North Carolina is beginning to plan for floods that have not happened yet.

State officials this year advanced the next phase of the state’s Flood Resiliency Blueprint, incorporating updated modeling that factors in heavier rainfall, future development and sea-level rise — a shift away from relying solely on historic data and FEMA’s regulatory maps.

“We can make decisions and plan for that future, not just the exposure to flooding that we see now,” said Stuart Brown, who manages the Flood Resiliency Blueprint for the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality.

For a state that has endured record-breaking rainfall from Hurricane Helene in the mountains to Tropical Storm Chantal in the Triangle, the move reflects a growing recognition: past standards no longer capture present risk.

Beyond outdated flood lines

Multiple North Carolina studies have found that between 43% and 60% of flood damage occurs outside FEMA’s regulatory flood zones. Those maps shape insurance requirements and local zoning decisions, yet they are largely based on historical rainfall data.

“A lot of the regulatory floodplains really haven’t kept up with what we know is happening,” said Elizabeth Losos, executive in residence at Duke University’s Nicholas Institute for Energy, Environment and Sustainability.

Climate data show rainfall intensity in the Triangle has increased by about 21% since 1970. Warmer air holds more moisture, fueling heavier downpours that overwhelm drainage systems designed for a different climate.

“Fixing what we know is flooding right now is good,” Losos said. “It’s better than nothing, but it’s definitely not enough.”

Brown said the blueprint incorporates projections for future precipitation and development — a critical factor in one of the fastest-growing states in the country.

“Development can be an issue for flooding in two categories,” Brown said. “One is when that development is occurring in areas that are flood prone. The other is when that development is done in ways that don’t account for the additional stormwater that will be produced.”

Thousands of projects, limited dollars

Unlike states that rely on massive levee systems, North Carolina’s flood risk is scattered across river basins, coastal plains and rapidly developing suburbs. Brown said resilience here will require thousands of localized projects.

“We were asked by the General Assembly to provide specific, actionable projects,” Brown said. “We want to know what specific geography and what specific action is proposed.”

That planning push comes as federal support for flood research and mitigation is shrinking.

The Trump administration has proposed a roughly 30% cut to NOAA’s 2026 budget, targeting climate research and ocean services that provide the rainfall and coastal data states use to model flood risk. At FEMA, the administration has cut staff by more than 6%, reduced funding for local hazard mitigation projects and added new approval layers for grants.

For North Carolina, that means fewer dollars for buyouts, drainage upgrades and flood control projects — and less federal data to guide long-term planning — just as the state is trying to build a more forward-looking flood strategy.

Brown said North Carolina is trying to “leverage the limited dollars that we have in the state with any federal sources that are available” and embed resilience into routine investments in transportation, water treatment and conservation.

“Funding is always going to be an issue,” Brown said.

The policy gap

Researchers have long argued that resilience investments save money. Studies show every $1 spent on mitigation can yield $4 to $13 in avoided losses.

“The problem is that the policies don’t align the people who pay the cost with the people who get the benefit,” Losos said.

A developer may not directly benefit from downstream flood reduction. A town may shoulder upfront infrastructure costs while insurers, neighboring communities or future taxpayers capture part of the savings.

Without policy changes that align costs and benefits, resilience can remain politically and financially difficult.

“In the most severe cases, there are some communities that will have to eventually abandon if they don’t begin to think about how they can adapt to these conditions,” Losos said.

North Carolina now has updated tools to better measure future flood risk. Whether the state can secure stable federal support — and align its own policies with the risks ahead — will determine how effectively communities prepare for the next storm rather than recover from the last one.