State policy and local resilience: evaluating state policies for flood resilience in the Great Lakes region of the United States

ABSTRACT Flood resilience policy and planning are highly localized in the United States (US) and many parts of the world, with local governments responsible for a wide range of land use and infrastructure investment decisions that drive flood risk and response. However, many local governments lack the resources to plan for and adapt to increased flooding without external support. State governments can help by promulgating rules and providing guidance and resources that make flood resilience planning at the local level easier, more likely, and more equitable. However, very little is known about the programmes and policies US states can and do develop to support local flood resilience, how much these programmes and policies vary between states, and the extent to which states are going beyond required or standard practice. In this study, we develop an evaluation framework for state flood policies and programmes that captures the types of programmes and policies used by states in the US, distinguishing between required or standard practices and more advanced approaches. We use a numeric scoring system to operationalize four distinct categories of state policy: information provision, planning guidance, regulations and standards, and funding and financing. The scoring system accounts for whether states incorporate climate change and social equity into their resources. We then apply the framework and scoring system to the eight states of the Great Lakes region: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Our findings demonstrate both the consistencies and variation in state-level flood management programmes and policies, identify policy leaders in the region, and reveal areas where states can prioritize further investment and policy development for better flood risk management. The study provides an evaluation framework for scholars and practitioners of subnational flood policies and programmes, and descriptive insights into the status of state-level flood resilience policy and planning in the Great Lakes region. Key policy insights Evaluations of state and other subnational government support for local flood resilience should centre on information provision, planning guidance, setting regulations and standards, and providing funding and financing to support better planning and implementation of relevant policies. In the Great Lakes region of the US there is wide variation between states in their adoption of standard and more advanced strategies for supporting local flood resilience, and the emphasis they give to justice and equity. States that have adopted more advanced strategies can serve as an important resource for learning and sharing of experience across localities or subnational regions.


Introduction
Flooding is one of the costliest hazards globally and in the US, affecting millions of people and causing billions of dollars in economic damage annually (Sarmiento & Miller, 2006).Flood risk and damages are distributed inequitably, as are resources (staff, money, time) for flood planning and adaptation (Hughes et al., 2021;Tate et al., 2021;Wing et al., 2022).Climate change will exacerbate these challenges through the increased frequency and intensity of flood events.There is a growing need to build flood resilience, or the 'ability of people and their communities to anticipate, accommodate, and positively adapt to or thrive amidst changing climate conditions and hazard events' (USDN, 2019).Flood resilience policy and planning are highly localized in the US, with local governments responsible for a wide range of land use and infrastructure investment decisions that drive flood risk and response.However, many local governments lack the resources to plan for and adapt to increased flooding without external support.For example, a recent survey of 241 Great Lakes local governments found that they perceive flooding as very important to their planning processes but they lack the knowledge and capacity to effectively address flooding in their communities (Cusick, 2021).State governments can help by developing policies and programmes that make flood resilience planning at the local level easier, more likely, and more equitable (Berke, Cooper, et al., 2014;Brody et al., 2009;Plastrik et al., 2020).State-level policies and programmes can also help ensure local governments consider climate change and advance equity in their flood resilience policy and planning.
Currently, state involvement in flood risk management is required or encouraged through federal policy such as the Disaster Mitigation Act and the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Community Rating System.However, states also have the ability to go above and beyond these minimum level requirements to provide a more or less enabling environment for local planners and policymakers (Burnstein & Rogin, 2022; University of Maryland and Texas A&M University, 2018).Despite the importance of state governments to local flood resilience in the US, there has been limited empirical research describing and evaluating the programmes and policies currently provided by states, how these programmes and policies vary between states, and the extent to which states are going beyond required or standard practices.
In this study, we develop an evaluation framework for state flood policies and programmes that captures the types of programmes and policies used by states, distinguishing between required or standard practices and more advanced approaches that are emerging.We use a numeric scoring system to operationalize four distinct categories of state policy: information provision, planning guidance, regulations and standards, and funding and financing.The framework can serve as a template or starting point for assessing progress on adaptation policy and planning at subnational levels in a range of contexts within and outside the US We then apply the framework and scoring system to the eight states of the Great Lakes region: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.Our findings demonstrate both the consistencies and variation in state flood policies and programmes, identify policy leaders in the region, and reveal areas where states can prioritize further investment and policy development.The study provides a framework for scholars and practitioners of subnational flood policy and planning going forward, and descriptive insights into the status of state-level flood resilience policy and planning in the Great Lakes region.
The rest of the paper is structured as follows.Section 2 reviews the role of state governments in flood planning and the tools available to them to support local efforts.Section 3 describes our study region and data collection.Section 4 presents the results of our policy analysis and a brief discussion of the main findings.Section 5 draws larger conclusions from the study and points to areas for application and future research.

How states support local flood management and resilience
Local governments have extensive land use, infrastructure management, and planning powers that are critical to managing flood risk (Dilling et al., 2017;FEMA, 2019;National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2019).However, how and whether these powers are used has been shown to be highly variable (Bierbaum et al., 2013;Brody et al., 2009;Hughes, 2015;Jackman & Beruvides, 2013).States therefore can play a critical role in facilitating and supporting local flood management and resilience.Requiring planning is not sufficient (Bunnell & Jepson, 2011); rather it is the support and facilitation offered by states that can make the biggest difference in both planning and implementation.For example, one study of local hazard mitigation plans found that 'state comprehensive planning mandates that include funding and other incentives lead to stronger treatment of hazards in plans' but when 'mandates are not funded and lack local capacity-building resources, local compliance and plan quality can be compromised' (Berke, Cooper, et al., 2014).States are also key conduits for the implementation and delivery federal programmes, such as FEMA's Community Rating System and the National Flood Insurance Program (FEMA, 2019).While states have an important role to play, few studies have evaluated the programmes and policies states can and do develop to support local flood resilience, how much these programmes and policies vary between states, and the extent to which states are going beyond required or standard practice.
Previous research has examined and evaluated state hazard mitigation plans and established state policies and programmes as important predictors of local flood management practices (Berke et al., 2012;Berke, Lyles, et al., 2014;Fu et al., 2013).We aim to build on this research in two ways.First, the support and resources states provide for local flood management cannot typically be found in a single policy, programme, or plan.Rather, these activities often stretch across units and departments and collectively comprise what we call 'state support for local flood management.'This can include data provided by the state weather and climate office; grant programmes provided by the governor's office; and legislative statutes that permit stormwater authorities.As described by Plastrik et al. (2020): 'every state has in place policies and structures to collect revenue and invest in public infrastructure, support local governments, incentivize private investment, and take advantage of federal funding opportunities.But in most states these mechanisms have not yet been revamped to support the new purpose of climate resilience strengthening.' Characterizing, measuring, and evaluating state support for local flood management therefore requires looking across the whole of state government and at the policies and programs in place, rather than what is anticipated or proposed in a plan.
Second, meaningfully comparing the policies and programmes of state governments requires establishing a baseline level of activity: what is required of states or common practice among states, and what kinds of policies and programmes are being more proactively.There are many ways states can and do go above and beyond standard actions, and we are particularly interested in understanding how and to what extent states are playing a more proactive and impactful role in supporting local flood management, including encouraging localities to account for climate change and social equity.These are areas that previous studies of adaptation and hazard mitigation planning have also found to be important elements of effective flood management but are often absent in practice (Hughes, 2015;Hughes et al., 2021;Schrock et al., 2015).We used a review of existing literature and iterative assessments of state policies and programmes to identify four types, or categories, of policies and programmes available to and used by states to support local flood resilience: (1) information provision; (2) planning guidance; (3) regulations and standards; and (4) funding and financing (e.g.Adler & Gosliner, 2019;AWE, 2012;Berke, Cooper, et al., 2014;Dilling et al., 2017;Plastrik et al., 2020) (Table 1).Within these categories, we identified the policies and programmes states are required to develop, or are common across all states, and refer to these as 'standard' actions.These standard actions represent the policy floor: the minimum states do to support local flood management and resilience and are discussed in more detail below.We again used a review of existing literature and iterative assessments of state policies and programmes to identify those that go beyond standard actions and more comprehensively enable local flood resilience planning.We refer to these as 'advanced' actions.Where applicable, we include attention to climate change as one way of distinguishing between standard and advanced actions, and for each category we delineate how states can take steps to centre justice and equity in policy and programme design.We briefly describe standard and advanced actions in each category below.Table 2 presents illustrative practices within each of the categories.

Information provision
Information provision is an important role for state governments as it helps to fill technical and informational gaps in local governments needed to understand the magnitude and distribution of flood risk in their communities.Certain types of informational resources that states provide local governments to adapt to flooding are common to most if not all states and territories.One example is Silver Jackets, a multi-agency partnership supported by the US Army Corps of Engineers present in every state.The Silver Jacket programme facilitates flood risk information-sharing and problem-solving to enhance flood preparedness.Some states are moving beyond standard actions such as these and taking on a larger role, providing climate change-informed tools, robust technical assistance, and other products to promote local governments' flood adaptation.We refer to these actions as advanced because they embed climate change data and climate change adaptation techniques into the information products provided to local governments.

Planning guidance
States also play an active role in planning for flooding, helping local governments develop plans, and planning processes for flood management.Some states provide more comprehensive and proactive guidance to local governments than do others.Standard state-level flood planning guidance includes State Hazard Mitigation Plans (SHMPs) and floodplain management guidance and leadership (Burnstein & Rogin, 2022).Federal legislation requires that states conduct hazard mitigation planning in order to receive certain federal grants, and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) guidance directs states to consider climate change in preparing their SHMPs (Adler & Gosliner, 2019).Similarly, states can support communities in planning for flooding and obtaining flood insurance through the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) by designating a state NFIP coordinator and disseminating resources such as Floodplain Management Quick Guides (Lamm, 2019).Some states offer more advanced flood planning guidance, which can be in the form of resources for communities that directly facilitate local resilience planning (e.g.flood planning workshops and trainings), or statewide initiatives such as designating a Chief Resilience Officer (or similar) that create a roadmap for the state and local governments.

Regulations and standards
Regulation and standards can be highly effective tools for channelling local investment and planning activities (Tarlock, 2012).Certain regulations and standards are set in nearly every state to ensure state compliance and alignment with federal programmes and to promote local resilience.For instance, communities in every state maintain certain standards to participate in the NFIP (FEMA, 2022), and at least 38 states have established stormwater standards (US EPA, 2011b).Similarly, most states authorize local units of government to levy stormwater fees in some way (Campbell & Bradshaw, 2022), and at least 25 states require in-state applicants for EPA Clean Water Act 319 Grant Awards to submit a watershed plan with their application (US EPA, 2011a).Some states have established regulations or standards beyond these standard ones to further support statewide resilience-building.Advanced actions include states establishing their own flood resilience requirements such as a higher freeboard requirement and actively encouraging local units of government to charge for stormwater.
States can also establish a preference for green infrastructurewhich can provide multiple benefitsunder their Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) or in their implementation of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).

Funding and financing
Finally, states provide funding and financingincluding leveraging federal fundsto support and incentivize local flood resilience-building projects.Standard state actions include participating in federal programmessuch as the Coastal Zone Management Program and the CWSRFthat provide states with federal grant funding to distribute to local governments as grants and loans, as well as applying for FEMA funding for flood adaptation projects.More advanced funding and financing actions include securing large amounts of pre-disaster grant funding per capita; maximizing the impact of federal grant dollars through actions, such as leveraging the federal funds or going above and beyond the required state match; and standing up separate state-level grant and loan programmes for building local flood resilience.

Data collection and study region
We used these categories and distinctions to develop an ordinal scoring system centred on advanced actions that assigns a numerical score based on the degree to which the state has taken advanced actions in each category.To focus on the most high-impact practices, we do not base scoring on the presence of standard actions.
The scoring system ranges from zero to three for each of the four categories, with zero being the lowest and three being the highest.This scale allows us to capture more variation than a dichotomous measure (Fu et al., 2013) and is reflective of the range of policy activity we observed.The precise operationalization varies between policy action categories (see Appendix A and Appendix B), but can generally be described as: . Score of 0 -The state is not advanced in this category.In some cases, another entity (e.g. an NGO) could be doing the work, or the state could be planning to do it in the future. .Score of 1 -The state is beginning to be advanced in this category or is one of many entities working collaboratively to develop advanced measures. .Score of 2 -The state is somewhat advanced in this category.
. Score of 3 -The state is highly advanced in this category.
To assign scores, we looked for individual practices and programmes states had in place that are considered advanced within our framework including, where relevant, the extent to which climate change is being considered (see Appendix A for more details).A state with no advanced practices in place in a particular category received a zero for that category.A state that has any advanced actions in a particular category received a score of one, two, or three depending on how many practices are in place.States therefore receive a total score out of 12. Appendix B provides an additional level of detail on our scoring of the funding and financing programmes states have adopted.
The final component of our scoring system is capturing the extent to which states are accounting for or prioritizing justice and social equity in their flood management policies and programmes.Within each of the four categories, we give states a 'star' to indicate the state is prioritizing equity or prioritizing environmental justice communities in one or more of its advanced practices.Specifically, we used the following criteria to assess efforts to prioritize equity justice by category and assign stars: . Information Provision: States deliver vulnerability assessments using a social vulnerability-informed method; discuss vulnerable populations and demonstrate how equity was prioritized in case studies; or depict social vulnerability and equity concerns in maps and data sources. .Planning Guidance: States build equity into their state adaptation plan priorities or the makeup and mission of their state governance structure for flood adaptation. .Regulations & Standards: States with resilience requirements for communities have prioritized equity within these regulations or standards. .Funding & Financing: States prioritize funding and financing for disadvantaged communities and/or offer more favourable funding terms for such communities.
We used the scoring system to evaluate state flood management and resilience policy and planning in the Great Lakes region states: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.The Great Lakes region presents a useful test case for this evaluation framework.Flood risk in the region is salient and predicted to increase in the future.Recent storms have led to dam breaches (Earth Resources Observation and Science Center, 2020), urban flooding (Jiménez, 2021;Northey, 2021), and coastal inundation (Lawler, 2022).In a survey of Great Lakes municipalities in 2012, 80 percent responded that the volume of annual flooding complaints was medium or large (Center for Neighborhood Technology, 2012).The Midwestern Floods of 2019 caused $6.3 billion in damages and four deaths (O'Connell & Briscoe, 2020).Flooding is an increasingly salient challenge for the region, as the amount of precipitation during heavy rain events has increased by 35% since 1951 and existing flood protection infrastructure is aging rapidly (Angel et al., 2018).Several large flood events in the region have renewed public and political attention to the issue, and states are poised to make large investments in flood mitigation infrastructure.
The region also struggles with racial and economic inequality exacerbated by deindustrialization, population loss, and disinvestment of the last 50 years (Hughes et al., 2020).Today, 15 of the 25 most segregated US cities are located in the Great Lakes region (US Water Alliance, 2018).Climate change is already exacerbating these challenges, leading to an additional 27 in. of rainfall between 2015 and 2019 (Cosier, 2019).At the same time, the region is highly diverse politically, economically, and geographically, and states have unique histories and institutional contexts within which they develop their approach to flood resilience policy and planning.
We based our initial scoring on a review of state agency websites, white papers, and policy reports.Our strategy varied by policy action area and included using broad search terms on Google (e.g.'Pennsylvania statewide adaptation plan'); reviewing state environmental and public works agency websites and reports for reference to specific policies and programmes; and pulling specific programme information such as for each state's Clean Water State Revolving Fund.Appendix C provides a more detailed review of the programmes, policies, and resources that informed our scoring for each state.Following methods described in Baker et al. (2012), we then emailed managers and decisionmakers in each state to verify our findings. 1The results provide insight into where advanced practices are and are not taking place and the extent to which justice and equity are being incorporated into state flood policy frameworks in the Great Lakes.We were able to confirm our findings for all of the Great Lakes states except with managers and decisionmakers in Wisconsin and Minnesota, who did not reply to our messages.

Results and discussion
We found that state flood resilience policy scores in the Great Lakes region range from 3 (Illinois and Indiana) to 11 (New York) out of 12 possible points (Table 2; Figure 1).The average score for the region was 6.25 and the median was 5.5.Five states received at least one star for incorporating equity and justice considerations into their policies.Overall, Great Lakes states are most advanced in their provision of flood-related funding and financing and regulation and standard setting.

Information provision
Michigan, New York, and Minnesota received high scores for their more advanced approaches to providing information that supports local flood resilience planning but only Minnesota received a star for prioritizing equity.Michigan has developed a Coastal Leadership Academy Pilot, which brings local leaders and communities together to share resources, and has funded a risk assessment and climate adaptation planning tool for coastal communities.New York's Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) funds and conducts local vulnerability studies through Resilient NY and has also published case studies synthesizing takeaways from local vulnerability assessments.Additionally, the New York state legislature tasked DEC with creating state sea-level rise projections under the Community Risk and Resiliency Act.Minnesota is the only Great Lakes state that incorporates equity considerations into its information resources, such as the Department of Health's Health and Flood Vulnerability Assessment Tool and the Vulnerable Population Assessments funded by Minnesota's Pollution Control Agency.

Planning guidance
Four Great Lakes states have created statewide adaptation plans, three of which emphasize equity, and those three states have also established supporting governance structures for adaptation, two of which emphasize equity.Minnesota leads with a draft Climate Action Framework and supporting governance structures (Climate Change Subcabinet and Governor's Advisory Council)all of which prioritize equitable policy solutions to reduce and manage flooding.Similarly, Wisconsin's Governor's Task Force on Climate Change reflects attention to equity in terms of task force representation; plus, the Task Force's recommendations to date have analyzed state policy pathways from an equity lens.While Michigan and Pennsylvania convene local leaders for climate workshops and facilitations, the past sessions have focused more on climate change mitigation than on resilience and adaptation.No Great Lakes states are facilitating substantive educational opportunities for local leaders on flood resilience.

Regulations and standards
Only Pennsylvania and New York have created statewide flood resilience regulations.Pennsylvania's Act 167 requires each county to adopt and use local ordinances as part of their watershed-based stormwater management plans.New York's Community Risk and Resiliency Act requires communities and state agencies to incorporate flood risks into their planning processes.Several Great Lakes states are applying flood resilience standards in discrete channels such as charging for stormwater (five states), administering NPDES permits (three states), and distributing CWSRF resources (three states).Illinois shows leadership by advancing local flood resilience in two ways.First, within the NPDES, Illinois named green infrastructure (GI) the highest preference best management practice and started requiring public education on GI.Second, Illinois passed legislation to authorize the use of the CWSRF for GI investments, sets GI goals in its Intended Use Plan, and prioritizes GI in project application scoring.No Great Lakes state has set statewide regulations or standards that place equity at the fore.

Funding and financing
New York and Minnesota emerged as most advanced in this category, followed by Michigan.Minnesota disburses more grant money to local governments ($12/person/year) than any other Great Lakes state through Flood Hazard Mitigation Grant Assistance and its Clean Water Fund.New York incorporates equity measures into its Green Innovation Grant Program and Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, and Illinois offers a higher percentage of project funding to disadvantaged communities through its Green Infrastructure Grant Opportunities programme.Minnesota and New York are the only Great Lakes states that fund flood resilience projects directly.The states do this through the Flood Mitigation Program and 2022 Environmental Bond Act, respectively.We found that half of the Great Lakes states were in the top ten US states for accessing federal resources for flood resilience (specifically Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM)/Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) or Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) funding).Michigan and New York lead in using CWSRF resources for GI and expanding state-offered clean water grant assistance for local governments.Michigan further capitalizes its CWSRF by adding state funds beyond the required match, and New York leverages its CWSRF.Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania demonstrate attention to social equity by disbursing over 25% of their CWSRF assistance to Economic Hardship Communities.

Attention to equity and justice
In general, there is considerable opportunity for all states to further focus on equity.Five of the eight states had at least one area of flood resilience policy and planning that prioritized or emphasized justice and equity.We found a total of nine categories that included attention to justice and equity, or 28 percent of the total.The most common ways states are attending to justice and equity is by providing vulnerability assessments that help to identify communities at greater risk and with fewer resources to respond, and by finding ways to channel financial resources to communities in greater need.
Minnesota has the strongest focus on justice and equity of the Great Lakes states, with considerations included in three of the four policy categories.For example, Minnesota provides vulnerable population assessments and has developed tools for assessing social vulnerability.One of the goals of the state's Climate Change Subcabinet is to 'promote equitable policy solutions that can reduce current disparities in Minnesota, ensure a just transition for impacted workers and communities, and encourage green economic development and job creation'; and the state prioritizes financial assistance through the CWSRF to hardship communities.While other states give less systematic attention to justice and equity, they do provide useful examples of how these considerations are built into state flood resilience policies.For example, New York's Green Innovation Grant Program and Local Waterfront Revitalization Program evaluate applications in part based on whether they address environmental justice issues.Wisconsin's Governor's Task Force on Climate Change Report analyzes policy options through an equity lens and recommends a statewide vulnerability analysis.The Task Force is also composed of stakeholders that are broadly representative, including nonprofit, youth, business, and government representatives.Pennsylvania's Climate Impacts Assessment 2021 similarly includes an impacts assessment that accounts for environmental justice and equity concerns, and prioritizes financial assistance through the CWSRF to hardship communities.Illinois's Green Infrastructure Grant Opportunities Program provides additional state funding for disadvantaged areas, or those with a median household income below 75 percent of the state average.

Discussion and overall scores
Mean and median scores of five and six (out of 14) indicate middling performance overall for the Great Lakes states, but there is wide variation in whether and how states are supporting local flood resilience.Our analysis shows that states are most advanced in their provision of funding and financing and in setting regulations and standards; advanced approaches to information provision and planning guidance are less common.Our analysis also shows a clear need to increase attention to justice and equity in state flood resilience policies and programmes, similar to findings from a survey of state level flood planning (Burnstein & Rogin, 2022).A lack of attention to equity at the state level could exacerbate the existing problem of unequal flood risk, disproportionately endangering communities that lack the local resources to plan for flooding.Previous studies have identified a lack of awareness among public officials of the economic and social impacts of flooding, which could explain our findings (University of Maryland and Texas A&M University, 2018).

Conclusion
States have a substantial role to play in facilitating and supporting local flood resilience.State policy leadership can help local governments learn from one another, reduce disparities in local planning capacities, and efficiently catalyze action across jurisdictional boundaries (Berke, Cooper, et al., 2014;Brody et al., 2009;FEMA, 2019).A lack of support for local flood resilience planning could have ramifications for local governments' ability to respond to extreme weather events, understanding of flood risks, and capacity to plan and fund flood resilience projects (Stults & Woodruff, 2017).We developed a framework for evaluating state flood resilience policies and programmes, and applied it to the Great Lakes region, generating examples from states that have adopted advanced approaches to supporting local flood resilience planning and showcasing opportunities to build on existing leadership.The analysis helps to fill an important gap in state-level flood adaptation and resilience policy analysis and to identify important next steps for policy and research in this arena.
Our framework and analysis in the Great Lakes provide examples of how states can and have chosen to address resource and exposure disparities and point to some priority areas for Great Lakes state going forward.States can better incorporate social vulnerability into flood risk assessments and maps provided for communities; charge an individual or group (e.g.council or task force) with addressing resilience statewide and make reducing flood disparities a central goal; and give more favourable funding terms (e.g.fund a higher percentage of project costs) for projects in vulnerable or disadvantaged communities.There are also untapped opportunities to create momentum across communities by facilitating peer-to-peer learning through cohort-based resilience planning workshops for local leaders and sharing case studies documenting local vulnerability assessments and flood resilience planning with municipalities across the state.More states can take advantage of their ability to subsidize green infrastructure projects under the CWSRF by offering lower interest rates, principal forgiveness, and grants instead of loans for these project types.States can also require evidence of flood resilience planning as criteria for state grant programme funds and provide technical assistance toward the application process.
This analysis also points to important opportunities for future research.Applying the framework to other regions and contexts can identify areas of improvement and determine whether the patterns we have found in the Great Lakes hold elsewhere, perhaps where flooding is not as salient, or infrastructure needs are different.There are also open questions to explore around the extent to which these state policies and programmes are used by local governments, how they might affect the planning and investment decisions of local governments, and which state policies and programmes are most effective in reducing local flood risk and adapting to the impacts of climate change in an equitable way.Finally, the high degree of variation in state level flood resilience policies and programmes raises questions about the source of this variation, particularly in the attention given to equity and justice.Answering these questions requires understanding and comparing the political, socio-economic, and institutional contexts of subnational flood policy and planning and could provide insights for affected communities about how to build political support for better policy outcomes.
As communities throughout the US grapple with the growing threat of flooding, state policies and programmes can play a critical role in providing the information and resources needed to respond in a way that accounts for a changing climate and uneven impacts.Our analysis provides key insights into how and where states are going beyond standard or required practices to support local flood resilience; where further development is needed; and how future research can continue to support decisionmakers in this space.Flooding is also an intensifying hazard throughout the world, with local communities and decisionmakers typically on the front lines of preparation and response.The findings and framework presented here can provide useful insights for policymakers and advocates beyond the US by identifying some leading practices and emerging policy innovations, and can provide a tool for evaluating and comparing progress toward robust and equitable support for local flood resilience.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). 1

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.Flood Management Policy Scores by Category and State; white star indicates attention to equity.

Table 1 .
Standard and advanced practices in state policy for local flood resilience.
Enabling or encouraging stormwater utilities and fees Preference for green infrastructure under stormwater permitting and financing (NPDES & CWSRF) Funding & Financing Participation in coastal zone management Use of FEMA funding for flood protection infrastructure Presence of a Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) program Stand-alone state grant/loan programs State-led resilience projects Large awards from FEMA for disaster preparedness Further utilization of Clean Water State Revolving Fund resources

Table 2 .
State level flood management policy and planning scores.