Which States Have the Strongest Statutory Frameworks for Hazard Mitigation Planning?
Summary
- Few states have a statutory framework that will let them easily take greater responsibility for overseeing hazard mitigation planning if FEMA pulls back.
- Only eight states have dedicated hazard mitigation or disaster resilience offices, and even fewer have statutes that promote state, local, and intralocal alignment on hazard mitigation planning.
- Planners can enhance community resilience by exceeding federal hazard mitigation minimums, working to integrate hazard mitigation into local comprehensive plans, and embracing exploratory scenario planning.
The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 required all state and local jurisdictions to prepare and periodically update hazard mitigation plans to maintain eligibility for federal mitigation grants. Since then, state and local hazard mitigation planning has largely followed a process standardized through federal regulations and FEMA's official policy guides.
Thanks to these federal requirements, hazard mitigation is now a widely recognized functional area of planning. But are planners leading local mitigation planning efforts? Is hazard mitigation well integrated with core comprehensive or land use planning functions? Are federal requirements ensuring high-quality plans across the board? And which states are best prepared to step up if FEMA takes a step back from hazard mitigation planning?
Earlier this year, APA researchers compiled information on the statutory frameworks for land use, hazard mitigation, and climate action planning across all 50 states. Our analysis indicates that most states seem content to let federal agencies set the bar for state and local hazard mitigation planning. And the onus remains on planners and local officials to fill any gaps.
Most States Have a Lot of Room for Improvement
State laws can support or add to federal statutes and regulations that guide most state and local hazard mitigation planning efforts. Some states offer explicit or extensive guidance for hazard mitigation planning initiatives; others less so. The map above, which categorizes states as having either a "high," "medium," or "low" emphasis on hazard mitigation based on their cumulative scores across 14 statutory criteria, shows that not all states are operating under identical frameworks.
8 States Have a Dedicated Statutory Hazard Mitigation or Disaster Resilience Office
Recommended practice: Establish a dedicated state hazard mitigation or disaster resilience office, with a chief officer reporting directly to the governor.
Although nearly all states (45 of them) address hazard mitigation in their statutes, most assign this responsibility to multifunctional emergency management agencies operating within the five mission areas of the National Preparedness Goal: prevention, protection, mitigation, response, and recovery. However, this may not be the best structure for promoting proactive hazard mitigation planning or aligning hazard mitigation, land use, and climate action plans.
Dedicated hazard mitigation or disaster resilience offices mean hazard mitigation isn’t just a federal compliance exercise for a multifunctional agency. And governors likely pay more attention to the activities of their direct reports than those further down in the executive branch hierarchy. Only eight states, however, have dedicated hazard mitigation or disaster resilience offices: Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina, West Virginia, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, and Virginia. Of these, only the first four have chief officers that report directly to their respective governors.
6 States Have Statutes Requiring State-Local Alignment on Hazard Mitigation Planning Goals
Recommended practice: Include hazard mitigation in state comprehensive and land use planning statutory requirements.
Though all states statutorily authorize, if not require, local comprehensive plans, most do not set statutory goals to guide state or local comprehensive or land use planning. Of the 12 that do, only eight address hazard mitigation within their goal sets. And, of these, only Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Oregon, and Vermont explicitly require both state and local agencies to advance these goals.
Statutory planning goals provide direction and promote alignment on core planning issues across jurisdictions. Including hazard mitigation in these goals upholds its importance alongside more traditional aims, such as promoting a livable built environment and a resilient economy.
8 States Have Statutes Addressing Plan Integration for Hazard Mitigation
Recommended practice: Require local jurisdictions to align hazard mitigation plans with comprehensive and other local plans
Eight states have statutes that relate standalone hazard mitigation plans to local comprehensive plans: California, Iowa, Montana, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington. Among these states, California, New Jersey, and Washington have the clearest language connecting federal hazard mitigation planning requirements with local comprehensive plan requirements.
The concept of plan integration refers to consistency across a local jurisdiction's system of plans. Because most local jurisdictions produce their federally required local hazard mitigation plans as standalone documents, there is no guarantee that the hazard mitigation strategy outlined in the plan will be consistent with the local jurisdiction's official comprehensive plan. State statutes can correct that disconnect by requiring alignment of standalone local hazards-related plans with each jurisdiction's local comprehensive plan.
No Regret Actions
We don't know when or how the federal role in hazard mitigation planning will change. But planners don't have to wait for a "new normal" to act. The following suggestions will help planners strengthen local resilience planning, regardless of federal outcomes.
Remember That Federal Rules Are a Floor, Not a Ceiling
While all states and local jurisdictions must comply with federal rules for hazard mitigation planning to remain eligible for specific funds, these rules are a floor and not a ceiling. State agencies and local jurisdictions can go beyond federal requirements to produce better plans. Include a wider fact base, make specific land use and property protection policy recommendations, and establish more detailed (and realistic) implementation programs that involve intergovernmental and cross-sector collaboration.
Integrate Hazard Mitigation and Comprehensive Planning
The local comprehensive plan remains the best tool communities have to establish a long-range vision and goals across all areas of planning. In addition to being the only plan statutorily authorized or required by all 50 states, it is often the only plan that courts consider in cases challenging zoning actions and land use decisions. Therefore, integrating hazard mitigation principles and techniques into the comprehensive plan increases the likelihood of consistent, coordinated action. This is the approach advocated by APA's Hazard Mitigation Policy Guide and explored in depth in Hazard Mitigation: Integrating Best Practices into Planning (PAS Report 560).
Leverage Exploratory Scenario Planning
Exploratory scenario planning can help planners facilitate conversations about our highly uncertain future. This approach challenges participants to use existing trends and signals about potential future trends to formulate multiple future scenarios. In contrast to normative scenario planning, which looks at how local decisions can affect future conditions, exploratory scenario planning focuses on the external forces shaping communities. The goal is to formulate robust policies and actions that make sense across all plausible future scenarios or contingent policies and actions tied to specific scenario-based triggers or thresholds.
In addition to using exploratory scenario planning for natural and manmade hazard risk assessment, planners can use this tool to consider risks posed by potential federal or state policy changes — such as FEMA devolving responsibility for hazard mitigation planning oversight to states. As a starting point, planners could suggest adding exploratory scenario planning into the rotation of preparedness exercises that many emergency managers use to test and refine plans.
Caveats and Conclusions
Statutes don't tell the whole story. What laws say and what states do are two different things. Not all state governments are equally equipped or committed to operating in full compliance with all state statutes. Laws that address the specific concerns of one era may seem less compelling as conditions change. And some laws lack teeth without sufficient budget and staffing for implementation.
On the other hand, state leaders and agencies can, and often do, advance the state of the art in hazard mitigation planning through executive orders, administrative policies, and formal and informal interagency coordination. Effective hazard mitigation is an ongoing process, and planners have key roles to play in advancing local preparedness and resilience, regardless of future uncertainties.
2026 Survey of State Planning Laws
Since 2002, APA researchers have periodically surveyed state planning-related laws to document critical features of state statutory frameworks for planning. This story map summarizes key themes that emerged from APA's 2026 survey of state planning laws related to land use, hazard mitigation, and climate action.
Top image: Andrii Yalanskyi / iStock / Getty Images Plus