<p class=ldtitle>A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 15.2-984.1, relating to localities; Home Flood Protection Assistance Program.</p>
Summary
HB214 would authorize Virginia localities, by ordinance, to create a Home Flood Protection Assistance Program to help households reduce flood damage on private property. The program would provide up to $3,000 per household for temporary home flood exclusion tools at vulnerable entry points, either as an advance payment or reimbursement. To qualify, a household would first need to complete a stormwater extension program or local floodplain review, undergo an on-site assessment, finish all required or recommended passive or structural mitigation measures, and receive local verification that no further feasible measures remain.
The bill also directs the Department of Conservation and Recreation to establish and maintain uniform product-performance verification standards for eligible flood exclusion tools. Covered items would include temporary barriers, flood dams, garage-entry shields, and portable sump pump systems with barriers, but not permanent structural floodproofing tools that would trigger FEMA certification requirements. Localities could use funds from the Resilient Virginia Revolving Fund to administer the program and could partner with authorized nonprofit resilience organizations for outreach, installation, training, and performance tracking.
Impact
If enacted, HB214 would add a new section to the Code of Virginia authorizing—but not requiring—local governments to establish a flood-mitigation assistance program for households. It would create a new role for the Department of Conservation and Recreation in setting statewide verification standards for approved temporary flood protection products, and it would allow localities to use the Resilient Virginia Revolving Fund for program administration. The bill would primarily affect local governments, homeowners in flood-prone areas, and nonprofit resilience groups involved in flood preparedness and mitigation.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill did not advance out of committee, with the subcommittee recommending it be struck from the docket on a unanimous 9-0 vote. That outcome indicates limited support at the subcommittee stage, although no transcript is available to show detailed debate. Overall, the bill appears to have been treated as a local-option resilience measure rather than a broadly controversial statewide mandate.
Contention
The main points of potential contention are likely to have been the scope of local government involvement, the use of public funds for household-level flood equipment, and the requirement that households first exhaust other mitigation measures before receiving assistance. Another possible issue is the state’s role in setting product verification standards and excluding permanent floodproofing tools that would require FEMA certification. Because the bill was left in committee and the subcommittee recommended striking it from the docket, any concerns appear to have outweighed support, even though the record provided does not include specific objections from named stakeholders.