Chris Van Hollen (D-MD)
Federal Flood Risk Management Act of 2026
A Democratic bill with 2 Democratic cosponsors · See all 2 cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The Federal Flood Risk Management Act of 2026 aims to increase the resilience of U.S. communities and Federal assets against flooding. It requires Federal agencies to follow a specific Standard and use climate-informed science when managing floodplains. Agencies must evaluate the effects of their actions on floodplains and prioritize avoiding adverse impacts. The bill also mandates public notices for certain projects and requires the Water Resources Council to update flood standards regularly.
Yes· 3 of 26
- Scored +7
Does this improve help for people hit by a disaster?
Establishes a science-based standard for flood risk management to reduce future disaster impacts.
- Scored +6
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
Promotes the restoration and preservation of the natural and beneficial values of floodplains.
- Scored +6
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
Requires public notices and coordination with state, local, and tribal governments regarding floodplain actions.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Improved Safety and Health: The bill requires agency heads to take action to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health, and welfare (Section 4(a)).
-
Climate-Informed Planning: Agencies must use a science-based approach that integrates current and future changes in flooding based on climate science to determine floodplains (Section 4(b)(2)(A)(i)).
-
Increased Public Awareness: For Federal properties used by the general public that are in flood hazard areas or have suffered damage, agencies must provide a clear marking of past and probable flood heights (Section 5(a)(2)(D)).
-
Transparency for Local Governments: Agencies must notify State, local, and Tribal governments about proposed actions in floodplains, providing a map and a list of considered alternatives (Section 4(b)(3)(C)(iv)).
-
Consumer Protection in Financial Deals: Agencies that insure or regulate financial transactions in base flood areas must inform private parties about the hazards of placing a structure in that area (Section 6).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Restrictions on Property Use: When Federal property in a floodplain is sold or leased to a private party, the government may attach restrictions to how that property is used or may refuse to sell the property entirely (Section 5(a)(2)(E)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Reduces the risk of catastrophic losses in vulnerable areas through better federal planning. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Specifically mandates notification and coordination with Tribal governments regarding flood actions. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Improves resilience of rural assets and incorporates nature-based floodplain management. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Improves resilience of urban infrastructure against flooding. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Increases resilience in potentially vulnerable communities through science-based flood planning. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Increases resilience in potentially vulnerable communities through science-based flood planning. Would children be better off under this? — Improves long-term safety and health by reducing flood risks in communities. Would farmers be better off under this? — Preserves the natural value of floodplains and improves land-use planning in agricultural areas. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Increases resilience in potentially vulnerable communities through science-based flood planning. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Improves safety and provides better information for financial transactions in flood areas. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Provides better hazard information for those engaging in financial transactions in flood zones. Would retired people be better off under this? — Enhances safety and protection of welfare in flood-prone areas. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Increases protection of human safety and welfare during flood events. Would white Americans be better off under this? — Improves overall community safety and asset resilience. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Reduces future risk of property loss and environmental degradation. Would business owners be better off under this? — Increases the resilience of infrastructure and assets, though may face more restrictions on land use. Would high-income households be better off under this? — Increases long-term stability of assets in flood-prone areas.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this improve help for people hit by a disaster? — Establishes a science-based standard for flood risk management to reduce future disaster impacts. Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — Promotes the restoration and preservation of the natural and beneficial values of floodplains. Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — Requires Federal agencies to manage and dispose of Federal lands using climate-informed flood science. Does this repair or build roads and bridges? — Improves the resilience and longevity of federally funded infrastructure projects against flood risk.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — Requires agencies to inform private parties about flood hazards in financial transactions relating to base flood areas. Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — Ensures federally funded projects are designed to last as long as intended by accounting for future flood risks. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Reduces long-term economic losses by improving the resilience of Federal assets and communities against flooding.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Requires public notices and coordination with state, local, and tribal governments regarding floodplain actions. Does this give the federal government more power? — Establishes a mandatory Federal standard for flood risk management across all executive agencies.
- 6/11/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in Senate
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Cory BookerDemocrat · New Jersey
Brian SchatzDemocrat · Hawaii