Issue Brief | Virginia's Community Flood Preparedness Grant Program: A Model for State Climate Adaptation Funding

This issue brief was authored by GCC Adaptation Director Joshua Saks.^{See footnote 1} Explore more examples of state adaptation leadership from GCC.

As climate impacts intensify across the United States, the need for proactive state leadership in disaster preparedness has never been more urgent. With the Trump administration's elimination of FEMA's $4.5 billion Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program in April 2025^{See footnote 2} and the President's stated intent to significantly cut FEMA programs^{See footnote 3} and scale back agency operations, states can no longer rely on federal support for comprehensive disaster mitigation. Twenty states have filed suit to restore the BRIC program,^{See footnote 4} which had funded nearly 2,000 projects and saved taxpayers over $150 billion in avoided disaster costs,^{See footnote 5}  but the outcome remains uncertain. In this environment of federal retreat from climate adaptation, Virginia's Community Flood Preparedness Fund (CFPF) stands out as a proven model for how states can build their own comprehensive flood resilience programs.

Since its establishment in 2020,^{See footnote 6} CFPF has delivered more than $200 million to over 218 projects across five funding rounds, benefiting communities large and small across the Commonwealth. The fund has supported transformative projects ranging from Norfolk's $24.6 million Ghent-Downtown-Harbor Park^{See footnote 7} flood protection barrier system to protect thousands of residents and businesses, to Virginia Beach's innovative $7 million conversion of a flood-prone golf course into a stormwater park that will safeguard over 1,000 structures.^{See footnote 8} Beyond major infrastructure investments, the program has enabled dozens of rural communities — from Tazewell County's school stormwater improvements to Mathews County's living shoreline projects — to develop resilience plans, conduct critical flood studies, and implement adaptation solutions that would otherwise remain beyond their financial reach.

With Governor Glenn Youngkin's recent announcement of $67 million in grants and loans from the fund's fifth round^{See footnote 9}  Virginia's CFPF demonstrates that states can create comprehensive, enduring climate adaptation programs that sidestep partisan politics while delivering meaningful results for vulnerable communities. As federal adaptation resources disappear and communities nationwide confront intensifying flood risks, Virginia's approach offers a blueprint for states that must now shoulder primary responsibility for protecting their residents from climate impacts. The question is no longer whether states should build their own resilience programs, but how quickly they can establish them.

A Model for National Leadership in Climate Adaptation

Virginia's Community Flood Preparedness Fund represents one of the most comprehensive state-level climate adaptation funding programs in the United States. Virginia's CFPF addresses flooding from all sources: coastal storm surge, riverine flooding, urban stormwater, and precipitation-driven events. Whatever the source, flooding is the most common natural disaster affecting communities nationwide, so Virginia's model is broadly applicable across a range of geographic regions and hazard types.

Virginia's program demonstrates several critical features that position it as a promising model for state climate adaptation funding. Virginia's five-year track record provides a proven template that other states can adapt to address their own climate risks and establish themselves as national leaders in proactive climate adaptation.

Legislative Foundation: Building for Permanence

The program's robust design reflects an extensive public engagement process that ensured community needs and priorities shaped the fund's structure from the outset. Following Virginia's entry into the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)^{See footnote 10} the Department of Conservation and Recreation conducted a multi-layered stakeholder engagement process that combined formal administrative procedures with grassroots community outreach.

The state first developed draft program guidelines and subjected them to the standard public comment process required under Virginia's Administrative Process Act, providing transparent review of the fund's proposed operations. 

Concurrently, the Governor's Special Assistant for Coastal Adaptation and Protection and the Department of Conservation and Recreation were conducting extensive outreach for its coastal master planning efforts, holding over 30 community meetings throughout the state. These sessions consistently included discussions of the Community Flood Preparedness Fund and how communities could utilize its resources, creating direct pathways for local input to inform program design. 

The public engagement process directly influenced key program features, including the emphasis on nature-based solutions, the 25% allocation requirement for low-income communities, the three-tier funding structure that prioritizes comprehensive planning, and the flexible match requirements that ensure financial capacity doesn't prevent vulnerable communities from accessing resilience investments.

Program Architecture: Comprehensive Approach to Community Resilience

The CFPF operates through a three-tier funding structure addressing different phases of community adaptation development: planning grants for capacity building, study grants for technical analysis, and implementation grants for actual construction. Loan components provide flexible financing that extends community purchasing power while creating sustainable funding mechanisms.

One feature that distinguishes Virginia's approach from other resilience and adaptation funding is its emphasis on comprehensive planning as a prerequisite for implementation projects. Applications require DCR-approved Resilience Plans, creating a pathway that guides communities through thoughtful vulnerability assessment to help them prioritize infrastructure investments. This planning requirement aims to ensure projects address root causes of flooding rather than symptoms, encourages nature-based solutions, and equips communities with the documented analyses that they will need to  pursue additional federal and private funding.

The fund explicitly prioritizes “projects that implement community-scale hazard mitigation activities that use nature-based solutions to reduce flood risk." This steers applicants toward holistic approaches to community-wide flooding rather than individual actions on a building-by-building basis.

For low-income communities, Virginia provides unusually  generous terms: 95% funding coverage for nature-based solutions with only 5% local match required, and 85% coverage for all other projects. Match requirements can be waived entirely for grants up to $1 million, ensuring that financial capacity doesn't prevent vulnerable communities from accessing resilience investments.  This stands in contrast to typical federal and state grant programs, which can require communities to provide as much as 50 percent of the funding from other sources.^{See footnote 11}  

Strategic Prioritization: Incentivizing Most Effective Solutions

Virginia's CFPF scoring system creates powerful incentives for communities to pursue the most effective resilience strategies. In evaluating grant proposals, DCR awards points to each project in three categories: Project Types, Scale, and Lifespan. 

The Project Type rubric awards maximum points (30) for land acquisition projects that create natural buffers keep development out of high risk areas, high points (25) for nature-based solutions like wetland restoration and living shorelines, moderate points (15) for hybrid approaches, and minimal points (10) for traditional infrastructure like levees, floodwalls, or elevations. This tiered system guides communities toward comprehensive approaches rather than conventional engineering solutions.

When it comes to Scale, community-scale benefits receive priority, with projects serving multiple census blocks earning maximum points while those benefiting less than 25% of a census block receive no points in this category. Social vulnerability considerations provide additional scoring weight, operationalizing equity commitments through competitive advantages for projects serving vulnerable populations.

To reward long-term thinking, projects lasting over 20 years receive maximum points, while shorter-term solutions receive correspondingly fewer points. This framework encourages durable solutions rather than temporary fixes, rewarding communities that consider long-term stewardship and maintenance.

Rigorous Standards: Ensuring Quality and Effectiveness

Virginia's program also provides applicants with detailed project standards. All applications must demonstrate that proposed projects minimize flood vulnerabilities without creating adverse impacts to other properties — a "no adverse impact" standard that aims to avoid situations where resilience investments in one place simply shift problems elsewhere. Projects must have a minimum expected useful lifespan of 10 years or more, and applicants are required to show they have  comprehensive plans for maintenance, management, and monitoring.

The program maintains strict compliance with the standards of the National Flood Insurance Program, while focusing on community-scale benefits rather than individual property protection. Property acquisition projects must include documentation ensuring acquired land remains permanently protected as open space, while relocation strategies must address housing values and provide pathways for all residents, including tenants, to move to safer locations if they do choose.

Equity Through Design: The 25% Mandate

Virginia's statute requires that 25 percent of grants be awarded to low-income areas, an allocation that exceeds the equity provisions in most other states’ programs. Virginia’s law defines low-income geographic areas as localities with median household income not greater than 80% of local median income, or areas designated as qualified opportunity zones. 

Virginia's statutory equity requirement represents a robust commitment to climate justice in state adaptation funding. Virginia Code mandates that "no less than 25 percent of the funds disbursed from the Fund each year shall be used for projects in low-income geographic areas."^{See footnote 12}  

While other states' programs steer assistance toward underserved populations through preferences, Virginia's approach creates binding fiscal commitments written into law. This provision is operationalized through preferential match requirements —with low-income communities receiving 95% funding coverage for nature-based solutions requiring only 5% local match, and 85% coverage for all other projects, compared to standard 75% coverage for other communities. Match requirements can be waived entirely for grants up to $1 million in low-income areas.

Equity in Practice

The program's emphasis on equity is demonstrated across all five funding rounds. Rural and traditionally underserved communities have received substantial investments, including projects in Buchanan County ($294,654 for resilience staffing), Tazewell County (multiple awards totaling over $1.5 million across rounds), Dickenson County ($2.2 million for acquisition and flood proofing), and Wise County ($431,109 across multiple planning and study awards). The fund has reached small towns like Damascus ($110,000), Craigsville ($210,000), and Wachapreague ($50,000), providing resources for comprehensive resilience planning that would otherwise remain beyond their financial capacity. This geographic distribution extends well beyond Virginia's traditionally well-resourced coastal and Northern Virginia regions, ensuring that climate adaptation investments reach communities across the Commonwealth's diverse economic and geographic landscape.

Bipartisan Resilience: Transcending Political Change

Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of Virginia's program is its persistence across different political administrations. The fund was created under Democratic Governor Ralph Northam in 2020, establishing Virginia's participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) as the primary funding source. 

When Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin took office in 2022 and withdrew Virginia from RGGI, rather than allowing the fund to collapse, the Commonwealth's budget allocated $100 million from the General Fund to maintain flood preparedness investments. This has made the fund now dependent upon the Commonwealth’s  biannual budget process and less and adds a level of uncertainty to long term fund capitalization. 

This decision reflects pragmatic recognition that flood risks require proactive response regardless of their ultimate causes. Governor Youngkin's statement that "the devastation experienced in Southwest Virginia during Hurricane Helene underscores the importance of preparedness and flood resilience" demonstrates how flood preparedness has transcended partisan politics to become accepted government responsibility. This continuity from Democratic creation to Republican implementation suggests that well-designed resilience programs can avoid the pitfalls of partisan politics by focusing on broadly shared concerns about community safety and economic protection rather than partisan objectives.

Recommendations for States Developing Similar Programs

States seeking to establish their own comprehensive climate adaptation programs might consider the following key recommendations when developing similar initiatives:

Recommendation 1: Establish Dedicated Funding Sources 

States could identify sustainable funding mechanisms that align with their political and economic contexts—whether through carbon pricing, insurance premium assessments, general fund appropriations, or other dedicated sources. The key is ensuring predictable, multi-year funding that allows communities to plan and implement comprehensive resilience strategies rather than pursuing ad hoc projects. While single-source funding can provide initial momentum, diversified revenue streams reduce vulnerability to political changes and provide greater long-term stability.

Recommendation 2:  Implement Sliding Scale Scoring for Project Types

Virginia’s Sophisticated Scoring Systems reward the most effective approaches, prioritizing nature-based solutions, community-scale benefits, and long-term durability. Scoring systems can create powerful incentives for communities to pursue the most effective resilience strategies by reflecting the relative effectiveness and co-benefits of different project types. Award maximum points for land acquisition projects that create permanent protection, high points for solutions that are nature-based and protect large areas, moderate points for hybrid approaches, and minimal points for traditional “gray” infrastructure like culverts. This tiered approach guides communities toward comprehensive solutions while emphasizing community-scale projects that provide broad community benefits rather than addressing individual property resilience, structure by structure.

Recommendation 3:  Require Comprehensive Planning Phases 

Planning requirements create incentives for comprehensive approaches while building long-term local capacity for ongoing adaptation efforts. Setting planning requirements as prerequisites for project funding ensures that implementation investments are part of coherent, long-term adaptation strategies rather than reactive responses to immediate problems. States can establish planning requirements that encourage communities to assess risks holistically, consider multiple adaptation strategies, and develop phased implementation approaches. The planning phase can also target low income or socially disadvantaged communities, incorporate climate projections, and require coordination with other local planning efforts to prevent resilience planning from operating in isolation.

Recommendation 4:  Design for Long-Term Adaptation 

Effective resilience requires sustained commitment over time, demanding programs designed for long-term effectiveness rather than short-term political cycles. States can structure programs to encourage communities to develop and maintain adaptation capacity over time, with scoring systems that reward durable solutions and governance structures that can survive political transitions.

This includes extending plan validity periods, allowing for updates and revisions, and integrating complementary financing mechanisms like loans alongside grants.  Virginia’s program also proactively supports each of the different phases of climate adaptation, from vulnerability assessment through infrastructure construction, which encourages communities to seek funding for their crucial initial surveys and risk assessments.

Recommendation 5: Embed Equity and Fairness Provisions 

Statutory equity requirements ensure adaptation investments reach vulnerable communities rather than flowing only to jurisdictions with greatest technical capacity or political influence.

Climate adaptation investments must reach vulnerable communities rather than flowing only to jurisdictions with the greatest technical capacity or political influence. States can establish binding statutory requirements—such as mandating that at least 25% of funds serve low-income areas—rather than relying on aspirational language or administrative discretion. These provisions can be coupled with preferential match requirements and scoring advantages for projects serving disadvantaged communities, and written into enabling legislation to ensure they survive changes in political leadership.  It’s also important to note that Virginia started with a broad statewide stakeholder engagement process, a step that can help make sure that program evolution reflects implementation experience and maintains legitimacy across diverse constituencies.

Opportunity: State Leadership on Climate Adaptation

The success of Virginia's Community Flood Preparedness Fund demonstrates that comprehensive state-level climate adaptation is not only possible but has become essential in an era of federal abandonment of disaster preparedness. 

The current federal landscape makes state action not just beneficial but urgent. States that wait for federal leadership or the restoration of eliminated programs risk leaving their communities defensively positioned when the next hurricane, flood, or wildfire strikes. States that act proactively to establish comprehensive resilience grant programs will be better positioned to protect their residents and economies while federal disaster policy remains in flux.

Virginia has demonstrated that states can transcend partisan politics to build lasting institutions for climate adaptation. By studying Virginia's successful elements—permanent funding structures, comprehensive planning requirements, equity mandates, and stakeholder engagement—and adapting them to their specific contexts, state governments can establish themselves as national leaders while delivering the resilience programs their communities can no longer expect from Washington.

Image credit: City of Norfolk