SAFE Rural Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Harrigan, Pat [R-NC-10]
- Committees
- Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 21, 2026
Bottom line
The SAFE Rural Act establishes a mandatory, dedicated funding stream from FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund to enhance flood resilience in underserved rural, Tribal, and territorial communities through formula-based grants and streamlined processes.
What it actually does
This bill, known as the SAFE Rural Act, amends the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to make the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program mandatory and establishes a new 'SAFE Rural Program' within it. This program creates a dedicated, formula-based grant allocation for rural communities, Tribal lands, and territories to fund flood resilience projects. It mandates a 2% set-aside from the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Disaster Relief Fund for this new program and streamlines application processes for small projects and low-capacity applicants. The bill also broadens eligible mitigation activities to explicitly include nature-based solutions and revises criteria to prioritize community-identified needs.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill addresses critical vulnerabilities in rural, Tribal, and territorial communities that often lack the resources and capacity to compete for existing federal hazard mitigation grants. They contend that proactive investment in flood resilience, particularly through nature-based solutions, will measurably reduce long-term federal disaster expenditures and protect lives and property. The streamlined application processes and dedicated funding are designed to overcome historical barriers to access for these underserved areas, ensuring more equitable distribution of mitigation resources.
Opponents contend
Critics may raise concerns that diverting 2% of the Disaster Relief Fund, which is primarily intended for post-disaster recovery, could potentially strain resources needed for immediate response to major disasters. Some might also argue that creating a new dedicated program adds another layer of complexity to federal grant administration, even with streamlined application processes, and that existing programs could be reformed instead. Concerns could also be raised about the potential for funds to be distributed based on formula rather than purely on the highest risk or greatest need, though the formula does include need-based factors.
The bill is moderately complex due to its amendments to existing law and detailed program structure, requiring a dedicated read. The estimated reading time of 15-20 minutes is reasonable for an informed reader to grasp its core provisions.
Section 3, amending 42 U.S.C. 5133(b)
Mandatory BRIC Program
This section changes the language in the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act from 'may establish' to 'shall carry out' regarding the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program. This makes the BRIC program a mandatory, rather than discretionary, program for the President (FEMA) to implement. It also clarifies that the program serves 'States and Indian tribal governments'.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that making the BRIC program mandatory ensures consistent federal investment in predisaster mitigation, preventing potential lapses in funding or program focus that could occur if it remained discretionary. This provides greater certainty for states and tribal governments in planning long-term resilience efforts.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against making a successful mitigation program mandatory, as it generally aligns with broader goals of disaster preparedness. However, some might argue that it reduces agency flexibility in resource allocation.
Tradeoffs
The tradeoff is between agency discretion in managing programs and the desire for consistent, mandated federal support for critical infrastructure and community resilience.
Section 4, amending 42 U.S.C. 5133(c) and (d)
Revised BRIC Fund Allocation and Administrative Plan Requirements
This section establishes a new formula for distributing BRIC funds: 50% divided equally among eligible entities, 30% weighted by population and lower median incomes, and the remaining funds based on adoption of FEMA-approved hazard mitigation plans or recent International Building Code flood provisions. It also requires States and Indian Tribal governments to submit an administrative plan detailing streamlined subgrant application processes, including page limits, plain-language instructions, preapplication consultations, and timely review and funding release.
Section 5, amending 42 U.S.C. 5133(e)
Nature-Based Solutions as Eligible Uses of Assistance
This section explicitly expands the eligible uses of BRIC funds to include a wide range of nature-based and green infrastructure solutions for predisaster hazard mitigation. These include floodplain and wetland restoration, living shorelines, bioengineered streambank stabilization, retention/detention facilities using natural designs, upland reforestation, and watershed restoration. The aim is to promote ecological approaches to flood risk reduction.
Section 6, amending 42 U.S.C. 5133(f)
Revised Criteria for Mitigation Activities
This section updates the criteria for evaluating mitigation projects funded under BRIC. New criteria emphasize project need, community benefits, cost-effectiveness, collaboration, environmental impacts (including nature-based approaches), long-term operational feasibility, and applicant capacity. Crucially, it allows for 'limited technical sophistication' in applications from first-time, low-capacity, and small/rural applicants. It also prioritizes projects in high-hazard, low-income, or recently disaster-affected communities.
Section 7, amending 42 U.S.C. 5133(g)
Establishment of the SAFE Rural Program and Fund
This section establishes the 'SAFE Rural Fund' and the 'Sustainable and Flood Resilient Engineering for Rural Areas program' (SAFE Rural program). The Fund will receive 2% of all amounts appropriated to the Disaster Relief Fund annually and will remain available until expended. The SAFE Rural program provides formula-based pass-through grants to States and Indian Tribal governments for projects in rural communities. It sets a minimum allocation of $5 million (or 1% of funds) and a maximum of $150 million (or 15%) per entity, considering need in priority areas. It mandates a 95% pass-through of funds to subgrantees (with 5% for administration) and details eligible uses, including construction of resilient public infrastructure, mitigation to critical facilities, and nature-based solutions. It also requires operations and maintenance plans for certain projects and establishes a Community Assistance Program (CAP-MIT) for state/tribal hazard mitigation capacity.
Section 9, amending 42 U.S.C. 5133(i)
BRIC Set-Aside Adjustment
This section amends the overall set-aside for the BRIC program. It changes the calculation to 'an amount equal to 10 percent of the aggregate amount of appropriations to the Disaster Relief Fund from the previous fiscal year' to provide technical and financial assistance under the BRIC program. Previously, this calculation might have been different or less explicit.
Section 10, amending 42 U.S.C. 5133
Small Project Set-Aside and Streamlined Track
This section mandates that States and Indian Tribal governments reserve at least 15% of their annual BRIC allocation (including SAFE Rural funds) for 'small project subgrants' (total cost not more than $500,000). It creates a streamlined application process for these projects, waiving the benefit-cost analysis requirement for projects under $200,000 and limiting application materials to a project description, site map, cost estimate, and eligibility attestation. States/Tribes must make a decision within 60 days of a complete application.
The bill provides a detailed definition of 'eligible entity' for subgrants under the SAFE Rural Program. This includes counties with populations of 50,000 or fewer, municipalities with 10,000 or fewer, and certain larger counties if their population density is low or they lack large incorporated municipalities. It also includes local governments described in section 102(8)(B) and Tribal organizations acting on behalf of such local governments.
Section 7(11)(B), amending 42 U.S.C. 5133(g)
Why it matters:Definitions are standard legislative practice, but the specific thresholds and conditions for eligibility are critical to understanding who will ultimately benefit from the program and could easily be overlooked by a casual reader focusing on the program's overall goals.
Case for: Supporters argue that precise definitions are necessary to ensure the funds are targeted specifically to the rural and smaller communities the bill intends to help, preventing larger, more resourced entities from dominating the funding.
Case against: Some might argue that overly specific population thresholds could exclude communities with genuine rural characteristics or flood vulnerabilities that just slightly exceed the defined limits, creating arbitrary cutoffs.
Estimated impact: This definition will directly determine which thousands of local governments and Tribal organizations across the country are eligible to receive subgrants, shaping the program's reach and impact.
The bill provides an expansive definition of 'flood-prone area,' including not only FEMA-designated 100-year or 500-year floodplains but also areas with two or more damaging flood events in the preceding 15 years (documented by disaster declarations, insurance records, etc.), or areas identified with significant flood risk by various federal, state, local, or tribal plans, studies, or modeling. Crucially, it includes 'flood risk data from emerging methodologies, including privately produced datasets and climate-adjusted modeling, accepted by the Administrator as meeting standards for scientific reliability.'
Section 7(11)(C), amending 42 U.S.C. 5133(g)
Why it matters:While definitions are standard, the inclusion of 'emerging methodologies' for identifying flood-prone areas is a significant policy shift that broadens the scope of eligible projects and could be missed. It allows for more dynamic and forward-looking risk assessment beyond traditional FEMA maps.
Case for: Proponents argue that this broad definition ensures that communities facing current and future flood risks, including those not yet mapped by traditional methods or those experiencing increased frequency due to climate change, can access mitigation funds. Including emerging data sources allows for more accurate and up-to-date risk assessments.
Case against: Some might express concern that incorporating 'privately produced datasets and climate-adjusted modeling' could introduce variability or lack of standardization if not rigorously vetted by the Administrator, potentially leading to inconsistent application of funds or disputes over eligibility.
Estimated impact: This definition significantly expands the geographic scope of areas that can qualify for flood resilience funding, potentially making many more communities eligible for projects than under narrower definitions.
The bill establishes a Community Assistance Program (CAP-MIT) within the SAFE Rural Program, providing annual grants of $1,000,000 to $5,000,000 to each eligible State and Indian Tribal government. These grants are specifically for developing and maintaining a capable State hazard mitigation program responsible for administering FEMA programs, assisting communities with applications, focusing on rural and small communities, offering technical assistance, and developing mitigation strategies.
Section 7(7), amending 42 U.S.C. 5133(g)
Why it matters:The CAP-MIT grant is a critical capacity-building component that directly addresses the 'lower levels of capacity' identified in the findings (Section 2). Without this, the pass-through grants might not be effectively utilized by low-capacity communities. Its importance could be overshadowed by the larger funding allocations.
Case for: Proponents argue that simply providing funds is not enough; many rural and tribal governments lack the administrative and technical capacity to apply for and manage federal grants. CAP-MIT grants directly fund this essential capacity building at the state and tribal level, ensuring that the larger SAFE Rural program funds can be effectively distributed and utilized.
Case against: Some might argue that dedicating a separate grant program for administrative capacity adds another layer of bureaucracy, and that such capacity should be built into the main grant program's overhead allowance. However, the bill specifies a separate set-aside for this purpose.
Estimated impact: This program will provide between $1 million and $5 million annually to each eligible State and Indian Tribal government, significantly bolstering their ability to manage and assist local communities with hazard mitigation efforts.