Federal Flood Risk Management Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Mullin, Kevin [D-CA-15]
- Committees
- Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 11, 2026
Bottom line
The bill mandates federal agencies to implement stricter, forward-looking flood resilience standards for federal projects and properties to mitigate future flood damages and protect public safety.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a Federal Flood Risk Management Standard (FFRMS) by codifying and expanding upon existing executive orders, requiring federal agencies to adopt higher flood protection standards for federal actions and federally funded projects. It mandates that agencies consider future flood risk, including climate change impacts, when planning and constructing projects in floodplains, often requiring elevation above current base flood levels.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill is a critical step towards protecting federal investments, public safety, and the environment from the escalating impacts of flooding, which are exacerbated by climate change and increased development. They contend that by requiring agencies to build to a higher standard, the bill will ensure the long-term viability of infrastructure and reduce future disaster relief costs, ultimately saving taxpayer money.
Opponents contend
Opponents might contend that the bill could significantly increase construction costs for federally funded projects and impose new regulatory burdens on agencies and communities. They may argue that these increased costs and complexities could delay essential projects, hinder economic development in flood-prone areas, and potentially divert resources from other critical infrastructure needs.
The bill is relatively concise, allowing an informed reader to grasp its core provisions within the typical time allotted for legislative review.
Section 2
Definitions
This section defines key terms used throughout the Act, such as 'Administrator' (FEMA), 'agency action' (federal construction, financing, or land-use affecting activities), 'base flood' (1% annual chance flood), 'critical action' (where slight flood risk is unacceptable), 'floodplain', and 'Standard' (the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard). These definitions are crucial for understanding the scope and application of the bill's requirements.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that clear and comprehensive definitions are essential for consistent implementation across all federal agencies and to ensure that the intent of the flood risk management standard is uniformly applied.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against definitional sections unless they are seen as overly broad or restrictive, which is not immediately apparent here.
Tradeoffs
The definitions aim for clarity but inherently limit or expand the bill's reach, potentially affecting the number of projects or areas subject to the new standards.
Section 3
Sense of Congress on Flood Resilience Policy
This section outlines Congress's policy goals, stating that the United States should improve community and federal asset resilience to flooding. It emphasizes that flood impacts are increasing, affecting the environment, economy, public health, and national security. It also highlights that the Federal Government must act based on science, and that the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard (FFRMS) is a flexible framework to increase resilience and preserve floodplains.
Section 4(a) and (b)(1)
Agency Leadership and General Responsibilities for Floodplain Management
This provision requires the head of each federal agency to provide leadership and take action to reduce flood losses, minimize impacts on human safety and welfare, and restore natural floodplain values when carrying out agency actions. Agencies must evaluate potential effects of actions in floodplains, ensure planning and budget requests reflect flood hazard consideration, and prescribe procedures to implement the Act.
Section 4(b)(2)
Determination of Floodplains and Flood Hazard Areas
This section dictates how agencies must determine if an action will take place in a floodplain. Agencies must use either a 'climate-informed science approach' that integrates current and future flood changes, specific freeboard values (2 feet above base flood for non-critical actions, 3 feet for critical actions), or an area with a 0.2% annual chance of flooding. Agencies must rely on the best available information, including FEMA's Flood Insurance Rate Maps.
Section 5(a)(1)
Mandate to Comply with the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard
This is a central provision, requiring the head of each agency to ensure that all federally funded projects undertaken by that agency comply with the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard (FFRMS). This mandate applies to new construction, substantial improvements, or addressing substantial damage to structures or facilities where federal funds are used.
Section 5(a)(2)
Requirements for Federal Real Property and Facilities
For agencies responsible for federal real property and facilities, this provision adds specific requirements beyond the general FFRMS mandate. These include requiring construction to comply with new regulations and National Flood Insurance Program regulations, applying floodproofing measures, elevating structures above floodplains (rather than filling land), conspicuously delineating past and probable flood heights on public structures, and attaching flood-related restrictions to the conveyance of federal property in floodplains to non-federal parties.
Section 6
Financial Transactions in Areas Subject to Flooding
This section requires any federal agency that guarantees, approves, regulates, or insures financial transactions related to areas subject to a base flood to inform private parties involved in those transactions about the hazards of locating a structure in such an area. This is in addition to existing responsibilities under the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973.
Section 7
Reporting and Evaluation Requirements
This section mandates that each agency submit a report to the Council on Environmental Quality within one year of enactment, detailing how the Act impacts its procedures and operations, including a separate analysis of the FFRMS mandate. Additionally, the Water Resources Council must evaluate agency procedures every two years, taking into account these reports, and submit its findings to Congress.
Excludes military construction projects described in section 2802 of title 10, United States Code, from the definition of 'agency action'.
Section 2(3)(B)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for defining the scope of a bill's applicability, but it is consequential as it carves out a significant category of federal projects from the new flood risk management standards.
Case for: Proponents of this exclusion might argue that military construction projects have unique national security imperatives and operational requirements that necessitate different, potentially more flexible, flood risk management approaches, or that existing Department of Defense standards are sufficient.
Case against: Critics could argue that excluding military construction projects undermines the comprehensive goal of federal flood resilience, leaving a significant portion of federal infrastructure vulnerable to future flood risks and potentially increasing long-term costs for national defense infrastructure.
Estimated impact: Potentially exempts billions of dollars in military construction spending from the new flood resilience standards, impacting the long-term flood vulnerability of defense facilities.
Specifies that agencies, when determining if an action will take place in a floodplain, may use a 'climate-informed science approach' that integrates current and future changes in flooding based on climate science, uses the best available hydrologic and hydraulic data, emphasizes critical actions, and considers changes over the project's lifetime.
Section 4(b)(2)(A)(i)
Why it matters:This is a technical detail that defines a core operational aspect of the bill. While technically phrased, it represents a significant shift towards proactive, climate-aware planning, which could be politically sensitive due to its implications for project costs and scientific modeling.
Case for: Proponents argue that this approach is essential for truly future-proofing federal investments against climate change, ensuring that infrastructure built today remains resilient throughout its intended lifespan, thereby preventing costly future repairs and rebuilding efforts.
Case against: Critics might argue that the 'climate-informed science approach' is inherently complex, potentially subjective, and could lead to inconsistencies across agencies due to varying data availability or scientific interpretations. They may also raise concerns about the increased costs and potential delays associated with such detailed and forward-looking analyses.
Estimated impact: This provision could significantly alter the design and location of federally funded projects, potentially increasing initial costs but reducing long-term flood damages and increasing project longevity.