Blog · Policy

FEMA reform would hand states more of the work. And the data?

· 3 min read

A federal review council has recommended reshaping FEMA so that disasters are "locally executed, state managed and federally supported". If adopted, states and counties would carry more of the planning, mitigation and cost, and flood insurance would shift gradually toward private insurers. Whatever one thinks of that direction, it raises a practical question: will states and counties have the flood-risk data to do the work?

What the council recommended

The FEMA Review Council delivered its final report on 7 May. According to the National Association of Counties and the National League of Cities, its recommendations include:

  • Flood insurance "gradually shifted toward the private market through updated risk-based pricing, modernized flood maps" and a voluntary transfer of policies.
  • Mitigation funding managed at state level, replacing the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program with a rapid advance within 30 days and a strategic allocation within six months.
  • Higher thresholds for federal disaster declarations, which NACo estimates could mean about "16 fewer major disaster declarations per year", with more moderate disasters paid for by states and counties.

The recommendations are not law. Some could be carried out by FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security directly; others need Congress. The National League of Cities notes the shift could "create affordability and availability challenges for many communities".

The trade-offs

The case made for the change is that states and localities know their own risks, and that federal help should focus on the largest disasters. The concerns, including the affordability point above, are about whether smaller states and counties have the budgets and staff to take on more. This post takes no side on that.

The part both sides need: data

Every one of the recommendations depends on knowing where flood risk is, building by building and county by county. "Modernized flood maps" appear in the council's own flood insurance proposal. State-managed mitigation needs a state to decide where money does the most good. Private insurers need to price risk.

North Dakota shows why that is not a given:

If more responsibility moves to states and counties, the quality of their own flood data becomes a policy question, not just a technical one.

How Prism Labs can contribute

We are building Prism Water Risk, flood and water risk for insurers, lenders and counties in North Dakota. It is in development. What it already does is the unglamorous part the council's recommendations rely on:

  • Bring the public record together: FEMA's regulatory flood maps, flood insurance claims by county and year, and the buildings they affect.
  • Check every record against the original files, so the numbers can be defended. We explained why in our checks caught a common data tool quietly changing records.
  • Show gaps honestly, such as counties without a regulatory map, rather than treating missing data as zero risk.

Ahead of the 2027 legislative session, we intend to offer this county-level evidence to North Dakota's policymakers who ask for it, free of charge and without a position on the federal debate. Counties, lenders and insurers who want to see it for their own area can request a pilot.

This product is not endorsed by FEMA.

Sources

Keep reading