Principle 9: The levels of funding and staffing for floodplain management should meet the demand within each state.
Effective state floodplain management programs recognize that it is not enough to rely on federal funding to meet state needs or effectively reduce flood costs and damage. Effective state floodplain management programs are the result of state executive and legislative branches that have committed adequate staff and funding to the necessary program elements and agencies.
States that have been the most effective at floodplain management have assessed the needed level of funding and staffing, based on factors appropriate to their states, such as flooding, local administration, and the anticipated functions of staff members.
Floodplain management programs use this information to develop budgets that include salaries, operations, mapping, mitigation grants, and other activities. States seek creative ways of obtaining funds and generating revenue.
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 9 Highlights
Questions 194-195. Changes to state floodplain management programs since 2017
- Since 2017, a majority of states (69%) reported an expansion of their floodplain management programs (Question 194), often adding staff, enhancing training, and implementing new tools to address climate risk and resilience goals (e.g., D.C.'s FloodSmart Homes program and Vermont's 2024 Flood Safety Act).
- However, some states also cited increased administrative obligations, particularly those stemming from the CAP-SSSE Tiered State Framework (Question 195).
Questions 196-197. Floodplain Manager Experience
- A majority of respondents served less than eight years in their current position as the State Floodplain Manager, in both 2017 (55%) and 2025 (68%), indicating a relatively higher turnover or newer staff from 2017 to 2025.
- The average tenure in 2025 (7.7 years) was slightly lower than in 2017 (8.4 years). (Question 196, Figure P9.1)
Figure P9.1. 2017 and 2025 results for Question 196 – How long have you served in your current position?
Question 198. Floodplain Management Staff Education
- State and territory floodplain managers are well educated with nearly all respondents (94%) possess a bachelor’s degree or higher, with 43% reporting having a four-year college or bachelor’s degree, representing the largest group, followed by 32% with a master’s degree (Question 198, Figure P9.3).
Figure P9.3. Results for Question 198 – What is the highest level of education you have completed?
Questions 204-206. Changes in capacity of state floodplain management programs
"Because of the Advanced Tier in the TSF, the state was given more funding, and the floodplain management section was able to hire 1.5 new staff members."
"State pay isn't competitive anymore so new engineers are quitting more often now. FEMA is constantly adding more requirements and more documentation to CAP to the point where CAP is out of line when compared to other federal funding sources."
- Overall capacity of state floodplain management programs increased for a majority of states (62%) between 2017 and 2025 (Question 204), primarily due to federal or state funding boosts, such as FEMA’s CAP-SSSE TSF incentives, which enabled states to add staff (Question 205).
- This added capacity led to greater outreach, expanded training, and improved technical assistance.
- Conversely, some states faced challenges, including staff turnover and retention difficulties linked to uncompetitive salaries, budget constraints, and increased administrative requirements (Question 206, see Call Out).
Questions 208-211. Funding
- Since 2017, a majority of respondents (57%, or 21 states) reported an increase in program funding (Question 209, Figure P9.6).
- Federal program adjustments (CAP-SSSE, TSF, CTP) were the most cited factor for funding changes (Question 210).
- Climate change, flooding events, and disaster response needs prompted funding increases in several states.
Figure P9.6. Results for Question 209 – Since 2017, how have the overall funding levels of your state’s floodplain management program changed?
- Funding changes since 2017 primarily improved overall program capacity, often leading to new staff hires in states like Alabama, Utah, Vermont, and Washington (Question 211). Increased funding also enhanced outreach and local community assistance.
- However, a few respondents reported neutral or counterbalancing effects. For instance, one respondent noted a decrease in CAP funding offset by an increase in other funding, while another shifted work from district offices to the central office due to increased administrative burden.
Question 212. Other state agencies involved in floodplain management
- In 2025, 41% reported the involvement of other state agencies, compared to only 24% in 2017 (Question 212).
- While over half of states still have limited cross-agency coordination, this suggests an increase in involvement by other state agencies, most commonly including Emergency Management, Natural Resources, and Environmental Protection.
Continue to Principle 10 Highlights
Principle 1 | Principle 2 | Principle 3 | Principle 4 | Principle 5
Principle 6 | Principle 7 | Principle 8 | Principle 9 | Principle 10