Federal Flood Risk Management Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Van Hollen, Chris [D-MD]
- Committees
- Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 11, 2026
Bottom line
This bill mandates federal agencies to adopt a more stringent, climate-informed standard for floodplain management and federally funded projects, aiming to enhance long-term flood resilience and reduce future disaster costs.
What it actually does
This bill codifies and expands the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard, requiring federal agencies to adopt a climate-informed science approach for determining floodplains and to build federally funded projects to higher flood elevation standards. It mandates agencies to evaluate potential flood effects, consider natural systems in planning, and inform private parties about flood hazards in financial transactions.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill is a critical step to protect federal investments, public safety, and the environment from the escalating impacts of flooding driven by climate change. They contend that proactive measures, though potentially increasing upfront costs, will lead to significant long-term savings by reducing disaster relief expenditures and property damage.
Opponents contend
Opponents might raise concerns that the bill could lead to increased construction costs for federally funded projects, potentially causing delays or making some projects economically unfeasible. They may also argue that the expanded federal standards could be seen as an overreach into local land use planning and building regulations.
The bill is relatively concise for its scope, allowing an informed reader to grasp its core provisions and implications within a reasonable timeframe.
Sec. 4(b)(2)
Determination of Floodplains and Flood Hazard Areas
This provision requires federal agencies, when determining if an action will take place in a floodplain, to use a climate-informed science approach that integrates current and future changes in flooding. It mandates adding 2 feet of 'freeboard' to the base flood elevation for non-critical actions and 3 feet for critical actions, or using the area with a 0.2 percent annual chance of flooding. This expands the regulated floodplain beyond current base flood levels.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue this provision is essential for future-proofing federal investments against escalating flood risks, ensuring that infrastructure built today will withstand the impacts of climate change and save taxpayer money in the long run by avoiding costly repairs and disaster relief.
Critics contend
Opponents might contend that these expanded definitions and higher standards could significantly increase upfront project costs and potentially limit development options in areas now designated as higher risk, leading to economic inefficiencies or delays.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the immediate financial costs of building to higher standards against the long-term economic and safety benefits of increased resilience and avoided flood damages.
Sec. 5(a)(1)
Compliance with Federal Flood Risk Management Standard
This section mandates that federal agencies must comply with the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard (FFRMS) for all federally funded projects. Additionally, agencies responsible for federal real property and facilities must ensure construction complies with these regulations, apply floodproofing measures, elevate structures above floodplains when practicable, and delineate past/probable flood heights on public structures in hazard areas.
Sec. 5(b)
Exemptions for National Security and Emergencies
This provision allows the head of an agency to exempt a federally funded project from the FFRMS if the exemption is in the interest of national security or if the project is undertaken due to an emergency. For emergency exemptions, the agency head must publish a notice in the Federal Register, including factual findings supporting the exemption.
Sec. 6
Financial Transactions in Areas Subject to Flooding
This section requires any federal agency that guarantees, approves, regulates, or insures financial transactions in 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.
Sec. 7
Agency Reports and Standard Evaluation
This section mandates that each federal agency submit a report to the Council on Environmental Quality within one year, detailing how the Act impacts its procedures and operations, including an analysis of the FFRMS requirement. The Water Resources Council is then required to evaluate agency procedures every two years and report its findings to Congress, and to update the FFRMS itself at least every five years.
Excludes military construction projects described in section 2802 of title 10, United States Code, from the definition of 'agency action.' This means such projects are not subject to the new floodplain management requirements established by the bill.
Sec. 2(3)(B)
Why it matters:While a common legislative practice to define scope and exclusions, its placement in the definitions section means a casual reader might overlook its significant impact on military infrastructure and its vulnerability to flood risk.
Case for: Proponents would argue this exemption is necessary to ensure military readiness and critical defense infrastructure projects are not delayed or made prohibitively expensive by flood risk management standards that might not be suitable for their unique operational requirements or national security imperatives.
Case against: Critics might argue that this creates a significant loophole, as many military installations are located in coastal or flood-prone areas. Excluding them from enhanced resilience standards could leave valuable defense assets vulnerable to climate change impacts, potentially increasing long-term costs for repairs and operational disruptions.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant, as military construction projects can be large-scale and critical, and their exclusion means they won't automatically adhere to the new, more stringent flood resilience standards, potentially leaving them at greater risk.
When an agency considers alternatives to taking an action in a floodplain, it must 'when possible, rely on natural systems, ecosystem processes, and nature-based approaches.'
Sec. 4(b)(3)(C)(ii)
Why it matters:While a positive policy goal, its placement within a procedural subsection rather than a standalone policy statement might reduce its prominence. It could be seen as standard legislative drafting to integrate it into existing processes.
Case for: Proponents would highlight this as a forward-thinking approach that leverages ecological benefits, reduces reliance on costly 'grey' infrastructure, and provides co-benefits like habitat restoration, improved water quality, and carbon sequestration, aligning federal projects with environmental sustainability goals.
Case against: Opponents might argue that the phrase 'when possible' is vague, potentially leading to inconsistent application or delays if nature-based solutions are not always the most cost-effective or immediately feasible option for certain projects, adding complexity to project planning.
Estimated impact: Could significantly shift federal infrastructure planning towards more sustainable and environmentally friendly solutions, with long-term ecological and economic benefits by reducing reliance on traditional, often more expensive, flood control methods.