States Should Use Funding Available Pre- and Post-Disaster to Build Long-Term Resilience to Climate Change

Executive Summary

States can make climate change-fueled disasters less damaging, saving lives and dollars, by using federal hazard mitigation funding in combination with policies to consider future climate conditions in designing and implementing projects using that funding. Without sustained hazard mitigation investments guided by climate change-focused policies, states risk falling into a costly cycle of responding to more and more damaging disasters, with deeper, longer-lasting impacts on budgets and lives.

While federal disaster funding for rebuilding and harm mitigation often doesn’t require states to consider how future disasters could affect people, communities, and property, states can tap important federal resources and use them to mitigate future risk. States must apply for most post-disaster hazard mitigation funding and should have specific policies in place to make the best use of the federal funding they receive:

• States should foster cross-agency coordination on hazard mitigation and climate adaptation by:
  • Establishing a resilience office to provide leadership and policy direction, data and analysis capacity, and monitoring of outcomes.
  • Creating a statewide climate adaptation plan to establish a shared vision, goals, objectives, and project pipelines.
  • Setting up working groups or commissions to support communication and foster collaborative projects.
• States should require consideration of future risk in hazard mitigation investments by:
  • Mandating that infrastructure projects requiring state approval use future climate projections in decision-making.
  • Providing support to local governments so that land use policies, zoning policies, and building codes and standards reflect projections about future conditions under a changing climate.
• States should direct hazard mitigation funding where the negative effects of climate change-fueled disasters fall hardest — that is, to communities of color (particularly Black, Latine, and American Indian and Alaska Native communities) and low-income communities — by:
  • Setting policies directing a specific percentage of funds to these communities.
  • Requiring a certain proportion of investment benefits to accrue to them.
  • Establishing requirements for meaningful participation of community members in investment decisions.

Table of Contents

• Growing Disaster Costs Highlight Need to Adapt to Climate Risks
• Federal Hazard Mitigation Funding Enables Critical Safety Investments
  • Post-Disaster Hazard Mitigation Programs
  • Pre-Disaster Hazard Mitigation Programs
  • Congressionally Directed Spending
• How States Can Best Use Federal Funding for Climate Change Adaptation
  • Cross-Agency Coordination
  • State Policies Mandating Consideration of Future Climate Risk in Rebuilding
  • State Policies Directing Money to Where It’s Most Needed

Growing Disaster Costs Highlight Need to Adapt to Climate Risks

Climate change, which is causing hazards such as storms, wildfires, droughts, and floods to become more frequent and severe, is the leading contributor to rising disaster costs across the country.^[2] Between 2008 and 2024, the United States experienced 267 climate-related disaster events each causing at least $1 billion in damage — an average of 15 per year. (See Figure 1.^[3]) Since the 2010s, the frequency of billion-dollar disasters has increased, from about 13 events per year in the 2010s to 27 events in 2024.^[4]

To reduce the loss of lives and livelihoods — as well as the cost to state, local, tribal, and territorial governments — all levels of government and sectors of society must act to reduce climate pollution and adapt to climate impacts.^[5] Climate adaptation requires understanding and planning for climate risks as well as upgrading infrastructure, management practices, and policies so that communities can adapt to changing conditions and decrease disaster risk.^[6]

The current U.S. disaster funding system dates back to the late 1980s and has not been sufficiently updated to ensure that funds are used to better protect people and communities from future risks. Federal resources can and should be better targeted to helping states and communities build resilience to climate impacts. The Trump Administration has created a new set of challenges by delaying or stopping badly needed disaster funding and causing significant uncertainty about what funds will be provided in future disasters. It also has reversed Biden policies that sought to orient post-disaster funding more toward protection from future disasters. Litigation is ongoing regarding the Administration’s funding delays, and it is critical that the process for awarding funds not be politicized.

The good news, however, is that states can choose on their own to use available federal funding to prepare for the worsening hazards that a climate-changed future is bringing and lessen future disaster impacts.

Federal Hazard Mitigation Funding Enables Critical Safety Investments

The Stafford Act of 1988 mandates that the federal government help cover disaster response and recovery costs that state and local governments are unable to meet. The majority of Stafford Act funding is for immediate relief and recovery efforts.^[7] It includes Public Assistance to states for things like debris removal and emergency building repairs and Individual Assistance to individuals for things like housing and counseling. This funding is critical for rebuilding lives and livelihoods post-disaster, but it is not designed to help communities reduce the risk of future disasters and adapt to climate change.

However, the Stafford Act and other mechanisms also enable support to states for “hazard mitigation” — that is, actions taken to reduce the risk that a hazard such as flood, fire, or extreme storm poses to lives, livelihoods, and property in a given place over the long term. When hazard mitigation efforts incorporate risk assessments and vulnerability analyses that account for projections of future climate conditions, they can constitute effective climate change adaptation.

Federal hazard mitigation funding is a significant share of the federal funding available to help states adapt and build resilience to climate impacts. States^[8] rely on these funds to make cost-saving, life-preserving upgrades to buildings, roads, and critical infrastructure, with projects reducing future disaster response and recovery costs by as much as $13 for every $1 invested.^[9] With this funding, states can simultaneously help achieve hazard mitigation and climate change adaptation needs, but only if they consider future climate conditions in designing and implementing the projects. For example, rather than simply rebuild a structure in the same place and to the same standards following a major flood, a state could use information about future flood risk to understand how much to elevate that structure or determine that it needs to be moved.

The federal government administers two types of hazard mitigation funding through FEMA and other agencies: post-disaster funding, which is available only in the wake of a Presidential Major Disaster Declaration, and pre-disaster funding, which is distributed on a competitive basis irrespective of a current disaster declaration.^[10]

Post-Disaster Hazard Mitigation Programs

This funding is distributed based on an assessment of the damage the disaster has caused and the estimated project costs for needed rebuilding.

• FEMA Public Assistance (PA): State governments request PA as part of their Presidential Major Disaster Declaration request. For certain PA-funded projects, known as “permanent” projects, states can work with FEMA to incorporate hazard mitigation measures into the project.^[11] These projects must be completed within 18 months of the disaster. Funds can be used to repair and rebuild public infrastructure such as roads, public buildings, and water systems.^[12]

  For example, the city of Mexico Beach, Florida used $2.7 million in PA funds to implement climate resilience and environmental improvement projects that better protect the community against future flooding and created recreational amenities with multiple social, environmental, and economic benefits.^[13]

• FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP): State governments request HMGP funds as part of their Presidential Major Disaster Declaration request.^[14] If the funding is approved, local governments can then apply as sub-applicants for funding to the state applicant based on state-identified priorities.^[15] HMGP funds can be used for a variety of hazard mitigation project types, including creating and updating hazard mitigation plans, purchasing property, upgrading assets, and improving environmental conditions.

  For example, HMGP funds were used to install hurricane-resistant retrofits at Nicklaus Children’s Hospital in Miami. With these retrofits, the hospital was able to shelter patients, employees, and families through several Florida hurricanes, including Frances, Jeanne, Katrina, and Wilma.^[16]

• HUD Community Development Block Grant – Disaster Response (CDBG-DR): This is a significant source of post-disaster funding, with high potential to be used for hazard mitigation. CDBG-DR provides flexible grants to help state governments address unmet recovery needs from major disasters over a longer period of time than FEMA’s IA and PA. Funding for the program comes through individual supplemental appropriations Congress approves following a disaster. Eligible uses of CDBG-DR funds include a range of housing, infrastructure, and economic development activities; 70 percent of the funds must be used to benefit low-and-moderate income areas.

  In 2018, Congress appropriated $12 billion of CBDG-DR funds specifically for mitigation activities (CDBG-Mit) for qualifying disasters in 2015, 2016, and 2017. CDBG-Mit provided funding for strategic, long-range activities to reduce the risk of future disasters. In Florida, for example, regional planning councils used a $1.5 million CDBG-Mit grant to develop an inventory of priority mitigation projects and create a model to show the impacts of extreme rainfall flooding.^[17]

  Beginning in 2021, CDBG-DR allocations included a mandatory 15 percent set-aside for mitigation activities related to any future disasters. CDBG-DR funds can also be used to help state governments meet FEMA cost-share requirements.

• Other supplemental appropriations: Beyond FEMA, other federal agencies, including the Economic Development Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Geological Survey, commonly receive supplemental congressional appropriations following a disaster. Those funds may be used for agency activities (for example, to improve flood monitoring) or distributed to the disaster-affected states for needed activities related to specific impacts (for example, to repair drinking water infrastructure).

Pre-Disaster Hazard Mitigation Programs

This funding is distributed on a competitive basis. Though available before a disaster, it is still generally based on the experience of past disasters rather than the threat of future ones.

• FEMA Building Resilience Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC): BRIC provides funds to states to conduct long-term hazard mitigation projects. The President can set aside up to 6 percent of the total amount of federal funds authorized through disaster declarations in that year for BRIC, rather than rely solely on congressional appropriations. Congress can also appropriate additional funds for BRIC, as it did in the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.^[18] BRIC funding is available only in jurisdictions that have received a disaster declaration in the past seven years.^[19]

  BRIC funds can be used for similar project types as HMGP, along with additional capacity-building activities such as project scoping, partnership development, and non-financial technical assistance.^[20] For example, in 2023 BRIC selected five California projects to reduce harm from wildfires, such as by retrofitting homes to reduce the risk that wildfires destroy them.^[21] The Administration attempted to end BRIC in April 2025; the program is currently paused, as 20 states have sued FEMA for cancelling awarded grants and litigation is ongoing.

• FEMA Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA): FMA provides funds to states, territories, federally recognized tribes, and local governments to mitigate hazards to structures insured under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). It receives an annual appropriation from Congress and is not dependent on disaster declarations.

  FMA funds can be used to elevate, flood-proof, destroy, purchase, or relocate NFIP-insured property and for some local flood mitigation projects with direct benefit to NFIP-insured properties. For example, in 2024 FMA announced approval of funding to elevate 11 homes to protect them from flooding in North Carolina.^[22]

• FEMA Safeguarding Tomorrow Revolving Loan Fund (RLF): Established through the Safeguarding Tomorrow through Ongoing Risk Mitigation (STORM) Act of 2021, these funds rely on yearly congressional appropriations and are not dependent on disaster declarations. RLF funds are awarded to states on a competitive basis and can be used only to capitalize a revolving loan fund program. They require certain conditions for loans made through the program and must go toward projects that mitigate hazards that FEMA deems “catastrophic,” including storm surge, flooding, earthquakes, and wildfires.

  Use of RLF funds can count toward the non-federal cost-share requirement for another FEMA grant. For example, Virginia’s 2024 RFL Intended Use plan included using the RLF loan to meet the cost share for a BRIC grant.^[23]

• Hazard mitigation and climate resilience funding from other agencies: A number of other agencies, such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Department of Energy, administer funding programs designed to — or with the potential to — help state governments adapt to climate change.

Congressionally Directed Spending

One additional funding source is available for hazard mitigation projects: congressionally directed spending for the Pre-Disaster Mitigation program. This funding is directed (earmarked) by Congress for specific local projects; it is not a consistently funded program providing grant funding that states can apply for. However, it can be significant: it provided over $190 million to 110 projects in fiscal year 2024.^[24]

How States Can Best Use Federal Funding for Climate Change Adaptation

States must take specific actions to effectively leverage federal hazard mitigation funding to meet their climate change adaptation needs and ensure that money is invested in communities experiencing the most negative climate impacts with fewest resources to respond: they must apply for most post-disaster hazard mitigation funding, and they should have specific policies in place to make the best use of the funding they receive.

While 97 percent of state applications for presidential disaster declarations between 2008 and 2025 included a request for PA (permanent) funding, only 71 percent included a request for HMGP funds. One reason may be that hazard mitigation activities can be financially challenging for state and local governments, as applicants must meet a 25 percent cost share. Additionally, delays for HMGP are common, which may discourage jurisdictions from applying for funding.^[25]

As explained below, states also need to have core policies in place to guide effective and equitable use of the funding.^[26]

Cross-Agency Coordination

Hazard mitigation and climate adaptation efforts span the purview of multiple state agencies. Therefore, policy and governance mechanisms for cross-agency coordination are necessary to ensure more integrated projects and more effective outcomes.

At least 13 states have resilience offices, which can provide leadership and policy direction for climate adaptation efforts across agencies; they also can provide data and analysis resources to support effective policy development and monitor implementation outcomes.^[27] Approximately 20 states have a statewide plan that addresses climate change adaptation, whether on its own or in combination with climate change mitigation or hazard mitigation.^[28] Adaptation plans create a statewide vision, goals, and objectives as well as a project pipeline to strategically guide policy and investments. Less formal structures such as working groups or commissions can also support cross-agency coordination by establishing shared language and expectations and creating space to develop shared projects and regular updates.

While states are moving forward in establishing these mechanisms, progress has been slow and uneven. In 2024, the American Planning Association created an index for state resilience governance, scoring states from 0-10 on the formality of their structures based on indicators such as the existence of a resilience definition, a resilience office, and the level of interagency involvement. Only one state (West Virginia) received a 10, only eight states scored above 5, and 20 states received a 0.^[29]

State Policies Mandating Consideration of Future Climate Risk in Rebuilding

Multiple policy types — including land use policy, zoning, and building codes and standards — significantly affect the climate resilience of infrastructure that is rebuilt after a disaster. These policies need to both reflect projections about future conditions under a changing climate and to mandate that entities actively use future climate projections in decision-making in order to effectively reduce risk as climate change alters the location, severity, and characteristics of many hazards.^[30] Projections of future conditions are readily available from international organizations, academic institutions, and federal agencies, but their use in policymaking is not yet widespread.^[31]

While jurisdiction over building and land use policies is largely at the local level, states can incentivize or mandate consideration of future climate risk in certain related decisions; they also can provide guidance to local governments.^[32] For example, New York’s Climate Risk and Resiliency Act requires certain state infrastructure projects and certain projects that require state permits to demonstrate consideration of future physical risk due to climate change.^[33] And New Jersey recently proposed a suite of updated regulations (“Resilient Environments and Landscapes”), including several requirements aimed at protecting infrastructure from future sea level rise and storm surge.^[34]

In 2023, FEMA released new administrative guidance governing activities funded by HMGP, BRIC, and FMA; the guidance updated requirements for HMA-funded construction projects, tying them to modern building standards like the International Building Code and International Residential Code. FEMA also released new guidance governing hazard mitigation plan approvals, which required state and local governments to account for climate change and other future conditions in their hazard mitigation plans. Together, these updates pushed applicants to think more seriously about climate risk, and they continue to provide a useful roadmap to more thoughtful rebuilding and hazard mitigation efforts. Unfortunately, the documents were revised in the early months of the second Trump Administration, with explicit references to climate change eliminated and “future conditions” removed as a required planning element.

These rollbacks, along with the Trump Administration’s rescission of the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard in early 2025,^[35] make state policies requiring consideration of future climate risk — and guidance on what data to use to determine it — all the more important.

State Policies Directing Money to Where It’s Most Needed

The negative effects of climate change-fueled disasters fall hardest on people of color (particularly Black, Latine, and Native American people) and people with low incomes or low wealth due to interlocking discriminatory systems, including racist housing policies, government disinvestment, and economic exploitation.^[36] As a result, states should direct hazard mitigation funding to communities of color and low-income communities, which experience the greatest negative impacts from climate change and have the fewest resources to respond, often referred to as “environmental justice communities.” While climate justice demands more than equitable investment alone, it is an important component.^[37]

According to Climate XChange, just six states have policies that require a certain percentage of the funds or benefits from state climate and clean energy investments to be directed to environmental justice communities, and only some of those policies apply to a broad swath of climate and energy funds, as opposed to funds from a specific program or set of programs.^[38] The Biden Administration made progress on this issue at the federal level through the government-wide Justice40 policy, but that policy was rolled back by the Trump Administration. However, states can and should prioritize investments in places with the greatest need irrespective of federal inaction.