minimum flood resilience standard for federally
funded projects. Federally funded projects were defined as actions in which federal funds were used for new
construction, substantial improvement, or measures addressing substantial damage to structures and facilities. On
August 15, 2017, President Trump signed E.O. 13807 in an effort to streamline federal infrastructure approval. Among
other actions, E.O. 13807 revoked E.O. 13690. President Biden reinstated the FFRMS as part of E.O. 14030, “Climate-
Related Financial Risk,” May 20, 2021.
Congressional Research Service

11

link to page 12 Flooding: Selected Federal Assistance and Programs to Reduce Risk

Community Project Funding and Congressionally Directed
Spending
The program-specific summaries that follow provide information on whether the House and
Senate Appropriations Committees have accepted Member requests for specific activities under
each program in the 117th Congress (this information is not addressed in Table 2). Such requests
are referred to as Community Project Funding (CPF) requests in the House and as Congressional
Directed Spending (CDS) requests in the Senate. From the 112th to the 116th Congresses,
moratorium policies limited congressionally directed funding of site-specific studies and projects,
sometimes referred to as earmarks. During the 117th Congress, the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees solicited CPF/CDS requests for certain accounts and programs for
FY2022 and FY2023. Some CPF/CDS requests were included in enacted FY2022 appropriations
and accompanying congressional reports and have been included in deliberations for FY2023
appropriations.23
Additional Resources
In addition to this report, other resources that may be helpful in identifying federal assistance for communities
include the following:

A search tool for federal programs that provide financial or technical assistance or data and tools to support
flood risk and management activities:
USACE, Federal Flood Risk Management Program, “Federal Flood Risk Management Resources,” at
https://ffrmp.nfrmp.us/resources.cfm

A guide to federal programs (including both national programs and programs that are specific to the
southeastern United States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands) to assist with reducing coastal flood risk:
USACE, South Atlantic Coastal Study: Coastal Program Guide, October 2021, at https://www.sad.usace.army.mil/
Portals/60/siteimages/SACS/FinalDraft_SACS_CoastalProgramGuide_print.pdf

The federal Coastal Resilience Interagency Working Group provides an overview of funding opportunities
supporting coastal resilience, including some opportunities not included in the scope of this report:
Coastal Resilience Interagency Working Group, “Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funding opportunities to
support coastal resilience,” at https://www.noaa.gov/coastal-resilience-interagency-working-group
Federal Emergency Management Agency24
FEMA administers four mitigation grant and loan programs that can be used for flood resilience
and risk reduction:
 Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP);
 Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) grant program;
 Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Grant Program; and

23 For a listing of the specific accounts that were eligible for Community Project Funding requests for FY2023 annual
appropriations, see House Committee on Appropriations, “Appropriations Requests,” at
https://appropriations.house.gov/transparency/appropriations-requests-2023. For a listing of accounts eligible for
Congressional Directed Spending requests for FY2023 annual appropriations, see Senate Committee on
Appropriations, “Appropriations Requests—General Guidance,” at https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/download/
appropriations-requests_website.
24 This section was prepared by Diane P. Horn, Specialist in Flood Insurance and Emergency Management.
Congressional Research Service

12

link to page 19 link to page 21 link to page 23 link to page 25 Flooding: Selected Federal Assistance and Programs to Reduce Risk

 Safeguarding Tomorrow Revolving Loan Fund Program (Safeguarding
Tomorrow RLF Program).25
Collectively, FEMA refers to these programs as Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA).26 Table 3,
Table 4, Table 5, an d Table 6 include information on these programs.
HMGP assistance is available on a formula funding basis after a major disaster declaration by the
President under the authorities of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (Stafford Act; 42 U.S.C. §§5121 et seq.). BRIC and FMA grants are awarded
annually on a competitive basis. FEMA expects to issue the first notice of funding opportunity for
the Safeguarding Tomorrow RLF Program in December 2022.27
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
HMGP is authorized by Section 404 of the Stafford Act (“Hazard Mitigation”) and is funded
through the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF).28 HMGP’s key purpose is to ensure the opportunity to
take critical mitigation measures is not lost during the reconstruction process following a disaster.
HMGP funding is available to all areas of a state, territory, or tribal land where a governor or
tribal chief executive requests such funding following a major disaster declaration from the
President or a Fire Management Assistance Grant declaration.29 The HMGP program is
considered post-disaster funding.
The level of HMGP funding available for a given disaster is based on a percentage of the
estimated total federal assistance under the Stafford Act for the declaration, awarded on a sliding
scale as a percentage of the estimated amount of total federal assistance for the disaster:
 Up to 15% of the first $2 billion of estimated aggregate amounts of disaster
assistance;
 Up to 10% of amounts between $2 billion and $10 billion;
 Up to 7.5% of amounts between $10 billion and $35.333 billion; and
 20% for any state with an approved Enhanced State Mitigation Plan in effect
before the disaster.30

25 Flood mitigation measures also can be funded by FEMA Public Assistance under §406 of the Stafford Act and by
FEMA Individual Assistance under §408 of the Stafford Act. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development’s Community Development Block Grant-Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) authorities for disaster recovery
and its mitigation variant (CDBG-MIT), as well as the Small Business Administration Disaster Loan Program, also can
fund flood mitigation activities. These programs may work cooperatively with FEMA programs but are outside the
scope of this report.
26 For further information on FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance, see CRS Report R46989, FEMA Hazard
Mitigation: A First Step Toward Climate Adaptation, by Diane P. Horn.
27 FEMA, “Safeguarding Tomorrow through Ongoing Risk Mitigation (STORM) Revolving Loan Program,” at
https://www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation/storm-rlf, last updated August 3, 2022.
28 42 U.S.C. §5170c. For more information on the Disaster Relief Fund, see CRS Report R45484, The Disaster Relief
Fund: Overview and Issues, by William L. Painter.
29 For more information about disaster declarations, see FEMA, How a Disaster Gets Declared, at
https://www.fema.gov/disaster/how-declared; and CRS Report R43784, FEMA’s Disaster Declaration Process: A
Primer, by Bruce R. Lindsay. For more information on Fire Management Assistance Grant declarations, see FEMA,
Fire Mitigation Assistance Grants, at https://www.fema.gov/assistance/public/fire-management-assistance; and CRS
Report R43738, Fire Management Assistance Grants: Frequently Asked Questions, by Diane P. Horn, Katie Hoover,
and Bruce R. Lindsay.
30 42 U.S.C. §5170c(a) and 44 C.F.R. §206.432(b); 44 C.F.R. §201.5.
Congressional Research Service

13

link to page 20 link to page 20 link to page 20 Flooding: Selected Federal Assistance and Programs to Reduce Risk

HMGP funding initially goes to a state, federally recognized tribe, or territory. States can use
HMGP funds for any eligible activity for any type of hazard and are not limited to the hazard or
area for which the grant was awarded. For example, funding allocated for flooding in one county
could be used for wildfire mitigation in a different county, as long as the activity is eligible. The
state decides where the funding can best be used and how to allocate HMGP funds to sub-
applicants.31
Table 3. FEMA: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)
Purpose
The program supports entities that reduce risk to individuals and property in
order to alleviate reliance on future federal disaster response and recovery
funds. HMGP provides funding to address flood and other natural hazards.
Authorization
§404 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. §5170c.
Program Trigger
Triggered by a Stafford Act major disaster declaration by the President or a
Fire Management Assistance Grant declaration by a FEMA Regional Director.
Geographic Eligibility
Recipients include states, federally recognized tribes, and territories. Funds
typically are made available statewide in the state that received the
declaration, not just in the declared counties.
Eligible Flood-Related
Eligible projects may include, but are not limited to, property acquisition,
Improvements
structure demolition, flood proofing of structures, structure relocation,
structure elevation, mitigation, flood control projects, and localized and non-
localized flood risk reduction projects. In §1210(b) of P.L. 115-254, Congress
authorized HMGP funds to be used toward the federal share of construction
for authorized U.S. Army Corps of Engineers water resource projects if such
activities are eligible under HMGP.
Type of Federal Assistance
Grants to state agencies, federally recognized tribes, local governments, and
certain private nonprofit organizations for mitigation projects and mitigation
planning.
Nonfederal Cost Share
25%a
Maximum Federal Project
The total amount of HMGP funding is based on a percentage of the total
Assistance
amount of other grant assistance provided through the Stafford Act (§404(s)
of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. §5170c), which ranges from 7.5% to 20%.

States with an Enhanced State Hazard Mitigation Plan under §322(e) of the
Stafford Act receive 20% of the total amount.b
Community Project
None.
Funding/Congressionally
Directed Spending
FY2022 Funding
HMGP is one of many activities funded by appropriations to the DRF. DRF
appropriations normally are provided for general disaster relief rather than for
specific disasters or programs.c
FY2022 Supplemental
None.
Funding, Other Than IIJA
IIJA Funding
None.

31 Eligible sub-applicants include state, local, and territorial governments; federally recognized tribes or tribal
organizations; and certain nonprofit organizations. Additionally, certain nonprofit organizations may apply for Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) funding. State agencies and federally recognized tribes applying for HMGP
funding must have a FEMA-approved State or Tribal Mitigation Plan at the time of the presidential major disaster
declaration and at the time the HMGP funding is obligated. All sub-applicants for HMGP must have a FEMA-approved
Local or Tribal Mitigation Plan at the time of grant fund obligation. See 44 C.F.R. §206.434.
Congressional Research Service

14

Flooding: Selected Federal Assistance and Programs to Reduce Risk

FY2023 Budget Request
The DRF budget request does not specifically identify projected obligations of
HMGP funding as the request is developed.
Action Needed to Access
Governor or tribal chief executive must request HMGP within 60 days of the
Program
disaster declaration.
Websites
https://www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation/hazard-mitigation
https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-10/
fema_hazard_mitigation_grant_program_admin_plan_checklist_03-29-19.pdf
https://www.fema.gov/disaster/coronavirus/disaster-declarations
Source: CRS.
Notes: DRF = Disaster Relief Fund; FEMA = Federal Emergency Management Agency; IIJA = Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58); Stafford Act = Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. §§5121 et seq.).
a. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L. 117-103), granted a minimum 90% federal cost share (and
thus a 10% nonfederal cost share) for any emergency declaration or disaster declaration declared from or
having an incident period beginning between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2021.
b. For a list of states with enhanced mitigation plans, see FEMA, “Hazard Mitigation Plan Status,” at
https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/risk-management/hazard-mitigation-planning/status.
c. See CRS Report R45484, The Disaster Relief Fund: Overview and Issues, by William L. Painter.
Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities
BRIC is authorized by Section 203 of the Stafford Act (“Pre-disaster Hazard Mitigation”).32
Before 1997, federal hazard mitigation funding was available only after a disaster, through
HMGP and FEMA Public Assistance, and was intended to ensure the reconstruction process
following a disaster addressed opportunities to include mitigation measures. From FY1997 to
FY2018, the funding available for the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program (PDM) was
appropriated on an annual basis.33 Funding for pre-disaster mitigation changed significantly with
the passage of the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA; P.L. 115-254, Division D),
which authorized a new source of funding for pre-disaster mitigation, the National Public
Infrastructure Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund (NPIPDMF). DRRA allows the President to set aside
from the DRF an amount equal to 6% of the estimated aggregate amount of funding awarded
under seven sections of the Stafford Act.34 The amount set aside in the NPIPDMF shall not reduce
the amounts otherwise available for the relevant sections of the Stafford Act.35 FEMA’s
expectation was that the NPIPDMF would receive $300-$500 million per year on average, based
on historical disaster expenditures.36 The disaster assistance associated with the Coronavirus

32 42 U.S.C. §5170c.
33 The Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program (PDM) began in FY1997. In FY2020, FEMA introduced the Building
Resilient Infrastructure and Communities grant program (BRIC) but did not end the PDM program. In this report, terms
with capital letters—Pre-Disaster Mitigation and PDM—refer to the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program or a title in
a bill. The term pre-disaster mitigation in lowercase letters refers to mitigation activities carried out to reduce damage
from future disasters.
34 Stafford Act §§403 (“Essential Assistance”), 406 (“Repair, Restoration, and Replacement of Damaged Facilities”),
407 (“Debris Removal”), 408 (“Federal Assistance to Individuals and Households”), 410 (“Unemployment
Assistance”), 416 (“Crisis Counseling Assistance and Training”), and 428 (“Public Assistance Program Alternative
Program Procedures”). See CRS Report R45819, The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA): A Summary of
Selected Statutory Provisions, for further details.
35 42 U.S.C. §5133(i)(3).
36 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Economic Development,
Public Buildings, and Emergency Management, Disaster Preparedness: DRRA Implementation and FEMA Readiness,
Serial No. 116-17 (House Hearing), 116th Cong., 1st sess., May 22, 2019, p. 90, at https://www.congress.gov/116/chrg/
Congressional Research Service

15

Flooding: Selected Federal Assistance and Programs to Reduce Risk

Disease 2019 (COVID-19) major disaster declarations,37 however, has resulted in significant
additional funding for pre-disaster mitigation. As of August 31, 2022, a total of $3.814 billion has
been set aside in the DRF for pre-disaster mitigation.38
In FY2020, FEMA introduced the BRIC program to award funding from the NPIPDMF.39 Any
state that has had a major disaster declaration under the Stafford Act in the seven years prior to
the application start date is eligible to apply for BRIC funding. Any federally recognized tribe that
has had a major disaster declaration or is entirely or partially located in a state or territory that has
had a major disaster declaration in the seven years prior to the application start date also is
eligible. All states, territories, and recognized tribal governments are eligible for BRIC at least
through FY2026 due to the COVID-19 pandemic disaster declarations.40
The IIJA appropriated $1 billion for BRIC, with $200 million for each of FY2022-FY2026. This
funding is in addition to the 6% set-aside. President Biden announced on July 20, 2022, that $2.3
billion would be available for BRIC in FY2022.
FY2020 was the first year of operation for BRIC. A total of $500 million was available in
FY2020, with $1 billion available for BRIC in FY2021. A total of $2.295 billion is available for
BRIC in FY2022 in three categories: (1) state/territory allocation ($112 million), (2) tribal set-
aside ($50 million), and (3) national competition ($2.133 billion).41 Applicants are able to submit
an unlimited number of mitigation project applications in category (3), each valued up to $50
million. BRIC’s $50 million per project cap for a mitigation project represents a significant
increase in pre-disaster mitigation funding.
Table 4. FEMA: Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) Program
Purpose
The program helps applicants implement a sustained natural hazard mitigation
program prior to disasters. BRIC provides funding to address flood and other
natural hazards, including tornadoes, earthquakes, and wildfires.
Authorization
§203 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. §5133.
Program Trigger
6% set-aside for every major disaster declaration for the estimated aggregate
amount of the grants made pursuant to Stafford Act §§403, 406, 407, 408, 410,
416, and 428. BRIC also will receive appropriations in FY2022-FY2026 from
the IIJA.
Geographic Eligibility
Any state or territory that has had a major disaster declaration under the
Stafford Act in the seven years prior to the application start date is eligible to
apply for BRIC funding. Any federally recognized tribe that has had a major
disaster declaration or is entirely or partially located in a state or territory
that has had a major disaster declaration under the Stafford Act in the seven
years prior to the application start date also is eligible.

CHRG-116hhrg40590/CHRG-116hhrg40590.pdf.
37 FEMA, “COVID-19 Disaster Declarations,” at https://www.fema.gov/disasters/coronavirus/disaster-declarations.
38 FEMA, Disaster Relief Fund: Monthly Report as of August 31, 2022, Fiscal Year 2022 Report to Congress,
September 8, 2022, p. 24, at https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_september-2022-disaster-relief-
fund-report.pdf.
39 FEMA, “Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC),” at https://www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation/
building-resilient-infrastructure-communities.
40 Eligible applicants for BRIC funding include states, the District of Columbia, U.S. territories, and federally
recognized Indian tribal governments. Federally recognized Indian tribal governments also are eligible sub-applicants.
Local government entities also are eligible subapplicants.
41 Department of Homeland Security, Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities, Notice of Funding
Opportunity Fiscal Year 2022, August 12, 2021, pp. 7-8, at https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
fema_fy22-bric-nofo_08052022.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

16

Flooding: Selected Federal Assistance and Programs to Reduce Risk

Eligible Flood-Related
Eligible projects may include, but are not limited to, property acquisition,
Improvements
structure demolition, structure relocation, flood proofing of structures,
structure elevation, mitigation, and localized and non-localized flood risk
reduction projects.
Type of Federal Assistance
Grants to states or territories and federally recognized tribes for mitigation
projects as well as mitigation planning. Local governments apply through the
state or territory.
Nonfederal Cost Share
25%, or up to 10% if the applicant is a small, impoverished community.
Maximum Federal Project
States, territories, and tribes can apply for up to $2 million in the
Assistance
state/territory and tribal set-asides. Applicants can submit an unlimited
number of mitigation project applications in the national competition, each
valued up to $50 million.
Community Project
For FY2022 and FY2023 appropriations, the House and Senate Appropriations
Funding/Congressionally
Committees accepted Member requests for funding for Pre-Disaster
Directed Spending
Mitigation (PDM) grants.
FY2022 Funding
$2.295 billion.
FY2022 Supplemental
None.
Funding, Other Than IIJA
IIJA Funding
$1 billion: $200 million for each of FY2022-FY2026. This funding is in addition
to the 6% set-aside.
FY2023 Budget Request
Pursuant to §1234 of P.L. 115-254, estimates include a 6% set-aside for pre-
disaster mitigation.
Action Needed to Access
Grant application process.
Program
Websites
https://www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation/building-resilient-infrastructure-
communities
https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_fy22-bric-
nofo_08052022.pdf
Source: CRS.
Notes: FEMA = Federal Emergency Management Agency; IIJA = Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L.
117-58); Stafford Act = Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. §§5121 et
seq.).
Flood Mitigation Assistance
The FMA Program is authorized by the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (NFIA; 42 U.S.C.
§§4001 et seq.). Until FY2022, the FMA Program was funded entirely through revenue collected
by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).42 The FMA Program awards grants for various
purposes, including state and local mitigation planning; the elevation, relocation, demolition, or
flood proofing of structures; the acquisition of properties; and other activities.43 FMA grants are
available only to communities that participate in the NFIP, to assist in efforts to reduce or
eliminate flood damage to buildings and structures insurable under the NFIP, particularly

42 42 U.S.C. §4104c.
43 For additional information on the Flood Mitigation Assistance Program, see 44 C.F.R. Part 78; FEMA’s website at
https://www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation/floods; and CRS Report R44593, Introduction to the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP), by Diane P. Horn and Baird Webel.
Congressional Research Service

17

Flooding: Selected Federal Assistance and Programs to Reduce Risk

repetitive loss and severe repetitive loss properties.44 The FMA Program had $200 million
available in FY2020 and $160 million in FY2021.
The IIJA appropriated $3.5 billion for the FMA Program, with $700 million for each of FY2022-
FY2026. This appropriation represents a significant increase in the amount of funding available
for flood mitigation and the first time that funding has been appropriated for the FMA Program.
The funding appropriated to FMA under the IIJA will provide a 90% federal cost share for a
property that is (1) located in a census tract with a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Social Vulnerability Index score of not less than 0.5001 or (2) that serves as a primary residence
for individuals with a household income of not more than 100% of the applicable area median
income.45
A total of $800 million is available for FMA in FY2022. FEMA will allocate up to $340 million
for localized flood risk projects that address community flood risk, up to $60 million for
capability and capacity building activities, and at least $400 million for projects that reduce the
risk of flooding to individual NFIP-insured structures.46
Table 5. FEMA: Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Program
Purpose
The program supports efforts to reduce the risk of flooding to structures that
flood repetitively and to lessen future insurance claims for the NFIP.
Authorization
§1366 of the National Flood Insurance Act, 42 U.S.C. §4104c.
Program Trigger
Annual appropriations: FMA receives funding through an offsetting collection
of NFIP premiums in annual appropriations acts. FMA also will receive
appropriations from the IIJA in FY2022-FY2026.
Geographic Eligibility
Funding is available to communities that participate in the NFIP in the states,
DC, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Marianas, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin
Islands, and to federally recognized tribes.
Eligible Flood-Related
Eligible projects may include, but are not limited to, property acquisition,
Improvements
structure demolition, flood proofing of structures, structure relocation,
structure elevation, mitigation, and localized and non-localized flood risk
reduction projects.

44 42 U.S.C. §4121(a)(7) defines repetitive loss structure as a structure covered by a contract for flood insurance that
(1) has incurred flood-related damage on two occasions, in which the cost of repair, on the average, equaled or
exceeded 25% of the value of the structure at the time of each such flood event; and (2) at the time of the second
incidence of flood-related damage, the contract for flood insurance contained increased cost-of-compliance coverage.
Severe repetitive loss properties are those that have incurred four or more claim payments exceeding $5,000 each, with
a cumulative amount of such payments over $20,000, or at least two claims with a cumulative total exceeding the value
of the property. See 42 U.S.C. §4014(h) and 44 C.F.R. §79.2(h).
45 The Centers for Disease Control/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (CDC/ATSDR) Social
Vulnerability Index (SVI) uses U.S. Census data to determine the social vulnerability of every census tract, ranked on
15 social factors. SVI scores range from 0 to 1, with 1 representing the highest level of social vulnerability. For
example, a SVI ranking of 0.75 means that 75% of census tracts in the nation are less vulnerable than the tract of
interest. See Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, “CDC/ATSDR SVI Fact Sheet,” at
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/placeandhealth/svi/fact_sheet/fact_sheet.html; and Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry, CDC SVI 2018 Documentation, at https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/placeandhealth/svi/documentation/pdf/
SVI2018Documentation-H.pdf.
46 Department of Homeland Security, Flood Mitigation Assistance, Notice of Funding Opportunity Fiscal Year 2022,
August 12, 2021, pp. 5-7, at https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_fy22-fma-
nofo_08052022_0.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

18

Flooding: Selected Federal Assistance and Programs to Reduce Risk

Type of Federal Assistance
Grants to state or territory agencies and federally recognized tribes and
governments for mitigation projects as well as mitigation planning. Local
governments apply through the state or territory. FMA is available only to
communities that participate in the NFIP.
Nonfederal Cost Share
25% for NFIP-insured properties and planning grants.
10% for repetitive loss properties.
90%/10% for a property that (1) is located in a census tract with a CDC SVI
score of not less than 0.5001, or (2) serves as a primary residence for
individuals with a household income of not more than 100% of the applicable
area median income.
0% for severe repetitive loss properties.
Maximum Federal Project
Maximum amount for localized flood risk reduction projects is $50 million.
Assistance
Community Project
None.
Funding/Congressionally
Directed Spending
FY2022 Funding
$800 million.
FY2022 Supplemental
None.
Funding, Other Than IIJA
IIJA Funding
$3.5 billion: $700 million for each of FY2022-FY2026.
FY2023 Budget Request
Administration budget request of $175 million in offsetting collections.
Action Needed to Access
Grant application process.
Program
Websites
https://www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation/floods
https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_fy22-fma-nofo-fact-
sheet_08122022.pdf
Source: CRS.
Notes: CDC SVI = Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Social Vulnerability Index; FEMA = Federal
Emergency Management Agency; IIJA = Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58); NFIP = National
Flood Insurance Program.
Safeguarding Tomorrow Revolving Loan Fund Program
The newest source of hazard mitigation funding will be available through the Safeguarding
Tomorrow through Ongoing Risk Mitigation Act of 2020 (STORM Act; P.L. 116-284). This law
amends the Stafford Act by authorizing FEMA to enter into agreements with eligible entities to
establish hazard mitigation RLFs.47 Funds made available through the STORM Act may be used
to assist homeowners, businesses, certain nonprofit organizations, and communities to reduce risk
in order to decrease the loss of life and property, the cost of flood insurance, and federal disaster
payments. The legislation aims to provide eligible entities with funding that will help them carry
out their own hazard mitigation projects by making loans available to local governments.48
Eligible entities include states,49 tribal governments that have received a major disaster

47 42 U.S.C. §5135.
48 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Safeguarding Tomorrow
Through Ongoing Risk Mitigation Act of 2020, report to accompany S. 3418, 116th Cong., 2nd sess., S.Rept. 116-249,
August 10, 2020, p. 3, at https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/116th-congress/senate-report/249.
49 The Safeguarding Tomorrow through Ongoing Risk Mitigation Act of 2020 (STORM Act; P.L. 116-284) defines
Congressional Research Service

19

Flooding: Selected Federal Assistance and Programs to Reduce Risk

declaration during a five-year period ending on the date of enactment of the STORM Act
(January 1, 2021), and insular areas.50 Loans may not exceed an interest rate of 1%.
An RLF is a self-replenishing financial mechanism that starts with a base level of capital, often
consisting of grants from the federal government or a state or private investment. RLFs can make
loans targeted to specific types of borrowers or specific types of activities and are designed to use
loan repayments to recapitalize the fund and make additional loans.51 Federally supported state
RLFs have been operating for many years through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund,
established in 1987, and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, established in 1996.52
However, the STORM Act represents the first time that such a fund has been set up to fund
hazard mitigation.
The STORM Act authorized the appropriation of $100 million annually for FY2022 and FY2023
to make grants to capitalize new revolving funds to be administered by states or insular areas. The
IIJA appropriated $500 million for the revolving loan program, with $100 million for each of
FY2022-FY2026. Following the appropriation of funding in the IIJA, FEMA is working on
implementation of the Safeguarding Tomorrow RLF Program; its goal is for a program launch
and notice of funding opportunity to be published toward the end of calendar year 2022.53
Table 6. FEMA: Safeguarding Tomorrow Revolving Loan Fund Program
(Safeguarding Tomorrow RLF Program)
Purpose
The program provides capitalization grants to states, insular areas, and
federally recognized tribes to establish RLFs that provide hazard mitigation
assistance for local governments to reduce risks from natural hazards.
Reducing these risks decreases the loss of life and property, the cost of
insurance, and federal disaster payments. The RLFs will provide funding to
address flood and other natural hazards.
Authorization
§205 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. §5135.
Program Trigger
The IIJA provided appropriations for the Safeguarding Tomorrow RLF
Program in FY2022-FY2026.
Geographic Eligibility
States, DC, insular areas, and federally recognized tribal governments that
have received a major disaster declaration during a five-year period ending on
the date of enactment of the STORM Act (January 1, 2021).
Eligible Flood-Related
Eligible projects in the statute may include, but are not limited to, zoning and
Improvements
land use planning changes; establishment and implementation of building code
enforcement; and activities that mitigate the impacts of natural hazards such as
hurricanes, cyclones, floods, shoreline erosion, high water levels, and storm
surges, including the construction, repair, or replacement of a nonfederal
levee or other flood control structure.
Type of Federal Assistance
Grants to capitalize the RLFs

states as the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. See 42 U.S.C. §5135(m)(10).
50 The STORM Act defines the term insular area to mean Guam, American Samoa, Northern Marianas, and the U.S.
Virgin Islands. See 42 U.S.C. §5135(m)(5).
51 For additional information on revolving loan funds, see CRS Report R46471, Federally Supported Projects and
Programs for Wastewater, Drinking Water, and Water Supply Infrastructure, coordinated by Jonathan L. Ramseur; and
CRS In Focus IF11449, Economic Development Revolving Loan Funds (ED-RLFs), by Julie M. Lawhorn.
52 For additional information on the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund,
see CRS Report R46464, EPA Water Infrastructure Funding in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,
by Jonathan L. Ramseur and Elena H. Humphreys.
53 FEMA, Safeguarding Tomorrow Revolving Loan Fund Program, September 26, 2022, at https://www.fema.gov/
grants/mitigation/storm-rlf.
Congressional Research Service

20

link to page 28 Flooding: Selected Federal Assistance and Programs to Reduce Risk

Nonfederal Cost Share
10%; all participating entities are required to provide matching funds from
nonfederal sources in an amount equal to 10% of the amount they receive for
the revolving fund.
Maximum Federal Project
A single project may receive no more than $5 million.
Assistance
Community Project
None.
Funding/Congressionally
Directed Spending
FY2022 Funding
$100 million from the IIJA.
FY2022 Supplemental
None.
Funding, Other Than IIJA
IIJA Funding
$500 million: $100 million for each of FY2022-FY2026.
FY2023 Budget Request
None.
Action Needed to Access
Eligible entities must submit applications to FEMA including (1) project
Program
proposals comprising local government hazard mitigation projects; (2) an
assessment of recurring major disaster vulnerabilities impacting the entity; (3)
a description of how the entity’s hazard mitigation plan has accounted for
these vulnerabilities; (4) a description of how the projects conform with the
hazard mitigation plan; and (5) a proposal of how to achieve resilience through
regional approaches where there may be shared vulnerable areas that could
be affected by a single natural disaster event.
Websites
https://www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation/storm-rlf
https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/116th-congress/senate-report/
249
https://www.congress.gov/116/plaws/publ284/PLAW-116publ284.pdf
Source: CRS.
Notes: FEMA = Federal Emergency Management Agency; IIJA = Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L.
117-58); RLF = Revolving Loan Fund; Stafford Act = Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act (42 U.S.C. §§5121 et seq.); STORM Act = Safeguarding Tomorrow through Ongoing Risk Mitigation Act of
2020 (P.L. 116-284).
CRS Contact and Products
CRS Expert

Diane P. Horn, Specialist in Flood Insurance and Emergency Management
Relevant CRS Products

CRS Insight IN11733, Recent Funding Increases for FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance, by Diane P. Horn

CRS Report R46989, FEMA Hazard Mitigation: A First Step Toward Climate Adaptation, by Diane P. Horn
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers54
USACE is the primary federal agency constructing projects to provide flood damage reduction.
Its projects are primarily along rivers and coasts. For example, Figure 3 illustrates how a USACE
project may re-nourish sand to reduce coastal flood risk by widening the beach.

54 This section was prepared by Nicole T. Carter, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy.
Congressional Research Service

21

link to page 29 link to page 31 link to page 29 link to page 31 Flooding: Selected Federal Assistance and Programs to Reduce Risk

Although state, local, tribal, and territorial government entities maintain significant flood
management responsibilities, since the early 1900s, Congress has tasked USACE with
constructing many dams, levees, and other water resource projects to reduce riverine flood
damages.55 Starting in the mid-1950s, Congress also tasked USACE with undertaking coastal
flood risk reduction projects consisting of engineered coastal dunes and beaches and some storm
surge barriers. Nonfederal entities (e.g., municipalities, irrigation districts, county flood control
entities) often share in the cost of these flood control projects.
USACE conducts its flood risk reduction studies and projects through project-specific and
programmatic authorities.56 Typically, most of this work requires the study and construction costs
to be shared with a nonfederal sponsor, such as a municipality or levee district. Generally, federal
involvement has been limited to projects that are determined to have national economic benefits
exceeding their costs or that address a public safety concern.57 USACE currently is reviewing and
updating its policies on assessing project benefits and costs and arriving at a federal investment
decision. The rate of annual federal appropriations for USACE projects has not kept pace with the
rate of construction authorization for these projects; therefore, there is competition for USACE
construction funds.
Table 7 and Table 8 include information on USACE flood risk reduction projects and programs.
Table 7 provides information on projects that require Congress to specifically authorize their
study and construction in legislation. For projects of a limited size and scope, Congress has
provided USACE with programmatic authorities to participate in planning and construction of
some projects without project-specific congressional authorization; these authorities are known as
continuing authorities programs (CAPs). Table 8 provides information on four flood-related
CAPs. CAPs are known by the section of the law in which they were authorized.

55 Prior to the lower Mississippi River flood of 1927, the federal role in flood control was limited. The federal role has
expanded over the decades, often in response to catastrophic and regional flood events. Examples include construction
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) of levees and floodways as part of the Mississippi River and
Tributaries project, which Congress authorized in 1928, and drainage structures of the Central and Southern Florida
project in and around the Florida Everglades, which Congress authorized in 1948.
56 In 2014, Congress enacted the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA; 33 U.S.C. §§3901 et seq.),
which authorized USACE to provide credit assistance to water infrastructure projects, including riverine and coastal
flood damage reduction projects. USACE has received funding for the program, but the program is not yet providing
assistance. For more information, see CRS Insight IN11577, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Infrastructure
Financing Program (CWIFP): Status and Issues, by Nicole T. Carter, Anna E. Normand, and Elena H. Humphreys.
57 Congress established this policy in the Flood Control Act of 1936 (49 Stat. 1470), which states, “the Federal
Government should improve or participate in the improvement of navigable waters or their tributaries including
watersheds thereof, for flood control purposes if the benefits to whomsoever they may accrue are in excess of the
estimated costs, and if the lives and social security of people are otherwise adversely affected.”
Congressional Research Service

22

Flooding: Selected Federal Assistance and Programs to Reduce Risk

Figure 3. Example of Beach Engineered to Reduce Flood Damages
(Ocean City, NJ, before and after engineered beach project)

Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2012 and 2013.
Congress also authorized USACE to fund the repair of certain nonfederal flood control works
(e.g., levees, dams) and federally constructed hurricane or shore protection projects that are
damaged by “other than ordinary” water, wind, or wave action (e.g., storm surge rather than high
tide). To be eligible for this assistance, damaged flood control works must be eligible for and
active in the agency’s damage rehabilitation program, and the flood control work must have been
in an acceptable condition at the time of damage according to regular inspections by USACE.
Currently, 1,100 active nonfederal flood risk management systems participate in rehabilitation
program. The damage rehabilitation program does not fund repairs associated with regular (i.e.
ordinary) operation, maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation (i.e., rehabilitation not associated with
damage).
Congress also has authorized USACE to provide credit assistance to specified eligible entities, in
the form of secured or direct loans, for various types of water resource projects including
reduction of riverine or coastal storm flood damage. The authority was enacted in the Water
Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 2014 (WIFIA 2014, Title V, Subtitle C of P.L. 113-
121; 33 U.S.C. §§3901-3914, as amended). USACE’s program is called the Corps Water
Infrastructure Financing Program (CWIFP). Congress first funded CWIFP to provide credit
assistance in FY2021. Of the $96.4 million in CWIFP funding through FY2022, Congress has
indicated that $81.0 million is specifically to support dam safety projects for nonfederally owned
dams (based on ownership information in the National Inventory of Dams). In June 2022,
USACE proposed a rule for CWIFP implementation that reflected the appropriations’ limitation
of lending only to nonfederal dam safety projects.58 USACE anticipates accepting preliminary
loan applications in spring 2023 following publication of a final rule, and for the first loans to
close a roughly two years later. The proposed rule indicates that nonfederal costs associated with
congressionally authorized USACE projects are ineligible for CWIFP credit assistance. WIFIA
2014 also authorized an analogous program for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

58 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, “Credit Assistance and Related Fees for Water Resources Infrastructure Projects,” 87
Federal Register 35473-35489, June 10, 2022.
Congressional Research Service

23

link to page 47 Flooding: Selected Federal Assistance and Programs to Reduce Risk

for other types of water projects (see Table 15 discussion of EPA’s WIFIA program for more
information).
Supplemental Appropriations
USACE also has a role in responding to natural disasters, especially floods. Since the mid-2000s,
Congress has regularly provided USACE with supplemental appropriations to study and construct
flood control projects as part of post-disaster recovery efforts. For more than a decade, Congress
has often directed that most or some of USACE disaster-related supplemental funds be used to
construct new or ongoing USACE flood risk reduction projects in states and territories affected
by specified disasters or for flood disasters occurring during a specified period. In addition,
Congress has provided USACE with supplemental appropriations to fund flood response and
recovery activities. At times, Congress also has funded USACE through broader economy- and
infrastructure-related supplemental appropriations bills, such as IIJA.
Congress generally has tailored USACE’s use of supplemental appropriations to reflect specific
characteristics of the disaster or the economic, infrastructure, or security concern. For example,
Congress also may include exemptions to requirements that typically apply to USACE projects.
Such exemptions may include waiving requirements that limit USACE proceeding with projects
that exceed their authorization of appropriations and waiving some required nonfederal cost
sharing. In addition, Congress allowed some projects to receive disaster-related supplemental
appropriations to move from a feasibility study to construction with approval of the Assistant
Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)—rather than requiring project-specific congressional
construction authorization—if the construction is funded using supplemental appropriations. After
supplemental appropriations bills are enacted, USACE selects the specific projects to receive
funding from among the qualifying projects, unless Congress has specified which projects are to
be funded.
Table 7. USACE: Flood Damage Reduction Projects
Purpose
These projects are for making improvements that reduce riverine and coastal
storm damages. These improvements are pursued as individual projects rather
than under an authorized national program.
Authorization
Studies and project construction are individually authorized by Congress,
typically in a WRDA.
Program Trigger
Authorization: Study and project construction authorizations.
Appropriations: Annual or supplemental appropriations.
Geographic Eligibility
Project-specific congressional authorization determines the project’s
geographic scope. USACE has constructed projects in all states, some Indian
Reservations, DC, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Marianas, Puerto
Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Eligible Flood-Related
Flood damage reduction measures, which typically consist of engineered
Improvements
works (e.g., levees, engineered dunes and beaches, storm surge gates, dams)
but also may include natural and nature-based features and buyouts of
structures.
Projects historically have been required to have national benefits exceeding
costs or to address public safety concerns.
Projects generally are limited to those that reduce riverine flood damage and
coastal storm flood damage. Projects generally do not address drainage within
a community or flooding from groundwater or high tides.
Congressional Research Service

24

link to page 31 link to page 31 link to page 31 Flooding: Selected Federal Assistance and Programs to Reduce Risk

Type of Federal Assistance
USACE performs a cost-shared study and manages construction, or USACE
provides credit or reimbursement for the federal portion of a nonfederally
led, congressionally authorized study and construction project.
Nonfederal Cost Share
Study: Typically 50%.
Construction: Typically 35%.
Coastal Periodic Nourishment: 50%.a
O&M: Typically 100%, O&M is a nonfederal responsibility for most projects
(some legacy projects and dams have O&M provided by USACE).
Territories and tribes have the first ≈$0.6 million in costs associated with
studies and construction activities waived pursuant to 33 U.S.C. §2310.
Maximum Federal Project
Amount depends on project-specific authorization of appropriations.
Assistance
CPF/CDS
For FY2022 and FY2023 appropriations, House and Senate Appropriations
Committees accepted Member requests for funding for congressionally
authorized USACE studies and construction projects as part of the USACE
Investigation and Construction accounts.
FY2022 Funding
$866 million for flood-related study and construction ($143 million for coastal
studies and construction, $723 million for riverine studies and construction).b
(Annual appropriations typically are provided in annual Energy and Water
Development appropriations acts. Division D of P.L. 117-103 added onto the
budget request to include funds for CPFs/CDSs, of which $10 million was for
flood-related studies and $119 million was for flood-related construction.
FY2022 Supplemental
P.L. 117-43: $3.0 billion for flood-related construction, of which $1.5 billion
Funding, Other Than IIJA
was for states affected by Hurricane Ida.
$130 million for flood-related studies. USACE had not assigned all of these
funds to specific studies and projects as of September 2022.
IIJA Funding
FY2022: $4.95 billion for flood-related construction projects, of which $2.50
billion is for inland flood risk management and $2.45 billion for coastal storm
risk management. $120 million for studies, including flood-related studies.
FY2023: $50 million for construction of coastal shore protection projects. $30
million for flood pilot program for rural and economically disadvantaged
community feasibility studies.
FY2024: $50 million for construction of coastal shore protection projects.
FY2023 Budget Request
$479 million for flood-related study and construction ($25 million for coastal
studies and $454 million for riverine studies and construction).c
Action Needed to Access
Congressional study or project authorization and appropriations are required,
Program
typically through a WRDA. Nonfederal project sponsors can submit proposals
for WRDA authorization through §7001 annual report process. Authorizing
committees also may solicit authorization proposals from Members of
Congress during WRDA development.
Once a study or project is authorized, most studies and projects require
federal and nonfederal funding to proceed. The Administration can identify the
study or project for federal funding in the President’s budget request or in the
Administration’s work plan for enacted appropriations. Congress may identify
studies and projects for funding through annual appropriations processes,
including CPF/CDS requests.
Congressional Research Service

25

Flooding: Selected Federal Assistance and Programs to Reduce Risk

Websites
https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Budget/
http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Project-Planning/WRRDA-
7001-Proposals/
http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/Missions/Flood-Risk-Management/Flood-Risk-
Management-Program/
To identify a USACE district: https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Locations/
Source: CRS.
Notes: Amounts shown in table do not include funding for O&M of USACE projects or funding for the study,
construction, operation, maintenance, and repair of projects for the USACE’s MR&T account. CPF/CDS =
Community Project Funding/Congressionally Directed Spending; IIJA = Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
(P.L. 117-58); MR&T = Mississippi River and Tributaries; O&M = Operation and Maintenance; USACE = U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers; WRDA = Water Resources Development Act.
a. For beach and dune nourishment elements of coastal storm damage reduction projects, the construction is
often authorized to include regular re-nourishments (i.e., sand replenishment) over 50 years.
b. Amount does not include $837 million in USACE flood-related O&M spending; much of this is for existing
projects that USACE owns and operates. Amount does not include $266 million associated with the MR&T
account.
c. Amount does not include $868 million associated with the MR&T account.
Table 8. USACE: Flood-Related Continuing Authorities Programs (CAPs)
Purpose
Under authorized CAPs, USACE may study and construct certain
improvements without additional project-specific congressional authorization.
CAPs are known by the section number of the law in which they were
authorized. The four flood-related CAPs are for projects that

reduce flood damages using structural and nonstructural approaches
(§205);

reduce beach erosion and hurricane storm damage (§103);

protect public works and nonprofit services affected by streambank and
shoreline erosion (§14); or

mitigate shore damage from federal navigation projects (§111).
Authorization
§205: 33 U.S.C. §701s
§103: 33 U.S.C. §426g
§14: 33 U.S.C. §701r
§111: 33 U.S.C. §426i
Program Trigger
Annual appropriations (including CPF/CDS requests); supplemental
appropriations.
Geographic Eligibility
§§205, 14, and 111 projects can be in U.S. states or on lands of federally
recognized tribes, and the authorities have been interpreted as being open to
projects in territorial possessions.
§103 is open to projects on the shores and beaches of U.S. states, federally
recognized tribes, and U.S. territories and possessions.
Eligible Flood-Related
Flood damage reduction measures, which typically consist of engineered
Improvements
works (e.g., levees, engineered dunes and beaches, storm surge gates, dams)
but also may include natural and nature-based features and buyouts of
structures.
Projects generally are required to have national benefits exceeding costs or to
address public safety concerns, as well as to be technically feasible and to
comply with federal environmental and resource statutes.
Type of Federal Assistance
USACE study and construction of cost-shared projects.
Congressional Research Service

26

link to page 33 Flooding: Selected Federal Assistance and Programs to Reduce Risk

Nonfederal Cost Share
Study:

§§205, 103, and 14: 50% after first $100,000, which is 100% federal.

§111: Same as the federal project causing the damage.
Construction:

§§205, 103, and 14: 35%.

§111: Same as the federal project causing the damage.
Operation and Maintenance: 100%, operation and maintenance are
nonfederal responsibilities.
Waiver: Territories and tribes have the first ≈$0.6 million in costs associated
with these activities waived pursuant to 33 U.S.C. §2310.
Maximum Federal Project
Federal assistance for a project cannot exceed the following.
Assistance

§205: $10.0 million

§103: $10.0 million

§14: $5.0 million

§111: $10.0 million
CPF/CDS
For FY2022 and FY2023 appropriations, House and Senate Appropriations
Committees accepted Member requests for funding for CAP projects as part
of the USACE Construction account.
FY2022 Funding
Annual appropriations typically are provided in annual Energy and Water
Development appropriations acts. Division D of P.L. 117-103 funded CAPs at
the following amounts and, of these funds, specified some for specific
CPF/CDS requests.

§205: $10.0 million, of which $0.5 million was for five CPF/CDS requests

§103: $1.0 million, of which $0.3 million was for four CPF/CDS requests

§14: $8.0 million, of which $2.0 million was for four CPF/CDS requests

§111: $2.5 million, with no CPF/CDS requests
FY2022 Supplemental
P.L. 117-43: Congress stipulated that USACE could allocate up to $65.0
Funding, Other Than IIJA
million of the $3 billion provided for FY2022 construction appropriations to
CAP projects for flood and storm risk reduction (at 100% federal expense if
an ongoing project). As of July 2022, USACE reported no allocation of funding
to CAP projects in its P.L. 117-43 spend plan.
IIJA Funding
Of the $11.615 billion provided by IIJA to the USACE Construction account,
IIJA indicates that $465.0 million was for seven CAPs (not including §111) and
WRDA 2020 §165(a) CAP pilot program,a of which $115.0 million is for
certain non-flood-related CAP projects. As of October 2022, USACE
reported assigning $215.5 million of the $465.0 million to specific CAP
projects, including the following amounts for projects performed pursuant to
three flood-related CAPs:

§205: $51.4 million across 36 projects

§103: $12.1 million across 12 projects

§14: $14.3 million across 38 projects
FY2023 Budget Request
Administration budget request for §205 was $1.0 million. No funding was
requested for the other flood-related CAPs.
Action Needed to Access
State, tribal, or local government agency may submit to the local USACE
Program
district a written request for work under a CAP authority. USACE identifies
and selects eligible projects for funding using enacted appropriations for the
CAP program. Congress may identify funding for specific CAP projects
through annual appropriations processes, including CPF/CDS requests.
Congressional Research Service

27

Flooding: Selected Federal Assistance and Programs to Reduce Risk

Websites
No national USACE CAP website.
USACE’s Engineering Pamphlet 1105-2-58 provides more information on
USACE CAPs, at https://www.publications.usace.army.mil/Portals/76/EP_1105-
2-58.pdf.
USACE district websites may provide information on initiating CAP projects;
to identify a USACE district, use https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/
Locations/.
Source: CRS.
Notes: CPF/CDS = Community Project Funding/Congressionally Directed Spending; IIJA = Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58); USACE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; WRDA = Water Resources
Development Act; WRDA 2020 = Division AA of P.L. 116-260.
a. §165(a) of WRDA 2020 authorized a pilot program for USACE to conduct 10 CAP projects at full federal
expense for small or economically disadvantaged communities. In October 2022, USACE allocated $3
million of IIJA construction funding to initiate 10 Section 165(a) CAP projects. USACE did not specify
whether these 10 projects are limited to flood-related projects.
CRS Contacts and Products
CRS Experts

Nicole T. Carter, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

Anna E. Normand, Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
Relevant CRS Products

CRS Insight IN11810, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works: Primer and Resources, by Anna E. Normand and
Nicole T. Carter

CRS Insight IN11723, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) Funding for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) Civil Works: Policy Primer, by Nicole T. Carter and Anna E. Normand

CRS In Focus IF11106, Army Corps of Engineers: Continuing Authorities Programs, by Anna E. Normand

CRS Report R46320, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Annual Appropriations Process, by Anna E. Normand and
Nicole T. Carter
U.S. Department of Agriculture59
Congress established USDA’s role in flood control and risk reduction decades ago, as it did with
USACE.60 The general differences between the two agencies are the size, scope, location, and
authorization of projects. USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) administers
two programs that provide flood damage reduction—the Watershed and Flood Prevention
Operations (WFPO) Program and floodplain easements within the Emergency Watershed
Protection (EWP) Program.61 These programs provide assistance to states, territories, tribes, and

59 This section was prepared by Megan Stubbs, Specialist in Agricultural Conservation and Natural Resources Policy.
60 The Flood Control Act of 1936 (P.L. 74-738) authorized USDA to examine and survey measures of controlling
runoff, soil erosion, and water flow in watersheds upstream from the rivers and tributaries under USACE’s jurisdiction.
This authority was expanded in the Flood Control Act of 1944 (P.L. 78-534) and again in the Watershed Protection and
Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (P.L. 83-566), which provided authority and funding for structural practices. Congress
intended for USDA to conduct smaller flood control works upstream of larger USACE projects as an extension of
USDA’s current on-farm conservation work. For additional information, see CRS Report R46471, Federally Supported
Projects and Programs for Wastewater, Drinking Water, and Water Supply Infrastructure, coordinated by Jonathan L.
Ramseur.
61 Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) is an emergency recovery program that provides financial and technical
assistance to project sponsors following a natural disaster. Congress amended the program in 1996 (§382, P.L. 104-
127) to include the purchase of floodplain easements “in lieu of recovery.” Since then, the Natural Resources
Congressional Research Service

28

link to page 36 link to page 37 link to page 34 link to page 35

Flooding: Selected Federal Assistance and Programs to Reduce Risk

local organizations; projects generally originate at the local level and do not require congressional
approval. Annual appropriations vary greatly from year to year, resulting in a number of
authorized but unfunded projects. Table 9 and Table 10 include information on USDA flood risk
reduction and mitigation programs. Figure 4 provides an example of an EWP floodplain
easement, and Figure 5 provides an example of a WFPO project.
Figure 4. Example of an Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP)
Floodplain Easement

Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service, May 1, 2013.
Note: Floodplain easement near the Red River east of Bowesmont, ND.

Conservation Service (NRCS) has enrolled over 1,760 easements on nearly 200,000 acres. For additional information,
see CRS Report R42854, Emergency Assistance for Agricultural Land Rehabilitation, by Megan Stubbs. NRCS also
may conduct flood control activities under the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP). RCPP leverages
federal funding for specific areas and resource concerns defined by project sponsors using authorities of other NRCS
conservation programs, including the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations (WFPO) Program. Watershed
projects under RCPP operate similarly to WFPO projects and therefore are not included in this report. For additional
information on watershed projects under RCPP, see the FY2022 Regional Conservation Partnership Program-Classic,
Notice of Funding Opportunity, January 13, 2022, at https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/view-opportunity.html?
oppId=337340. NRCS also administers a number of agricultural conservation programs that provide technical and
financial assistance to individual producers to implement conservation measures. These measures can include flood risk
reduction and erosion strategies. Because these programs are administered directly to individuals and not to state or
local entities, they are not included in this report. For additional information on these programs, see CRS Report
R40763, Agricultural Conservation: A Guide to Programs, by Megan Stubbs.
Congressional Research Service

29

Flooding: Selected Federal Assistance and Programs to Reduce Risk

Figure 5. Example of a Watershed and Flood Prevention
Operations (WFPO) Project

Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service, May 1, 2013.
Notes: Snake River diversion structure at Warren, MN. The diversion structure is one component of a larger
WFPO project to address flooding. Other components (not pictured) include a four-mile floodway, 550-acre
impoundment, and wetlands mitigation.
Supplemental Appropriations
Supplemental appropriations can vary from year to year for WFPO and EWP. In general, WFPO
activities are appropriated funding annually through the Agriculture appropriations act.62 In the
past, WFPO’s ongoing list of authorized but unfunded projects has led to the program’s inclusion
in periodic infrastructure (e.g., IIJA) and economic stimulus acts (e.g., American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act, P.L. 111-5) that provide the program with occasional supplemental funding. In
addition to annual appropriations, WFPO is authorized to receive $50 million annually in
permanent mandatory funding.63 WFPO funding is generally available until expended.

62 The Agriculture appropriations act is formally called the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act and funds most of USDA, except the U.S. Forest Service.
Recently, the enacted FY2022 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 117-103, Division A) included a policy provision
that waives WFPO’s 250,000-acre project upper limit when the project’s primary purpose is something other than flood
prevention. This provision did not amend the WFPO authorization; therefore, it is effective only for the funds provided
during the FY2022 appropriation year. For additional information on annual WFPO appropriations, see CRS Report
R46971, Agricultural Conservation: FY2022 Appropriations, by Megan Stubbs.
63 Authority for WFPO to receive mandatory funding was included in the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (2018
farm bill; P.L. 115-334). For additional information on changes in the 2018 farm bill, see CRS Report R45698,
Agricultural Conservation in the 2018 Farm Bill, by Megan Stubbs.
Congressional Research Service

30

link to page 37 link to page 37 link to page 37 link to page 37 Flooding: Selected Federal Assistance and Programs to Reduce Risk

Unlike WFPO, EWP receives funding almost exclusively through supplemental appropriations.
Most EWP funding is designated as emergency spending and occasionally includes language
directing funding to a named disaster event (e.g., hurricane) or calendar year. EWP funding
generally remains available until expended and does not require a disaster declaration.64
Table 9. NRCS: Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations (WPFO)
Purpose
WFPO provides technical and financial assistance to states, territories, Indian
tribes or tribal organizations,a and local organizations to plan and install
watershed projects. WFPO originally required flood prevention and
protection as a function of all projects. The program has been amended to
include other water quality and water resources purposes.b
Authorization
The program consists of projects built under two authorities—the Watershed
Prevention and Flood Protection Act of 1954 (P.L. 83-566) and the Flood
Control Act of 1944 (P.L. 78-534). 33 U.S.C. §701b-1 and 16 U.S.C. §§1001-
1008.
Program Trigger
Program appropriations in enacted legislation and permanently authorized
mandatory funding.
Geographic Eligibility
Projects in states, Indian Reservations, DC, American Samoa, Guam, Northern
Marianas, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Eligible Flood-Related
Eligible projects include land treatment and nonstructural and structural
Improvements
facilities for flood prevention and erosion reduction. Structural measures can
include dams, levees, canals, and pumping stations.
Type of Federal Assistance
Partial project grants, plus provision of technical advisory services.
Nonfederal Cost Share
Cost-share requirements vary by project purpose and type of cost.c
Flood Prevention. TA: 0%; C: 0%; P: 100%.
Watershed Protection (including flood control). TA: 0%; C: varies (i.e.,
nonfederal share is up to the amount of funding required for similar practices
under other NRCS conservation programs); P: 100%.
Public Recreation and Fish and Wildlife. TA: 0%; C: up to 50%; P: up to
50%.
Agricultural Water Management. TA: as low as 0%; C: up to 75%;
P: 100%.
Municipal and Industrial Water Supply. TA: 100%; C: up to 50%;
P: 100%.
Water Quality Management (including reservoir structures). TA: as
low as 0%; C: varies (i.e., nonfederal share is set at the discretion of the
Secretary of Agriculture); P: 100%.
Maximum Federal Project
No project may exceed 250,000 acres,d and no structure may exceed more
Assistance
than 12,500 acre-feet of floodwater detention capacity, or 25,000 acre-feet of
total capacity without congressional approval. Congressional approval is also
required when a project includes an estimated federal contribution of more
than $25 million for construction or a storage structure with a capacity in
excess of 2,500 acre-feet. There are no population or community income-
level limits on applications for WFPO; however, at least 20% of the project’s
total benefit must directly relate to agriculture (including rural communities).
Community Project
In FY2022 and FY2023, the Senate Appropriations Committee accepted
Funding/Congressionally
request for funding for WFPO projects. The enacted FY2022 appropriation
Directed Spending
included $23.3 million of Congressionally Directed Spending from the WFPO
account.

64 For additional information on EWP, see CRS Report R42854, Emergency Assistance for Agricultural Land
Rehabilitation, by Megan Stubbs.
Congressional Research Service

31

Flooding: Selected Federal Assistance and Programs to Reduce Risk

FY2022 Funding
$147 million total. $100 million (discretionary), $10 million of which is
required to be allocated to projects and activities that can (1) “commence
promptly”; (2) address regional priorities for flood prevention, agricultural
water management, inefficient irrigation systems, fish and wildlife habitat, or
watershed protection; or (3) address watershed protection projects
authorized under the Flood Control Act of 1944 (P.L. 78-534).
(Annual appropriations typically are provided in annual Agricultural and
Related Agencies appropriations acts.)
$47 million (mandatory), authorization of $50 mil ion is reduced by
sequestration.
(Mandatory funding is provided annually and is permanently authorized.)
FY2022 Supplemental
No supplemental appropriations.
Funding, Other Than IIJA
IIJA Funding
$500 million available in FY2022 to remain available until expended.
FY2023 Budget Request
Discretionary: $125 million
Mandatory: $50 million (authorization to be reduced by an unknown amount
of sequestration)
Action Needed to Access
A local project sponsor is required for all projects. The project sponsor
Program
submits a formal request for NRCS assistance, which allows NRCS to develop
a preliminary investigation and feasibility report. If found feasible, the project
sponsor submits a request for federal assistance. Following development of a
work plan and NRCS authorization, funds for implementation are awarded as
available. Congressional approval is not required unless the project meets
criteria described above.
Website
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/programs/landscape/
wfpo/
Source: CRS.
Notes: C = installation/construction; IIJA = Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58); NRCS =
Natural Resources Conservation Service; P = real property rights; TA = engineering/technical assistance.
a. This includes any Indian tribe or tribal organization, as defined in 25 U.S.C. §5304, having authority under
federal, state, or Indian tribal law to carry out, maintain, and operate the works of improvement.
b. Other improvements can include agricultural water management, public recreation development, fish and
wildlife habitat development, and municipal or industrial water supplies.
c. Local sponsors agree to operate and maintain all completed projects.
d. The FY2022 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 117-103) temporarily waives the 250,000-acre limitation
for all authorized WPFO activities in FY2022 unless the primary purpose is flood prevention.
Table 10. NRCS: Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP)—Floodplain Easements
Purpose
Separate from the general EWP program, floodplain easements are meant to
safeguard lives and property from future floods, drought, and the products of
erosion through the restoration and preservation of the land’s natural values.
Authorization
33 U.S.C. §701b-1 and 16 U.S.C. §§2203-2205.
Program Trigger
Program appropriations in enacted legislation.
Geographic Eligibility
Projects in states, Indian Reservations, DC, American Samoa, Guam, Northern
Marianas, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Eligible Flood-Related
NRCS has authority to restore and enhance floodplain function and natural
Improvements
values. This includes removing all structures, including buildings, within
easement boundaries. Land must be within an eligible floodplain.
Congressional Research Service

32

Flooding: Selected Federal Assistance and Programs to Reduce Risk

Type of Federal Assistance
Floodplain easements are voluntarily purchased and held by NRCS in
perpetuity when in agricultural areas. In areas with residential properties, local
project sponsors are required to acquire the underlying land, in fee title, after
the easement closes. USDA also provides technical assistance and restoration
costs.
Nonfederal Cost Share
Restoration: As low as 0%.
Building/Structure Removal: Up to 25%.
Easement Payment: Varies, see valuation methods described below under
“Maximum Federal Project Assistance.”
Maximum Federal Project
Landowners receive the smallest of the following values as an easement
Assistance
payment: (1) a geographic area rate established by NRCS; (2) the fair-market
value based on an area-wide market analysis or an appraisal completed
according to the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practices; or (3)
the landowner’s offer.
Community Project
None. Not part of annual appropriations.
Funding/Congressionally
Directed Spending
FY2022 Funding
None. Not part of annual appropriations.
FY2022 Supplemental
P.L. 117-43, Division B: general EWP program received $275 million.
Funding, Other Than IIJA
Unspecified amount for floodplain easements.
IIJA Funding
General EWP program received $300 million in FY2022 to remain available
until expended. Unspecified amount for floodplain easements.
FY2023 Budget Request
Not part of annual budget requests.
Action Needed to Access
Participants must own the land. EWP floodplain easements generally do not
Program
require a project sponsor if on agricultural or open lands. However, a project
sponsor is required for lands primarily used for residential housing. In the case
of land with residential housing, NRCS will purchase a floodplain easement
only as part of a larger strategy intended to minimize future flood damage. A
project sponsor is required to purchase the land after structures are removed.
Eligible landowners must apply through NRCS, and funds for implementation
are awarded as available. Congressional approval is not required.
Website
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/landscape/
ewpp/
Source: CRS.
Notes: IIJA = Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58); NRCS = Natural Resources Conservation
Service; USDA = U.S. Department of Agriculture.
CRS Contact and Products
CRS Expert

Megan Stubbs, Specialist in Agricultural Conservation and Natural Resources Policy
Relevant CRS Products

CRS In Focus IF11990, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA): Funding for USDA Broadband, Watershed, and
Bioproduct Programs, by Lisa S. Benson, Megan Stubbs, and Kelsi Bracmort

CRS Report R40763, Agricultural Conservation: A Guide to Programs, by Megan Stubbs

CRS Report R42854, Emergency Assistance for Agricultural Land Rehabilitation, by Megan Stubbs

CRS Report R46971, Agricultural Conservation: FY2022 Appropriations, by Megan Stubbs
Congressional Research Service

33

link to page 40 Flooding: Selected Federal Assistance and Programs to Reduce Risk

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration65
NOAA supports a variety of activities, including scientific research, data collection and
monitoring, planning, habitat conservation and restoration, outreach and education, coastal and
ocean management, and others, to address flooding, especially coastal flooding. While some of
NOAA’s flood-related activities are internal to the agency, NOAA also supports the
implementation of nonfederal on-the-ground projects to address flooding, primarily through the
National Coastal Resilience Fund, the National Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program, and
various funding opportunities related to habitat restoration.
In 2016, Congress established the National Oceans and Coastal Security Fund (NOCSF, also
known as the Title IX Fund)66 and authorized NOAA to work with the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation (NFWF) to “better understand and utilize ocean and coastal resources and coastal
infrastructure, including baseline scientific research, ocean observing, and other programs and
activities carried out in coordination with Federal and State departments or agencies.”67 In 2018,
NOAA and NFWF created the National Coastal Resilience Fund (NCRF) to meet that law’s
requirements. The fund provides grants to nonfederal entities to create, expand, and restore
natural systems in areas that will (1) increase protection for communities from coastal storms, sea
and lake level changes, flooding, and/or coastal erosion; and (2) improve valuable habitats for
fish and wildlife species. As described in Table 11, the program funds community capacity
building and planning, site assessment and preliminary design, final design and permitting, and
restoration and monitoring.68 Congress has provided funding to NOAA for NOCSF; other federal
agencies, such as the Department of Defense and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
and nonfederal partners also have provided funding to NFWF for NCRF.
Congress also authorized the Secretary of Commerce, through NOAA, to provide technical and
financial assistance to eligible states and territories for coastal resilience activities.69 For example,
NOAA provides CZM grants through authorities established in the Coastal Zone Management
Act of 1972, as amended (CZMA). (See box titled “Coastal Zone Management Act” for more
information on CZMA.) Congress historically has funded these grant programs through annual
appropriations. NOAA has allocated funding to states and territories for activities such as
protecting and restoring coastal habitat, mitigating coastal hazards, and conducting ocean and
coastal planning, among other actions.70 States and territories may then disburse a portion of this

65 This section was prepared by Eva Lipiec, Analyst in Natural Resources Policy.
66 Congress has referred to the National Oceans and Coastal Security Fund as the Title IX Fund in some explanatory
statements accompanying appropriations bills (e.g., U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Committee
Print on H.R. 1158/ P.L. 116-93 (Legislative Text and Explanatory Statement), committee print, 116th Cong., 2nd sess.,
January 2020, H.Prt. 38-678, p. 508).
67 P.L. 114-113, 16 U.S.C. §§7501-7507. Congress established the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF; 16
U.S.C. §§3701-3710) as a charitable and nonprofit corporation to further the conservation of fish, wildlife, plants, and
other natural resources. For more information, see CRS Report R44740, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
(NFWF): History, Function, and Funding, by R. Eliot Crafton.
68 NFWF, “National Coastal Resilience Fund,” fact sheet, November 2021, at https://www.nfwf.org/sites/default/files/
2021-11/NFWFncrf20211117FSfinal.pdf.
69 P.L. 92-532; 16 U.S.C. §§1451-1464. 16 U.S.C. §1453(4) defines coastal state as “a state of the United States in, or
bordering on, the Atlantic, Pacific, or Arctic Ocean; the Gulf of Mexico; Long Island Sound; or one or more of the
Great Lakes.... The term also includes Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territories of the Pacific Islands, and American Samoa.”
70 NOAA, “NOAA’s National Coastal Zone Management Program,” at https://coast.noaa.gov/data/czm/media/funding-
summary.pdf, and NOAA, “About the National Coastal Zone Management Program,” at https://coast.noaa.gov/czm/
about/.
Congressional Research Service

34

link to page 42 link to page 40 link to page 42 link to page 43 link to page 12 Flooding: Selected Federal Assistance and Programs to Reduce Risk

funding to nonfederal entities through competitive grant opportunities. Table 12 includes
information about CZM grants.
Coastal Zone Management Act
In 1972, Congress enacted the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA; P.L. 92-532, 16 U.S.C. §§1451-
1464) as there was “national interest in the effective management, beneficial use, protection, and development of
the coastal zone.” CZMA recognizes that states (and, in some states, local governments) have the lead
responsibility for planning and managing their coastal zones. Under CZMA, the Secretary of Commerce approves
coastal zone management programs developed by coastal states and U.S. territories. Thirty states and five
territories are eligible to participate in the National Coastal Zone Management Program under CZMA. One
eligible entity (Alaska) is not participating. States and territories have developed widely varying programs that
emphasize different elements of coastal management. Secretarial approval of the programs provides some benefits
to the states and territories, including funding for coastal zone planning and projects and the ability to review, and
potentially alter, federal activities that may affect their coastal uses or resources. CZMA grants can be used for
CZMA-defined coastal zone objectives, including managing the effects of sea level rise and reducing threats to life
and property. For more information, see CRS Report R45460, Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA): Overview and
Issues for Congress, by Eva Lipiec.
Supplemental Appropriations
In recent years, Congress has provided additional funding to NOAA through supplemental
appropriations acts, such as those passed after destructive hurricanes or for other purposes.
Examples include IIJA and P.L. 117-169, which is commonly referred to as the Inflation
Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA 2022).
IIJA provided additional funding and direction for the existing NOCSF and established a new
CZM grant program, the Coastal Zone Management Habitat Protection and Restoration IIJA
Competition.71 Table 11 and Table 12 provide more information about these two grant programs.
Additionally, in IIJA, Congress appropriated funds for NOAA to establish two funding
opportunities to support its habitat restoration and coastal resilience goals—Transformational
Habitat Restoration and Coastal Resilience Grants and Coastal Habitat Restoration and Resilience
Grants for Underserved Communities (see Table 13 for more information).72
In IRA 2022 (as shown in Table 2), Congress provided NOAA with $2.6 billion to “enable
coastal communities to prepare for extreme storms and other changing climate conditions,”
among other activities;73 Congress did not specify a specific NOAA program when providing
these funds. NOAA has not released information on financial assistance opportunities related to
the IRA 2022 funding.
Table 11. NOAA and NFWF: National Coastal Resilience Fund (NCRF)
Purpose
The program supports planning, design, and restoration of natural and nature-
based solutions to help protect coastal communities from the impacts of
storms, floods, and other natural hazards and to enable them to recover
quickly and enhance habitats for fish and wildlife.
Authorization
National Oceans and Coastal Security Act (P.L. 114-113, 16 U.S.C. §§7501-
7507) and IIJA (P.L. 117-58).

71 NOAA, “Coastal Zone Management,” at https://www.noaa.gov/infrastructure-law/infrastructure-law-climate-ready-
coasts/coastal-zone-management.
72 NOAA, “Habitat Restoration,” at https://www.noaa.gov/infrastructure-law/infrastructure-law-climate-ready-coasts/
habitat-restoration.
73 P.L. 117-169, §40001.
Congressional Research Service

35

link to page 41 Flooding: Selected Federal Assistance and Programs to Reduce Risk

Program Trigger
Annual or supplemental appropriations to NOAA. Program is administered by
NFWF.
Geographic Eligibility
Projects must be located within coastal areas of the United States and certain
territories (Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and
Northern Marianas). For the purpose of this funding opportunity, the eligible
project area is defined as all coastal Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 8
watersheds that drain to the sea and any adjacent HUC 8 watersheds that are
particularly low-lying or tidally influenced. States bordering the Great Lakes
are considered coastal states.
Eligible Flood-Related
Nonfederal community capacity building and planning, site assessment and
Improvements
preliminary design, final design and permitting, and implementation and
monitoring. Projects must show clear benefits in reducing current and
projected threats to communities from coastal hazards including, but not
limited to, sea level rise, lake level change, coastal erosion, increased
frequency and intensity of storms, and impacts from other chronic or episodic
factors (e.g., nuisance flooding during high tides).
Type of Federal Assistance
Cooperative agreements.
Nonfederal Cost Share
Nonfederal match is encouraged but not required. Proposals that offer a
higher match ratio with contributions from nonfederal sources are expected
to be more competitive during review of proposals.
Maximum Federal Project
No maximum limit on the award amount.
Assistance
Community Project
Not applicable.
Funding/Congressionally
Directed Spending
FY2022 Funding
$34 million (expiring at the end of FY2023).
FY2022 Supplemental
$25 million.
Funding, Other Than IIJA
IIJA Funding
FY2022 through FY2026: $98.4 million per year (expiring at the end of the
following fiscal year, e.g. FY2022 funds expiring at the end of FY2023).
FY2023 Budget Request
$0a
Action Needed to Access
Proposal from an eligible entity, including nonprofit 501(c) organizations, state
Program
and territorial government agencies, local governments, municipal
governments, tribal governments, educational institutions, or commercial (for-
profit) organizations. Tribal governments include all Indian tribal governments
(i.e., federally recognized tribes and those tribes that are not federally
recognized).
Website
https://www.nfwf.org/programs/national-coastal-resilience-fund
Source: NFWF, National Coastal Resilience Fund, 2022 Request for Proposals, at https://www.nfwf.org/sites/default/
files/2022-03/2022_NCRF_RFP.pdf.
Notes: IIJA = Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58); NFWF = National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation; NOAA = National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
a. According to NOAA’s FY2023 budget request, NOAA proposes to terminate agency funding for the
program and will maintain its partnership with NFWF using IIJA funds (NOAA, Budget Estimates: Fiscal Year
2023, p. NOS-68, at https://www.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/2022-04/NOAAFY23CJ.pdf).
Congressional Research Service

36

Flooding: Selected Federal Assistance and Programs to Reduce Risk

Table 12. NOAA: Coastal Zone Management (CZM)
(Annual CZM Grants and Coastal Zone Management Habitat Protection and Restoration IIJA
Competition)
Purpose
CZM federal assistance is broadly for supporting effective management,
beneficial use, protection, and development of the coastal zone.
IIJA specified that the IIJA assistance be for protecting and restoring
ecologically significant habitats within the coastal zone, including conserving
lands that protect coastal habitat or lands that play a critical role in helping
coastal communities build resilience to storms, flooding, inundation, erosion,
tsunamis, sea level rise and lake level changes, and other climate-related
hazards affecting U.S. coastlines.
Authorization
Coastal Zone Management Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. §§1451 et seq.) and
IIJA (P.L. 117-58).
Program Trigger
Annual and supplemental appropriations.
Geographic Eligibility
Annual: Coastal states and territories with NOAA-approved CZM programs.
Coastal states are defined as a state of the United States in, or bordering on,
the Atlantic, Pacific, or Arctic Ocean; the Gulf of Mexico; Long Island Sound;
or one or more of the Great Lakes. The term also includes Puerto Rico, the
U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, Northern Marianas, and American Samoa.
IIJA: Coastal states and territories with NOAA-approved CZM programs.
NOAA will prioritize the geographic distribution of funding.
For CZM grants, tribal entities are not eligible as applicants but can receive
assistance through states and territories. DC is not eligible.
Eligible Flood-Related
Annual: States and territories may support activities under several categories,
Improvements
including habitat conservation and restoration, redevelopment of urban
waterfronts and ports, and prevention or reduction of threats to life and
destruction of property, among others.
IIJA: Habitat restoration and land conservation projects that are “shovel
ready” or reasonably advanced in the acquisition due diligence process, as well
as habitat restoration planning, engineering, and design projects that will
create a pipeline of future projects. Proposals that include on-the-ground
implementation will be given priority compared with those that include only
pre-implementation activities.
Type of Federal Assistance
Annual: Formula-based and competitive grants.
IIJA: Competitive grants or cooperative agreements.
Nonfederal Cost Share
Annual: None or 1:1 match requirement, depending on the CZM grant
program and annual appropriations legislation.
IIJA: No nonfederal matching requirement. Applicants are strongly
encouraged to combine NOAA funding with formal matching contributions or
informal leverage from a broad range of sources in the public and private
sectors to implement restoration. Such cost sharing is an element considered
in the evaluation criteria.
Maximum Federal Project
Annual: Each year NOAA uses a formula to determine how much each
Assistance
participating state is to receive for the various CZM grant opportunities and
recommends amounts for underlying project activities (e.g., for Section 306A
projects, NOAA recommends up to $200,000 for coastal preservation,
restoration, redevelopment, access and coordination; and up to $1 million for
land acquisition).
IIJA: $6 million.
Community Project
Not applicable.
Funding/Congressionally
Directed Spending
Congressional Research Service

37

Flooding: Selected Federal Assistance and Programs to Reduce Risk

FY2022 Funding
Annual: $79 million (expiring at the end of FY2023).
FY2022 Supplemental
None.
Funding, Other Than IIJA
IIJA Funding
FY2022 through FY2026: $41.4 million per year; for FY2022, $35 million of
this amount is allocated to grants (expiring at the end of the following fiscal
year, e.g. FY2022 funds expiring at the end of FY2023).
FY2023 Budget Request
Annual: $78.5 million.
Action Needed to Access
Annual: Approved CZM program and satisfactory progress in implementing
Program
program.
IIJA: Letter of intent and proposal from an approved coastal state or
territorial CZM program.
Websites
https://coast.noaa.gov/czm/guidance/
https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/view-opportunity.html?
oppId=341538
Source: NOAA Office for Coastal Management, National Coastal Zone Management Program: Coastal
Management Program Guidance,” at https://coast.noaa.gov/czm/guidance/; and Grants.gov, “Coastal Zone
Management (CZM) Habitat Protection and Restoration IIJA Competition,” at https://www.grants.gov/web/
grants/view-opportunity.html?oppId=341538; and 16 U.S.C. §§1451 et seq.
Notes: IIJA = Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58); NOAA = National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
Table 13. NOAA: IIJA Habitat Restoration
(Transformational Habitat Restoration and Coastal Resilience Grants and
Coastal Habitat Restoration and Resilience Grants for Underserved Communities)
Purpose
Transformational assistance is for supporting projects that restore marine,
estuarine, coastal, or Great Lakes ecosystems, using approaches that enhance
community and ecosystem resilience to climate hazards.
Assistance for underserved communities supports opportunities for
underserved communities, tribes, and/or tribal entities to engage meaningfully
in coastal habitat restoration activities.
Authorization
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. §661); Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006 (16
U.S.C. §1891a); Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. §1535); and IIJA (P.L. 117-
58).
Program Trigger
Annual or supplemental appropriations.
Geographic Eligibility
Projects must be located within the coastal areas of U.S. coastal states,
including the Great Lakes states, and certain territories (Puerto Rico, the U.S.
Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and Northern Marianas). Coastal areas
are defined as those within coastal shoreline counties (or parishes) or within
coastal watershed counties (or parishes). Coastal shoreline counties are
directly adjacent to the open ocean, estuaries, or the Great Lakes. Coastal
watershed counties are located along inland rivers and streams with a
significant impact on coastal and ocean resources.
Congressional Research Service

38

Flooding: Selected Federal Assistance and Programs to Reduce Risk

Eligible Flood-Related
Transformational: Planning and assessments, feasibility studies, engineering
Improvements
design and permitting, on-the-ground implementation, pre- and/or post-
implementation monitoring, or any combination of phases thereof. Proposals
that include on-the-ground implementation will be given priority compared
with those that include only pre-implementation activities.
Underserved: Capacity building, including participation in municipal or
regional-scale resilience planning, project planning and feasibility studies,
stakeholder engagement, proposal development for future funding, and
outreach and education. Restoration project activities, including engineering
and design, permitting, on-the-ground restoration, and pre- and post-project
implementation monitoring.
Type of Federal Assistance
Cooperative agreements.
Nonfederal Cost Share
No nonfederal matching required; NOAA encourages cost-shared
partnerships among government, community, industry, and academia.
Transformational: Cost sharing is an element considered within the
evaluation criteria.
Maximum Federal Project
Transformational: $15 million total for the entire award.
Assistance
Underserved: $1 million for the entire award.
Community Project
Not applicable.
Funding/Congressionally
Directed Spending
FY2022 Funding
None.
FY2022 Supplemental
None.
Funding, Other Than IIJA
IIJA Funding
FY2022 through FY2026: Total of $98.2 million per year (expiring at the
end of the following fiscal year, e.g. FY2022 funds expiring at the end of
FY2023).
FY2022 Transformational: $85 million.
FY2022 Underserved: $10 million.
FY2023 Budget Request
None.
Action Needed to Access
Transformational: Proposal from an eligible applicant, including institutions
Program
of higher education; nonprofits; commercial (for-profit) organizations; U.S.
territories; and state, local, and Native American tribal governments.
Underserved: Proposal from an eligible applicant, including institutions of
higher education; nonprofit organizations; commercial (for-profit)
organizations; U.S. territories; and state, local, or tribal governments that can
demonstrate status as an underserved community, or that partner with
underserved communities or tribes or tribal entities, in coastal areas.
Underserved communities are defined as populations sharing a particular
characteristic, as well as geographic communities that have been systematically
denied a full opportunity to participate in aspects of economic, social, and civic
life. Underserved communities are defined in Executive Order 13985.
Websites
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feature-story/two-habitat-restoration-and-
coastal-resilience-funding-opportunities-open-under
https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/view-opportunity.html?oppId=341530
https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/view-opportunity.html?oppId=341531
Sources: NOAA, “Habitat Restoration,” at https://www.noaa.gov/infrastructure-law/infrastructure-law-climate-
ready-coasts/habitat-restoration; Grants.gov, “FY2022 NOAA’s Transformational Habitat Restoration and
Coastal Resilience Grants Under the IIJA,” at https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/view-opportunity.html?oppId=
341530; and Grants.gov, “FY22 Coastal Habitat Restoration and Resilience Grants for Underserved
Communities, Under the IIJA,” at https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/view-opportunity.html?oppId=341531.
Congressional Research Service

39

link to page 46 link to page 47 Flooding: Selected Federal Assistance and Programs to Reduce Risk

Notes: IIJA = Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58); NOAA = National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
CRS Contact and Products
CRS Expert

Eva Lipiec, Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
Relevant CRS Products

CRS Report R45460, Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA): Overview and Issues for Congress, by Eva Lipiec

CRS Report R46145, Nature-Based Infrastructure: NOAA’s Role, by Eva Lipiec
Environmental Protection Agency74
EPA’s principal role in stormwater management is regulatory, consisting primarily of a discharge
permit program under the Clean Water Act (CWA; 33 U.S.C. §1342). Although EPA’s financial
role in direct flood risk reduction historically has been limited, several EPA programs support
stormwater infrastructure projects, which likely would help reduce flood risk to some degree.
To date, the primary avenue for EPA assistance for stormwater infrastructure has been through the
Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) program (see Table 14).75 Each state implements its
own CWSRF program, which may support a range of projects and activities; this results in
variations in program implementation from state to state. Historically, the majority of CWSRF
projects and funding have supported wastewater infrastructure activities, such as construction of
sewage treatment plants or related equipment, but interest and support for stormwater projects has
increased in recent years.76 Pursuant to changes made in 2014 (P.L. 113-121), stormwater
management became one of multiple eligible categories of activities for CWSRF loans and other
assistance. However, the selection of CWSRF projects for assistance remains prioritized on
meeting the pollution-prevention objectives of the CWA.77
EPA’s Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act program also may provide a source of
financial assistance for water infrastructure, which may include stormwater-related activities. As
described in Table 15, P.L. 113-121 (Title V, Subtitle C) established the WIFIA program; it
authorized EPA to provide credit assistance (e.g., direct loans) for a range of wastewater and
drinking water projects.78 In general, project costs must be $20 million or more to be eligible for

74 This section was prepared by Jonathan L. Ramseur, Specialist in Environmental Policy.
75 For additional information, see CRS Report R44963, Wastewater Infrastructure: Overview, Funding, and Legislative
Developments, by Jonathan L. Ramseur.
76 EPA collects data from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) programs, which allows for an assessment
of how and for what purposes the funds have been spent over time. The database indicates that in 2001, stormwater
projects accounted for 0.6% of the cumulative funding provided by CWSRF programs. In 2021, that percentage
increased to 1.8%. See EPA, “National Information Management System Performance Reports,” February 2022, at
https://www.epa.gov/cwsrf/clean-water-state-revolving-fund-cwsrf-results#per.
77 All funds in the CWSRF resulting from federal capitalization grants are first to be used to assure maintenance of
progress toward compliance with enforceable deadlines, goals, and requirements of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
§1382(b)(5)).
78 For more information, see CRS Report R43315, Water Infrastructure Financing: The Water Infrastructure Finance
and Innovation Act (WIFIA) Program, by Jonathan L. Ramseur and Mary Tiemann.
Congressional Research Service

40

Flooding: Selected Federal Assistance and Programs to Reduce Risk

WIFIA credit assistance and WIFIA loan assistance is generally limited to 49% of eligible costs.79
EPA issued its first WIFIA loan in 2018.80
In addition, the Sewer Overflow and Stormwater Reuse Municipal Grants Program may play a
role in reducing flood risk by supporting stormwater infrastructure projects. In 2018, the
America’s Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 (AWIA; P.L. 115-270) amended a grant program in
CWA Section 221 that was established in 2000 (P.L. 106-554). AWIA modified the program’s
eligibility provisions to include stormwater infrastructure and reauthorized appropriations for the
grant program for $225 million for each of FY2019 and FY2020. In 2021, IIJA reauthorized
appropriations for $280 million annually for FY2022-FY2026. Under this program, EPA is to
provide grants to states, which will provide sub-awards to eligible entities. The grants to states
will be allocated based on a formula prepared by EPA.81 This program first received
appropriations in FY2020 ($28 million) and continued to receive appropriations in subsequent
years ($40 million in FY2021 and $43 million in FY2022). For FY2023, the President requested
$280 million for the Sewer Overflow and Stormwater Reuse Municipal Grants Program. As of the
date of this report, EPA had not issued any grants for this program.82
Table 14. EPA: Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF)
Purpose
The program provides financial assistance through state-administered CWSRF
programs, supporting wastewater infrastructure and other eligible projects
and activities, including stormwater infrastructure. States must use CWSRF
monies first to ensure compliance with CWA deadlines, goals, and
requirements.
Authorization
CWA, as amended, §§601-607; 33 U.S.C. §§1381-1387. Regulations are
codified at 40 C.F.R. §35.3100.
Program Trigger
Annual project selection at state level.
Geographic Eligibility
CWSRF programs operate in 50 states and Puerto Rico.
Through a separate process, EPA provides direct grants for DC, the U.S.
Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Marianas.
EPA also provides direct grants to Indian tribes (33 U.S.C. §1377). The funding
for DC, U.S. territories, and Indian tribes is part of the CWSRF appropriation
to EPA.
Eligible Flood-Related
CWSRF programs may support the construction of publicly owned facilities
Improvements
for stormwater management and for measures that would reduce stormwater
(e.g., green infrastructure). Eligible projects include measures to manage,
reduce, treat, or recapture stormwater, including those that may provide
flood resilience and risk reduction benefits.

79 The Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 2014 (WIFIA) authorized EPA to make available up to 25%
of available funds each year for credit assistance in excess of 49% of project costs. Except for certain projects in rural
areas, the total amount of federal assistance (i.e., WIFIA and other sources combined) may not exceed 80% of a
project’s cost. In rural areas (defined as populations of 25,000 or less), project costs must be $5 million or more.
80 For more information, see EPA’s WIFIA website at https://www.epa.gov/wifia.
81 EPA, “State Formula Allocations for Sewer Overflow and Stormwater Reuse Grants,” 86 Federal Register 11287,
February 24, 2021, at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/02/24/2021-03756/state-formula-allocations-
for-sewer-overflow-and-stormwater-reuse-grants.
82 For more up-to-date information, see EPA, “Sewer Overflow and Stormwater Reuse Municipal Grants Program,” at
https://www.epa.gov/cwsrf/sewer-overflow-and-stormwater-reuse-municipal-grants-program.
Congressional Research Service

41

Flooding: Selected Federal Assistance and Programs to Reduce Risk

Type of Federal Assistance
EPA provides grants to states to capitalize their CWSRFs. States, in turn,
provide financial assistance to eligible entities. This financial assistance includes
direct loans and loan guarantees, debt purchase or refinance, and other
instruments. Under certain conditions, states also may provide “additional
subsidization”—such as principal forgiveness, negative interest loans, or a
combination—to eligible entities that meet the state’s affordability criteria and
for particular projects, including mitigation of stormwater runoff. IIJA amended
the CWA to direct states to use at least 10% of their capitalization grants for
this additional subsidization.
Nonfederal Cost Share
Most assistance is for loans that have to be 100% repaid to the state CWSRF.
Maximum Federal Project
Not specified.
Assistance
Community Project
P.L. 117-103 set aside 27% ($443.6 million) of the FY2022 CWSRF
Funding/Congressionally
appropriation ($1.639 billion) for Community Project Funding/Congressionally
Directed Spending
Directed Spending. Such funds will be distributed directly to recipients instead
of to states’ CWSRF programs.
FY2022 Funding
$1.195 billion to EPA, which awards grants to states to support their CWSRF
programs; states are to provide a 20% match for those funds. Federal funds
are distributed by formula to the CWSRF programs. States must use 49% of
these funds as loan principal forgiveness or grants.
(Annual appropriations typically are provided in annual Interior, Environment,
and Related Agencies appropriations acts.)
FY2022 Supplemental
None.
Funding, Other Than IIJA
IIJA Funding
$1.902 billion in FY2022 to EPA, which awards grants to states to support
their CWSRF programs; states are to provide a 10% match for those funds.
IIJA provided supplemental appropriations for similar purposes annually for
FY2023-FY2026. See CRS Report R46892, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
(IIJA): Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure, by Elena H. Humphreys and
Jonathan L. Ramseur.
FY2023 Budget Request
$1.639 billion
Action Needed to Access
Eligible entities, which include public, private, or nonprofit entities in the case
Program
of stormwater, apply for loans or other funding mechanisms through their
relevant state agency.
Website
https://www.epa.gov/cwsrf
Source: CRS.
Notes: CWA = Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §1342); EPA = Environmental Protection Agency; IIJA =
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58).
Table 15. EPA: Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA)
Purpose
The program helps finance water infrastructure projects, including projects to
build and upgrade wastewater and drinking water treatment systems. WIFIA
provides credit assistance to large water projects that otherwise may have
difficulty obtaining financing.
Authorization
Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014, Title V, codified in
33 U.S.C. §§3901-3914. America’s Water Infrastructure Act of 2018, Title IV,
included additional authorization. Regulations are codified at 40 C.F.R.
§35.10000.
Program Trigger
Credit assistance awarded by EPA on a competitive basis.
Geographic Eligibility
Projects in 50 states, DC, Indian lands, and U.S. territories.
Congressional Research Service

42

Flooding: Selected Federal Assistance and Programs to Reduce Risk

Eligible Flood-Related
Eligible projects include all categories eligible for CWSRF assistance, including
Improvements
measures to manage, reduce, treat, or recapture stormwater, which may
provide flood resilience and risk reduction benefits.
Type of Federal Assistance
Credit assistance, which to date has involved direct loans.
Nonfederal Cost Share
Most assistance is for loans that have to be 100% repaid.
Maximum Federal Project
No maximum cost per project, but loan amounts generally are limited to 49%
Assistance
of eligible project cost; total amount of federal assistance (i.e., WIFIA and
other federal sources) may not exceed 80% of total project cost.
Community Project
None.
Funding/Congressionally
Directed Spending
FY2022 Funding
$63.5 million to cover subsidy costs, which EPA estimates could support $5.5
billion in direct loans; and $6 million for administrative costs.
FY2022 Supplemental
None.
Funding, Other Than IIJA
IIJA Funding
Not applicable.
FY2023 Budget Request
$70.1 million to cover subsidy costs and $8.2 million for administrative costs.
Action Needed to Access
Eligible entities submit letters of interest to EPA when EPA announces funding
Program
availability in a Federal Register notice.
Website
https://www.epa.gov/wifia
Source: CRS.
Notes: EPA = Environmental Protection Agency; IIJA = Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58);
CWSRF = Clean Water State Revolving Fund.
CRS Contact and Products
CRS Expert

Jonathan Ramseur, Specialist in Environmental Policy
Relevant CRS Products

CRS Report R46471, Federally Supported Projects and Programs for Wastewater, Drinking Water, and Water
Supply Infrastructure, coordinated by Jonathan L. Ramseur

CRS Report R43315, Water Infrastructure Financing: The Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA)
Program, by Jonathan L. Ramseur, Mary Tiemann, and Elena H. Humphreys

CRS In Focus IF12103, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Water Infrastructure Programs and FY2022
Appropriations, by Elena H. Humphreys and Jonathan L. Ramseur

CRS Report R46892, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA): Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure,
by Elena H. Humphreys and Jonathan L. Ramseur

CRS Report RL31073, Allocation of Wastewater Treatment Assistance: Formula and Other Changes, by Jonathan L.
Ramseur
Department of Housing and Urban Development83
Community Development Block Grants
The HUD-administered Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program is a broad
program that, among its various activities, may support some flood resilience and risk reduction

83 This section was prepared by Joseph V. Jaroscak, Analyst in Economic Development Policy.
Congressional Research Service

43

link to page 50 link to page 51 Flooding: Selected Federal Assistance and Programs to Reduce Risk

investments. Under CDBG, public works is one of multiple eligible categories of activities; flood
resilience improvements may qualify as public works under CDBG, as shown in Table 16. Other
eligible activities that may qualify for CDBG assistance and benefit state and local flood
resilience are buyouts of damaged properties in a floodplain and relocation of residents to safer
areas. Due to the nature of the block-grant program, local and state officials exercise discretion in
determining which combination of eligible activities to employ.
Section 108 Loan Guarantees
The Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program (Section 108) enables CDBG entitlement
communities,84 insular areas, and states (on behalf of non-entitlement communities) to leverage
their annual CDBG allocations for private financing with a “full faith and credit” guarantee by the
federal government. Typically, the qualified loan amount is five times greater than a CDBG
grantee’s annual allocation (minus any outstanding loan balances), which allows borrowers to
maximize program funds for projects that would not necessarily be feasible within a given CDBG
program year. All eligible activities must meet one of the three national objectives of the
conventional CDBG program: principally benefit low- and moderate-income (LMI) persons; aid
in eliminating or preventing slums or blight; or address an imminent threat to the health or safety
of residents.
As is the case with CDBG program funds, 70% of a borrower’s Section 108 loan funds must meet
the objective of principally benefitting LMI persons or areas.85 Section 108 activities also must
comply with program requirements outlined in 24 C.F.R. §570 Subpart M, as well as with CDBG
rules and crosscutting federal regulations (e.g., Davis-Bacon Act; 40 U.S.C. §§3141-3148).86
Section 108 eligible activities are broadly consistent with the CDBG program. Table 17 provides
information on the Section 108 program.
Supplemental Appropriations
Unlike CDBG, the CDBG-Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) program for disaster relief, mitigation,
and recovery activities is not an annually funded HUD program. Instead, Congress has funded
CDBG-DR through supplemental appropriations legislation, and the funds are tied to specific
disasters or set of disasters, and the areas they affect.87 The CDBG-DR program is designed to
help communities and neighborhoods that otherwise might not recover after a disaster due to
limited resources. Eligible grantees typically include states; units of general local government,
such as municipalities or counties; and Indian tribes affected by a covered disaster.
Congress has provided more than $95 billion in supplemental appropriations since 1992 for
CDBG-DR. CDBG-DR has become one of the federal government’s principal instruments in
support of long-term economic recovery following human-made or natural disasters, such as

84 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) entitlement communities are defined as (1) principal cities of
metropolitan statistical areas; (2) other metropolitan cities with populations of 50,000 or greater; and (3) urban counties
with populations of 200,000 or greater (excluding entitlement city populations).
85 Typically, low and moderate income under CDBG is defined as a family or household income at or below 80% of the
area median income.
86 For more on the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. §§ 3141-3148), see CRS In Focus IF11927, Federally Funded
Construction and the Payment of Locally Prevailing Wages, by David H. Bradley and Jon O. Shimabukuro.
87 See CRS Report R46475, The Community Development Block Grant’s Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) Component:
Background and Issues, by Joseph V. Jaroscak.
Congressional Research Service

44

link to page 52 link to page 51 Flooding: Selected Federal Assistance and Programs to Reduce Risk

floods.88 Generally, CDBG-DR grantees must use at least 70% of the funds for activities that
principally benefit LMI persons or areas, unless Congress enacts language that allows HUD to
waive this LMI targeting requirement. Table 18 provides information on the CDBG-DR program.
Funding Specifically for Mitigation and Resilience Activities
In recent supplemental appropriations, Congress has used other terms to describe CDBG-DR-type
packages to emphasize unique or special purposes. For example, in February 2018, Congress
appropriated funds for hazard mitigation activities as part of a larger supplemental appropriation
of CDBG-DR funding (P.L. 115-123). This source of targeted funding has come to be known as
CDBG-MIT.89
Table 16. HUD: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Purpose
Program funds must be used to address one of three national objectives that
(1) principally benefit low- or moderate-income persons, (2) aid in eliminating
or preventing slums or blight, or (3) address an imminent threat to the health
or safety of residents.
Authorization
42 U.S.C. §§5301 et seq.
Program Trigger
Annual appropriations. Formula-based grant.
Geographic Eligibility
Projects in states, DC, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Marianas, Puerto
Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.a
Eligible Flood-Related
The block grant nature of the program allows state and local government
Improvements
grant recipients to undertake various eligible activities, including open space
acquisition; construction, repair, replacement, or relocation of public facilities;
and improvements such as dams and levees.
Type of Federal Assistance
Formula-based block grants with 30% of appropriated funds allocated to states
and Puerto Rico for distribution to small communities and 70% of
appropriated funds allocated to metropolitan-based cities with populations of
50,000 or more and urban counties with populations of 200,000 or more.
Funds also are allocated under a separate formula to the insular areas of
American Samoa, Guam, Northern Marianas, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Indian
tribes may compete for funds under a separate competitively awarded CDBG
for Indian tribes.
Nonfederal Cost Share
No matching funds required. Program funds may be used to meet the
nonfederal matching fund requirement of other federal grant programs.
Maximum Federal Project
Not specified. Grantees may use CDBG directly to fund mitigation activities
Assistance
such as buyouts.
Community Project
For FY2022 and FY2023 appropriations, House and Senate Appropriations
Funding/Congressionally
Committees accepted Member requests for funding for congressionally
Directed Spending
authorized community and economic development projects under the
Economic Development Initiative, in the Community Development Fund.
Eligible activities include facilities site planning and preparation; facilities
construction, renovation, rehabilitation, or purchase; and development or
improvement of parks or other public spaces.

88 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, CDBG Disaster Recovery Grant History 1992-2022, July 1,
2022, at https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/CPD/documents/CDBG-DR/CDBG-DR-Grant-History-2022-07.pdf.
89 See CRS In Focus IF11814, Disaster Resilience Investments: Community Development Block Grant Authorities for
Mitigation (CDBG-MIT), by Joseph V. Jaroscak, for information on CDBG-MIT.
Congressional Research Service

45

Flooding: Selected Federal Assistance and Programs to Reduce Risk

FY2022 Funding
$3.3 billion in CDBG formula grants for local governments, states, and insular
areas.
(Annual appropriations typically are provided in annual Transportation and
Housing and Urban Development appropriations acts.)
FY2022 Supplemental
None.
Funding, Other Than IIJA
IIJA Funding
None.
FY2023 Budget Request
The Administration requested $3.55 billion for CDBG formula grants for local
governments, states, and insular areas in its FY2023 budget request.
Action Needed to Access
CDBG grantees must develop and submit to HUD annual and multiyear plans
Program
outlining the proposed use of funds.
Website
https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/cdbg/
Source: CRS.
Notes: HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; IIJA = Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act (P.L. 117-58).
a. Federally recognized tribal governments are eligible for funds under the separate Indian Community
Development Block Grant program (ICDBG). For information on ICDBG, see CRS In Focus IF11749, The
Indian Community Development Block Grant (ICDBG) Program: An Overview, by Joseph V. Jaroscak.
Table 17. HUD: Section 108 Loan Guarantees
Purpose
Section 108 loans may be used for most of the CDBG-eligible activities that
address one of three national objectives: (1) principally benefit low- and
moderate-income persons; (2) aid in eliminating or preventing slums or blight;
or (3) address an imminent threat to the health or safety of residents. These
loan guarantees can be used to support flood resilience and risk reduction.
Authorization
42 U.S.C. §5308.
Program Trigger
Loan commitment ceiling established by annual appropriations.
Geographic Eligibility
Projects in states, DC, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Marianas, Puerto
Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Eligible Flood-Related
Guaranteed loan funds may be used for a number, but not all, of the activities
Improvements
eligible under the regular CDBG, including open space acquisition;
construction, repair, replacement, or relocation of public facilities; and
improvements such as dams and levees. Funded activities must be part of a
large-scale economic development, housing, or public facilities project.
Type of Federal Assistance
Loan guarantee secured by current and future annual allocations of CDBG
funds awarded to the state, local government, or insular area.
Nonfederal Cost Share
No matching funds required. This is a fee-based program. HUD is authorized
to charge a fee to cover the long-term cost to the Section 108 loan guarantee.
HUD establishes the amount of the fee annually based on a percentage of the
principal amount of the Section 108 guaranteed loan.
Maximum Federal Project
Not specified. Grantees may leverage all or some portion of their annual
Assistance
CDBG allocations to access the CDBG Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program,
which allows a grantee to borrow up to five times its annual allocation for
large-scale economic development, public facilities, or housing projects. Flood
resilience and risk reduction activities may be part of such projects.
Community Project
No loan guarantees provided specifically for Community Project
Funding/Congressionally
Funding/Congressionally Directed Spending.
Directed Spending
FY2022 Funding
P.L. 117-103 established a loan guarantee ceiling of $300 million.
Congressional Research Service

46

link to page 53 link to page 53 Flooding: Selected Federal Assistance and Programs to Reduce Risk

FY2022 Supplemental
No supplemental loan guarantees provided specifically for disaster recovery
Funding, Other Than IIJA
activities.
IIJA Funding
No loan guarantees included in IIJA.
FY2023 Budget Request
The Administration requested $300 million in loan guarantee authority for
FY2023.
Action Needed to Access
Open application process with no specific deadline for submission of
Program
application. Proposed activities must meet one of the three national objectives
and must be consistent with the state’s or community’s annual and multiyear
plans outlining the proposed use of CDBG funds.
Website
https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/section-108/
Source: CRS.
Notes: CDBG = Community Development Block Grant; HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development; IIJA = Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58).
Table 18. HUD: Community Development Block Grant−Disaster Recovery
(CDBG-DR)
Purpose
Program funds must be used to address long-term recovery and restoration of
infrastructure, housing, and economic activity, including mitigation activities
intended to reduce or eliminate damage from future disasters.a
Authorization
CDBG-DR funds may be used for various eligible activities to address long-
term recovery and restoration of housing, infrastructure, and economic
activity at the discretion of the grantee, subject to CDBG program regulations
and HUD CDBG-DR rulemaking.
Program Trigger
Supplemental appropriations.
Geographic Eligibility
Projects in the “most impacted and distressed areas” resulting from a major
disaster declared pursuant to the Stafford Act for specific years or areas
depending on the language enacted in the supplemental appropriations.
Eligible Flood-Related
The block grant nature of the program allows state and local government
Improvements
grant recipients to undertake a range of eligible activities, including floodplain
management planning; open space acquisition; construction, repair,
replacement, or relocation of public facilities; and improvements such as dams
and levees. Activities must meet one of three national objectives: principally
benefit low- and moderate-income persons; aid in eliminating or preventing
slums or blight; or address an imminent threat to the health or safety of
residents.
Type of Federal Assistance
Determined by language in the legislation providing appropriations.
Nonfederal Cost Share
No matching funds required. Program funds may be used to meet the
nonfederal matching fund requirement of other federal grant programs.
Maximum Federal Project
Not specified. Grantees may use CDBG-DR to fund buyouts.
Assistance
Community Project
None. Not part of annual appropriations.
Funding/Congressionally
Directed Spending
FY2022 Funding
None. Not part of annual appropriations.
FY2022 Supplemental
$5 billion in supplemental funding for disaster relief, long-term recovery,
Funding, Other Than IIJA
restoration of infrastructure and housing, economic revitalization, and
mitigation, in the most impacted and distressed areas resulting from a major
disaster that occurred in 2020 or 2021.b
IIJA Funding
None.
Congressional Research Service

47

Flooding: Selected Federal Assistance and Programs to Reduce Risk

FY2023 Budget Request
The Administration’s FY2023 budget did not request additional supplemental
CDBG-DR funds. The budget did express support for authorization of the
CDBG-DR program.
Action Needed to Access
CDBG-DR grantees must develop and HUD must approve a disaster recovery
Program
action plan.
Website
https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/comm_planning/cdbg-dr
Source: CRS.
Notes: HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; IIJA = Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act (P.L. 117-58); Stafford Act = Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C.
§§5121 et seq.).
a. CDBG-DR funds cannot duplicate funding available from federal, state, or local governments; private and
nonprofit organizations; insurance proceeds; or any other source of assistance.
b. FY2023 began with a continuing resolution, P.L. 117-180. In addition to continuing FY2022 appropriations
amounts through December 16, 2022, P.L. 117-180. provided an additional $2,000 M for the Community
Development Block Grant−Disaster Recovery for major disasters in 2021 and 2022.
CRS Contact and Products
CRS Expert

Joseph V. Jaroscak, Analyst in Economic Development Policy
Relevant CRS Products

CRS Insight IN11873, CDBG-DR Expenditure Reporting and Status Designations: Updated Methodology, by Joseph
V. Jaroscak

CRS In Focus IF11814, Disaster Resilience Investments: Community Development Block Grant Authorities for
Mitigation (CDBG-MIT), by Joseph V. Jaroscak

CRS In Focus IF11889, HUD Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program: An Overview, by Joseph V. Jaroscak

CRS Report R46733, Community Development Block Grants: Funding and Allocation Processes, by Joseph V.
Jaroscak

CRS Report R46475, The Community Development Block Grant’s Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) Component:
Background and Issues, by Joseph V. Jaroscak
National Flood Insurance Program90
The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is the primary source of flood insurance coverage
for residential properties in the United States. The NFIP has two main policy goals: (1) to provide
access to primary flood insurance, thereby allowing for the transfer of some of the financial risk
of property owners to the federal government, and (2) to mitigate and reduce the nation’s
comprehensive flood risk through the development and implementation of floodplain
management standards. A longer-term objective of the NFIP is to reduce federal expenditure on
disaster assistance after floods. As of March 31, 2022, the NFIP had nearly five million flood
insurance policies providing approximately $1.26 trillion in coverage, with 22,568 communities
in 50 states and 6 other jurisdictions participating.91
The goals of the NFIP, as a public insurance program, differ from the goals of private-sector
companies; the NFIP encompasses social goals to provide flood insurance in flood-prone areas to

90 This section was prepared by Diane P. Horn, Specialist in Flood Insurance and Emergency Management.
91 Detailed information about which communities participate, and where, is available from FEMA, Community Status
Book, at https://www.fema.gov/flood-insurance/work-with-nfip/community-status-book.
Congressional Research Service

48

Flooding: Selected Federal Assistance and Programs to Reduce Risk

property owners who otherwise would not be able to obtain it and to reduce government’s cost
after floods.92 (For more information on the approach and history of the NFIP, see the text box
“NFIP History and Primer.”) The NFIP also engages in many “noninsurance” activities in the
public interest: it identifies and maps flood hazards, disseminates flood risk information through
flood maps, requires community land use and building-code standards, contributes to community
resilience by providing a mechanism to fund rebuilding after a flood, and offers grants and
incentive programs for household- and community-level investments in flood risk reduction.
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP): History and Primer
Congress added to the federal role in managing flood risks by entering the flood insurance market. Congress
established the NFIP in the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (NFIA; 42 U.S.C. §§4001 et seq.), after private
firms had largely abandoned offering flood insurance. The NFIP aimed to alter development in flood-prone areas
identified as the 100-year floodplain; this floodplain also is referred to as the 1% annual-chance floodplain or the
floodplain for the Base Flood Elevation for purposes of the NFIP. The NFIP’s multipronged regulatory system
consists of community flood risk assessment and mapping, purchase requirements for flood insurance for certain
residential and commercial structures, and the adoption of minimum local requirements for land use and building
codes for vulnerable areas. The NFIP allows for residential and commercial construction in known floodplains,
with the proviso that construction must follow building-code regulations that reduce future flood damage and
prevent new development from increasing flood risk.
Note: For a more detailed discussion of private flood insurance, see CRS Report R45242, Private Flood Insurance
and the National Flood Insurance Program, by Diane P. Horn and Baird Webel.
Flood Maps and State and Local Land Use Control
The NFIP accomplishes the goal of reducing comprehensive flood risk primarily by requiring
participating communities to collaborate with FEMA to develop and adopt flood maps called
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and to enact minimum floodplain standards based on those
flood maps. An area of specific focus of the FIRM is the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA).
FEMA defines the SFHA as an area with a 1% or greater chance of flooding every year. However,
over 20% of NFIP claims are for properties outside SFHAs,93 and all states and territories have
experienced flood events in the last four years.94
Communities that choose to participate in the NFIP are required to adopt land use and control
measures with effective enforcement provisions and to regulate development in the floodplain.95
FEMA has set forth the minimum standards it requires for participation in the NFIP in federal
regulations.96 Though the standards appear in federal regulations, the standards have the force of
law only when a state or local government adopts them in its floodplain management ordinance.
The NFIP encourages communities to adopt and enforce additional floodplain management
regulations such as zoning codes, subdivision ordinances, building codes, and rebuilding
restrictions. Internal FEMA studies have found that structures built to FEMA standards
experience 73% less damage than structures not built to those standards.97 According to FEMA,

92 See 82 Stat. 573 for text in original statute (§1302(c) of P.L. 90-448). This language remains in statute (see 42 U.S.C.
§4001(c)).
93 Government Accountability Office, Flood Insurance: Comprehensive Reform Could Improve Solvency and Enhance
Resilience, GAO-17-425, April 2017, p. 29, at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-17-425.
94 Email correspondence from FEMA Congressional Affairs staff, August 5, 2019, and CRS analysis.
95 42 U.S.C. §4022(a)(1).
96 See 44 C.F.R. Part 60, particularly 44 C.F.R. §60.3.
97 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Financial Services, “Flood Insurance Reform: FEMA’s Perspective,” Statement
of Roy E. Wright, Deputy Associate Administrator, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, 115th Cong., 1st
Congressional Research Service

49

link to page 22 Flooding: Selected Federal Assistance and Programs to Reduce Risk

the NFIP’s floodplain management standards have saved the nation almost $2.4 billion annually
in flood losses avoided.98
Flood maps may require updating when there have been significant new building developments in
or near the flood zone, changes to flood protection systems, or environmental changes in the
community or when better data become available.99
NFIP Flood Mitigation
The NFIP offers three programs that encourage communities to reduce flood risk: the Flood
Mitigation Assistance grant program (see “Flood Mitigation Assistance”), the Community Rating
System, and Increased Cost of Compliance (ICC) coverage. The latter two programs are funded
entirely by premiums and fees paid by NFIP policyholders.100
Through a program called the Community Rating System, FEMA encourages communities to
improve upon the minimum floodplain management standards required to participate in the NFIP.
The Community Rating System, as authorized by law, is intended to incentivize the reduction of
flood and erosion risk, as well as the adoption of more effective measures to protect natural and
beneficial floodplain functions.101 FEMA awards points for measures that increase a community’s
“class” rating in the Community Rating System in classes one to ten, with Class 1 being the
highest ranking. The credits on premium rates for flood insurance coverage are based on the
estimated reduction in flood and erosion damage risks resulting from the measures adopted by the
community. Points are awarded for an array of improvements in how the community informs its
public on flood risk, maps and regulates its floodplain, reduces possible flood damage, and
provides immediate warnings and responds to flooding incidents. The highest points are awarded
for activities that reduce future flood risk, such as development limitations, preserved open space,
retrofitted buildings, and acquisition and relocation of buildings.102 Starting at Class 9,
policyholders in the SFHA within a Community Rating System community receive a 5% discount
on their flood insurance premiums, with increasing discounts of 5% per class until reaching Class
1, when policyholders in the SFHA can receive a 45% discount. As of April 1, 2022, 1,738
communities participated in the Community Rating System. This figure represents about 7.7% of
eligible NFIP communities that could participate in the Community Rating System program.103
The NFIP requires most policyholders to purchase ICC coverage,104 which is effectively a
separate insurance policy to offset the additional expense of restoring a structure to meet more

sess., March 8, 2017, H.Hrg.115-BA04-WrightR-20170309 (Washington: GPO, 2017), p. 1.
98 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Reauthorization of the National Flood
Insurance Program, Part II, Statement of David Maurstad, Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and
Mitigation, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 117th Cong., 1st sess., June 17, 2021, p.2,
https://www.banking.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Maurstad%20Testimony%206-17-21.pdf.
99 Email correspondence from FEMA Congressional Affairs staff, August 5, 2019.
100 For more on how premiums are set for policyholders, see CRS Report R44593, Introduction to the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP), by Diane P. Horn and Baird Webel.
101 42 U.S.C. §4022(b)(1).
102 For a list of creditable activities in the Community Rating System, see FEMA, NFIP Community Rating
Coordinator’s Manual, May 4, 2017, at https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_community-rating-
system_coordinators-manual_2017.pdf.
103 Calculated by CRS from data downloaded on August 11, 2022, from FEMA, Community Rating System, at
https://www.fema.gov/floodplain-management/community-rating-system.
104 For example, Increased Cost of Compliance (ICC) coverage is not required on condominium units and policies that
cover only the contents of a building.
Congressional Research Service

50

Flooding: Selected Federal Assistance and Programs to Reduce Risk

rigorous building code standards than were required when the structure was originally built. ICC
coverage provides an amount up to $30,000 in payments for certain eligible expenses.105 ICC
coverage is in addition to the building coverage provided by the standard flood insurance policy.
When a community determines that a building is substantially damaged following a flood,106
floodplain management standards adopted by local communities can require that building to be
rebuilt to meet current floodplain management requirements, even if the property previously did
not need to do so. For instance, the new compliance standard may require the elevation of the
rebuilt building to above the base flood elevation. FEMA also makes ICC coverage available if a
building has been declared a repetitive loss by a community’s floodplain management
regulations.107
ICC claims payments may be used toward the costs of elevating, demolishing, relocating, or
flood-proofing nonresidential buildings or for any combination of these actions. According to
ICC data, elevation is the most common form of mitigation.108 For over 10 years stakeholders
have been suggesting that the amount of ICC coverage should be raised.109
CRS Contact and Products
CRS Expert

Diane P. Horn, Specialist in Flood Insurance and Emergency Management
Relevant CRS Products

CRS In Focus IF11023, Selected Issues for National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Reauthorization and Reform, by
Diane P. Horn.

CRS In Focus IF10988, A Brief Introduction to the National Flood Insurance Program, by Diane P. Horn.

CRS Report R44593, Introduction to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), by Diane P. Horn and Baird
Webel.

105 For ICC premiums, see FEMA, Flood Insurance Manual, Appendix J: Sample Scenarios, revised October 1, 2022,
pp. J1-J6, at https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_nfip-flood-insurance-full-manual_102022.pdf.
106 44 C.F.R. §59.1 defines substantial damage as damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of
restoring the structure to its before-damage condition would equal or exceed 50% of the market value of the structure
before the damage occurred.
107 42 U.S.C. §4011(b)(1).
108 See FEMA, NFIP: Use of Increased Cost of Compliance Coverage, FY2009 Report to Congress, October 2009, p.
6. Report provided to CRS by FEMA Congressional Affairs Staff.
109 See, for example, FEMA, NFIP: Use of Increased Cost of Compliance Coverage, FY2009 Report to Congress,
October 2009, p. 32; and Natural Resources Defense Council and the Association of State Floodplain Managers,
“Petition Requesting That the Federal Emergency Management Agency Amend Its Regulations Implementing the
National Flood Insurance Program,” January 5, 2021, p. 48, at https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/petition-fema-
rulemaking-nfip-20210105.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

51

Flooding: Selected Federal Assistance and Programs to Reduce Risk

Author Information

Nicole T. Carter, Coordinator
Anna E. Normand
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Analyst in Natural Resources Policy

Diane P. Horn, Coordinator
Jonathan L. Ramseur
Specialist in Flood Insurance and Emergency
Specialist in Environmental Policy
Management

Joseph V. Jaroscak
Megan Stubbs
Analyst in Economic Development Policy
Specialist in Agricultural Conservation and Natural

Resources Policy

Eva Lipiec

Analyst in Natural Resources Policy

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R47286 · VERSION 1 · NEW
52

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

Oct. 18, 2022

HTML · PDF

Metadata

Topic areas

Agricultural Policy

Energy Policy

Environmental Policy

Report Type: CRS Report

Source: CRSReports.Congress.gov

Raw Metadata: JSON