Enhancing Long-Term, Efficient, and Viable Alternatives to Empower Flood-Prone Communities Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Whitehouse, Sheldon [D-RI]
- Committees
- Environment and Public Works Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Mar 26, 2026
Bottom line
This legislation aims to fundamentally shift the Army Corps of Engineers' approach to flood risk management by prioritizing and better funding nonstructural solutions, thereby enhancing community resilience and environmental benefits.
What it actually does
This bill mandates that the Army Corps of Engineers give equal consideration to nonstructural flood risk management solutions alongside traditional structural approaches. It prohibits the pausing or termination of studies and projects involving nonstructural features, establishes new federal committees and centers of expertise to enhance nonstructural capabilities, and significantly increases the federal cost share for such projects, particularly for economically disadvantaged communities and properties with a history of severe flood damage. The bill also details specific procedures for property acquisition, demolition, relocation, and structure elevation, including expanded eligible costs and ownership verification methods.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that nonstructural features are proven, cost-effective, and environmentally beneficial methods for reducing flood risk, preserving natural floodplains, and offering viable solutions for diverse communities. They contend that the Corps of Engineers has historically underutilized these methods despite congressional directives, and this bill will correct that imbalance, leading to more sustainable and resilient outcomes.
Opponents contend
Critics, if any, might raise concerns about the potential for increased federal spending due to higher federal cost shares, the administrative challenges of shifting the Corps' long-standing focus from structural to nonstructural projects, or the perceived slower implementation timelines of nonstructural solutions compared to traditional infrastructure. Some may also argue that structural solutions offer more immediate or comprehensive protection in certain high-risk areas.
The bill is relatively concise and well-structured, allowing an informed reader to grasp its core provisions and implications within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 3(b)
Declaration of Policy for Nonstructural Features
This section declares it U.S. policy that nonstructural features must be given equal consideration to structural features in all Army Corps of Engineers flood risk management and hurricane and storm damage risk reduction studies. It also states that implementing these nonstructural features is a fundamental part of the Corps' primary mission, reinforcing their importance in federal water resources investments.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue this policy declaration is essential to ensure the Corps of Engineers fully embraces nonstructural solutions, which are often more cost-effective and environmentally beneficial, aligning federal actions with modern flood resilience strategies.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against a policy declaration that expands options, though some might argue it could lead to an overemphasis on nonstructural solutions where structural ones might be more appropriate.
Tradeoffs
The provision aims to balance the historical reliance on structural solutions with the growing recognition of nonstructural benefits, potentially creating tension in project prioritization and resource allocation within the Corps.
Section 3(d)
Continuation and Disclosure for Nonstructural Projects
This provision prohibits the Secretary of the Army from pausing, terminating, or deferring any authorized flood risk management or hurricane and storm damage risk reduction study or project that includes a nonstructural feature, especially if funds have been appropriated or allocated. It requires the resumption of any such projects paused since January 20, 2025. Furthermore, it mandates regular written disclosures to non-Federal interests regarding project status, schedules, and expenditures, and sets strict timelines for study progress, with specific exceptions for non-compliance.
Section 3(e)
Technical Competence and Capacity Building
This section mandates the continuation of the National Nonstructural Committee, establishes a new Nonstructural Working Group composed of experts from federal, state, local, and nonprofit sectors, and designates a mandatory Nonstructural Center of Expertise within the Corps of Engineers. These entities are tasked with developing guidance, providing advice, consolidating technical expertise, and building capacity for nonstructural flood risk management. The Secretary is also required to submit annual reports to Congress on these activities and the consideration of nonstructural features in ongoing studies.
Section 3(f)
Revised Federal Cost Sharing for Nonstructural Measures
This section amends existing law (33 U.S.C. 2213(b)) to significantly increase the Federal share of costs for flood risk management or hurricane and storm damage risk reduction measures using nonstructural features. The Federal share will be 90% for measures benefiting economically disadvantaged communities or repetitive loss structures, 100% for severe repetitive loss structures, and 75% for all other nonstructural measures. This applies to both newly authorized and existing projects upon request of the non-Federal interest.
Section 4
Enhanced Provisions for Property Acquisition and Relocation
This section details new requirements for property acquisition, demolition, or relocation as nonstructural features. It mandates that participation must be voluntary and includes costs for relocation advisory services, temporary housing for owner-occupants, and actual moving expenses. Crucially, it allows for supplemental payments above appraised value for low-income owner-occupants to purchase comparable replacement dwellings in non-hazard-prone locations. These provisions apply to new studies and, upon request, to previously authorized projects without requiring a new reevaluation study.
Section 5
Standards and Eligible Costs for Structure Elevation
This section sets new standards and expands eligible costs for structure elevation nonstructural features. It requires the target design flood elevation to be at least local ordinance height, and mandates evaluation of higher standards (ASCE 24). It broadens eligible project costs to include compliance with all-hazard design loads (seismic, wind), replacement of undersized utilities, asbestos/lead abatement, elevation of decks/porches, construction of new floor systems/stairs if needed, and documented temporary housing costs for owner-occupants during construction. It also simplifies ownership verification and allows non-Federal interests to carry out the work with advance Federal funds.
This provision prevents the Secretary from completing a study without submitting a Chief's Report or Director's Report that includes a recommendation for congressional authorization, from narrowing the study's scope without non-Federal interest request, or from delaying study progress by more than 45 days under existing law (33 U.S.C. 2282c).
Section 3(d)(4)(A)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for modifying existing statutory frameworks and procedural requirements. The cross-references are necessary to precisely define the scope of the changes.
Case for: Supporters argue this ensures accountability and prevents the Corps from indefinitely delaying or unilaterally altering studies that are critical for advancing flood risk management projects, particularly those with nonstructural features.
Case against: Critics might argue that such strict limitations on study modifications and delays could reduce the Corps' flexibility to adapt to new information, changing conditions, or evolving priorities during complex planning processes.
Estimated impact: This provision directly impacts the timeline and scope of numerous ongoing and future flood risk management studies, potentially accelerating project authorizations and ensuring nonstructural options are fully considered.
This provision establishes a 'presumption of violation' if a study or project with nonstructural features is delayed by more than 45 days or if the District Engineer fails to provide required documentation or notifications to the non-Federal interest.
Section 3(d)(6)
Why it matters:This is a common legislative technique to create a strong incentive for compliance without explicitly stating a penalty, by shifting the burden of proof. It's technically phrased but highly impactful.
Case for: Proponents argue this creates a powerful enforcement tool to ensure the Corps adheres to the bill's mandates regarding project continuation and transparency, preventing passive non-compliance through inaction or delayed communication.
Case against: Critics might argue that a 45-day delay threshold is too rigid for complex federal projects, and this presumption could lead to unnecessary administrative burdens or legal challenges for the Corps, even for legitimate, unavoidable delays.
Estimated impact: This provision significantly strengthens the oversight of the Army Corps of Engineers' adherence to the bill's requirements, potentially leading to more timely project delivery and improved communication with non-Federal partners.
This provision allows for a supplemental payment to low-income owner-occupants whose structures are acquired and demolished, if the cost to purchase a comparable replacement dwelling in a non-hazard-prone location exceeds the appraised value of their original structure.
Section 4(e)
Why it matters:This is a targeted provision addressing a specific equity concern within the broader framework of property acquisition. Its technical phrasing and placement are typical for such detailed financial mechanisms.
Case for: Proponents argue this is a critical equity measure, ensuring that low-income families are not displaced into worse housing or forced to remain in hazard-prone areas due to insufficient compensation, thereby making voluntary acquisition programs more just and effective.
Case against: Critics might argue that such supplemental payments could increase the overall cost of acquisition projects, potentially making them less economically viable in some instances, or could set a precedent for other federal programs.
Estimated impact: This provision will provide crucial financial support to an unknown number of low-income households in flood-prone areas, facilitating their relocation to safer homes and reducing long-term federal disaster relief costs.
This provision significantly expands the list of eligible project costs for structure elevation nonstructural features, including costs for seismic and wind hazard compliance, utility repairs, asbestos and lead-based paint abatement, elevating existing decks/porches, constructing new floor systems/stairs, and temporary housing for owner-occupants during construction.
Section 5(b)
Why it matters:This is a technical enumeration of eligible expenses, which is typically presented in a detailed list format. Its placement is logical within the section it modifies.
Case for: Proponents argue that by covering these essential and often overlooked costs, the bill ensures that structure elevation projects are truly comprehensive, safe, and do not impose hidden financial burdens on homeowners, thereby making the option more attractive and effective.
Case against: Critics might argue that expanding eligible costs could substantially increase the per-project federal expenditure for structure elevation, potentially limiting the number of projects that can be funded or increasing the overall federal budget impact.
Estimated impact: This provision will lead to more robust and complete structure elevation projects, reducing the financial burden on homeowners and local governments for associated necessary repairs and temporary displacement, but will increase the federal cost per elevated structure.