The cheapest flood to pay for is the one that never happens.

A new Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report estimates that every $1 billion in federal spending on flood prevention and mitigation could prevent $3 billion to $4 billion in damage over the next 30 years. More importantly for taxpayers, that same investment could reduce future federal disaster relief spending by $1.4 billion to $1.8 billion in today’s dollars, more than the original investment.

Prevention isn’t an untested idea. An independent analysis by the National Institute of Building Sciences found that 23 years of federal mitigation grants produced about $6 in societal benefits for every $1 spent. Flood prevention measures, such as levees, home elevations, and buyouts, have a long track record of reducing losses. CBO found that federal investments in flood prevention could pay for themselves through reduced disaster relief spending even if Congress covered only 25%-33% of future flood damage, depending on how the savings are calculated.

The need for flood prevention is only growing. Flooding caused an average of $55 billion a year in damage from 2015 through 2024. By 2050, annual flood damage is projected to increase by roughly one-quarter to one-third due to changes in climate conditions alone, with continued development in high-risk areas adding to the costs. Taxpayers often end up paying for a substantial portion of that damage. From 2000 through 2019, federal disaster relief covered about 45% of the damage from hurricanes that made landfall in the U.S. When flood damage is avoided, so are potential taxpayer costs.

If flood prevention saves the government money and protects Americans, why isn’t Congress pursuing more of it? Part of the answer is that federal budget rules don’t always account for the savings prevention provides. Congressional cost estimates generally don’t count avoided future disaster relief spending because those appropriations have not yet been made. Congress also relies on a standard ten-year budget window, which cannot capture the full benefits of investments that pay off over decades. That makes prevention look expensive on paper even when it could save more than it costs.

Another obstacle is how the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) administers mitigation funding. A separate Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found that administrative delays have held back billions in federal disaster prevention funding. FEMA’s Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program funds projects that reduce disaster risks, including flooding. But of the $4.8 billion available during BRIC’s first four grant cycles (FY2020 through FY2023), FEMA had awarded 1,245 subgrants totaling about $2.5 billion as of March 2025, with only about $1 billion actually obligated. Of the $2.5 billion awarded, about 40% was allocated for flood prevention.

BRIC’s billions in unawarded funding are not because of a lack of demand. GAO found that communities requested $16 billion across BRIC’s first four cycles, more than three times the amount available. As of March 2025, FEMA had yet to make final decisions on 700 applications associated with roughly $2.2 billion, accounting for most of the remaining available funding. FEMA’s median time to complete its review and award subgrants was seven to nine months, and about 50 applications had been waiting for more than two years.

Taxpayers cannot afford endless delays in disaster prevention. The longer disaster mitigation projects are held up, the more expensive they can become. Officials from one community told GAO that a project estimated at $40 million in 2020 had climbed to more than $60 million by the time FEMA awarded funding in 2024, an increase they attributed to inflation.

Despite high demand for BRIC funding, FEMA announced in April 2025 that it was ending the program. In December 2025, a federal judge ruled the termination was unlawful, finding that FEMA could not abandon its congressionally mandated mitigation responsibilities or withhold required funding. After the court again ordered the agency to take steps to comply in March 2026, FEMA restarted BRIC. During those 11 months, FEMA awarded no new BRIC grants, and state officials told GAO that some communities stopped work on mitigation projects because of funding uncertainty.

When it decided to unilaterally end BRIC, FEMA called it “wasteful and ineffective.” However, officials told GAO they did not use the program’s performance information to make that determination. Cutting wasteful programs and saving taxpayers money is a good thing. But if FEMA believes a program wastes taxpayer dollars, it should be able to demonstrate how.

Reducing flood risks can also help lower the cost of flood insurance for Americans. But many Americans remain unaware of their risks or lack adequate protection. A separate GAO report found that 86% of high-risk properties lacked coverage through the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). GAO found that NFIP accounts for the vast majority of flood insurance policies, meaning most high-risk properties are left uninsured. Part of the problem is inadequate risk communication. FEMA’s flood maps, which help determine whether homeowners with federally backed mortgages must purchase flood insurance, leave out roughly 13 million high-risk properties.

Congress has a role to play in making disaster prevention more effective. It should strengthen BRIC’s accountability by requiring measurable performance goals and firm timelines for grant decisions, while ensuring FEMA has the staff and resources needed to process applications. Congress should also prioritize cost-effective projects that demonstrate substantial reductions in future losses. Congress should also establish explicit statutory protections for BRIC to prevent future administrations from unilaterally suspending the program again. Finally, Congress should strengthen flood risk communication by requiring lenders to ensure homebuyers receive flood insurance quotes before closing and directing FEMA to review what properties it considers high-risk.
Taxpayers will keep paying for floods one way or another. The question is whether Congress and FEMA will invest in reducing the damage beforehand or keep spending billions to rebuild afterward.