Principle 6: Flood mitigation and recovery strategies should be in place throughout the state.
Effective state floodplain management programs use post-flood mitigation and recovery strategies to break the cycle of flood damage and recovery followed by repeated flood damage. Immediately after a flood, citizens and government are most aware of the risks and far-reaching consequences of major losses, and additional funds can be leveraged for flood-reduction projects because governments feel compelled to assist immediately after a disaster. Effective state programs:
- Authorize or encourage temporary post-disaster moratoria on reconstruction and repair to create the time needed to assess damage and consider mitigation methods
- Set priorities for mitigation
- Consider alternative ways to recover while reducing future risk
- Have the ability to provide needed help to localities through pre-disaster training; mobilization of damage assessment teams; direct support; or agreements with other governments and organizations to provide staff and expertise
Note: The table and figure numbers found below follow the order of those in the full 2025 FPM Assessment report [.pdf] and may not be sequential. Tables can be sorted by clicking on column headings. If tables and/or charts do not load, try refreshing the page.
Principle 6 Highlights
Questions 129-130. Differences between states’ substantial damage standards and NFIP minimum standards
- The proportion of states with more stringent or different reconstruction standards than NFIP minimums has increased, from 15% in 2017 to 27% in 2025, potentially signaling improvement in regulatory adoption over time (Question 129).
- These more stringent standards include applying freeboard requirements (1–3 feet), restricting or prohibiting rebuilding in floodways, extending lookback periods for cumulative damage, and requiring the entire building to meet current codes for major foundation repairs.
Questions 132-136. State volunteer programs to help communities with substantial damage determinations
- In 2025, 30% of respondents reported having a program to mobilize volunteers for Substantial Damage determinations (SDDs) (Question 132), potentially suggesting these efforts are mostly handled locally or ad-hoc, despite this percentage being an increase from 19% in 2017.
Questions 137-140. State hazard mitigation councils
- When asked whether their state has a hazard mitigation council or a similar coordinating body (Question 137), 68% reported in 2025 that they have such a council.
- The percentage of responding states with a hazard mitigation council or coordinating body has stayed fairly consistent over the years: 70% in 2017, 73% in 2010, and 69% going back to 2003 (Figure P6.2).
Figure P6.2. 2003, 2010, 2017 and 2025 results for Question 137 – Does your state have a hazard mitigation council or similar coordinating body?
Question 141. State-led Silver Jackets Teams
- 97% of respondents reported that their state or territory has a Silver Jackets Team (Question 141).
Questions 143-147. State funding or other resources for flood mitigation projects
- 73% of respondents indicated their state provides funding or other resources to carry out flood mitigation projects (Question 143). This is similar to the result in 2017, when 70% responded “yes” to this question.
- In follow up (Question 144, Table P6.3), most responding states reported using a variety of funding sources – funds from other programs, appropriated by state legislature (automatically and after a disaster), other grants, and through an established state mitigation program.
- Most of the responding states (Question 146) focus on providing funds for federal match requirements (88%) and grants to communities (81%); only 21% provide grants to individual property owners, indicating this is much less common. 43% offer loans to communities, while just 9% provide loans to individual property owners (Table P6.4).
Table P6.3. Results for Question 144 – Does the funding that is reserved to carry out flood mitigation programs come from the following sources?
Table P6.4. Results for Question 146 – Are the funds for flood mitigation projects provided through the following mechanisms?
Questions 152-153. State climate adaptation mandates/programs
- 49% of responding states (up from 41% in 2017) have a mandate or program to plan for climate change adaptation. Common efforts include assessing risk to infrastructure, natural features, private property, and critical facilities, as well as changing state programs/policies (Question 152, Table P6.5).
Table P6.5. Results for Question 152 – Does your state have a mandate or program to plan for adaptation to climate change?
Question 154. Activities or programs to mitigate Repetitive Loss properties
- The vast majority of responding states (91%) provide technical assistance to localities, making this the most widely conducted activity/program aimed at mitigating properties subject to repetitive flood losses (Question 154, Figure P6.6).
- Over half of states also have acquisition programs and provide funding. Relocation and retrofitting programs are somewhat less common, with fewer than half of states providing these.
Figure P6.6. Results for Question 154 – Does your state conduct the following activities or programs to mitigate properties that are subject to repetitive flood losses?
Continue to Principle 7 Highlights
Principle 1 | Principle 2 | Principle 3 | Principle 4 | Principle 5
Principle 6 | Principle 7 | Principle 8 | Principle 9 | Principle 10