S-4757-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Sponsored by Chris Van Hollen (D-MD)
What it does
This bill would codify the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard (FFRMS) into law, requiring all federal agencies to apply stricter flood elevation requirements when undertaking, financing, or assisting construction projects. Agencies would be required to build 2–3 feet above the base flood elevation (or use a climate-informed science approach) rather than the current 1% annual flood chance baseline. It would also require agencies to evaluate floodplain impacts before taking action, notify state, local, and tribal governments, and report to Congress on compliance every two years.
Who benefits
Residents and property owners in flood-prone areas who would be better protected by more resilient federal infrastructure. Taxpayers broadly, who bear the cost of repairing flood-damaged federal facilities. State and local governments that receive advance notice and comment opportunities on federal floodplain actions. Environmental and conservation groups, as the bill prioritizes nature-based flood mitigation. Future occupants of federally funded structures built to higher standards. The National Flood Insurance Program, which could see reduced claims from better-sited federal projects. Emergency management agencies that would face fewer disaster response demands.
Who is hurt
Developers and contractors who work on federally funded projects and would face higher construction costs to meet elevated building standards. Communities seeking federal funding for projects in or near floodplains that may be delayed, redesigned, or denied. Agencies with large real property portfolios that would bear significant compliance and administrative costs. Low-income communities that depend on federal housing or infrastructure funding and may see projects become more expensive or fewer in number. Rural areas where floodplain land is common and alternative sites may be scarce. Federal agencies facing new reporting and procedural burdens.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that flood losses cost the federal government tens of billions of dollars annually, and that building to the current 1% flood standard is increasingly inadequate as flood patterns shift. They contend that the FFRMS was developed through a rigorous interagency process with input from governors, mayors, and the public, and that codifying it into law prevents future administrations from rolling it back by executive order — as occurred in 2017 when President Trump rescinded the Obama-era FFRMS. They point to FEMA data showing that every $1 spent on flood mitigation saves an average of $6 in future disaster costs, making the higher construction standard a fiscally sound long-term policy.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that mandating 2–3 feet of additional freeboard and climate-informed projections on all federally funded projects would significantly increase construction costs and timelines, potentially delaying or canceling infrastructure in communities that need it most. They contend that the bill's reliance on climate modeling introduces regulatory uncertainty, since projections vary widely by region and methodology, and that agencies lack the technical capacity to consistently apply a "climate-informed science approach." They further argue that the bill's broad scope — covering any agency action that finances or assists construction — could effectively block federal support for affordable housing, water systems, and transportation in flood-prone areas where no practical alternative sites exist.