This post summarizes recent reporting on how U.S. farmers are facing increasing flood and extreme-weather risks from climate change even as federal support for climate resilience is shrinking.
It examines on-the-ground solutions used by farmers, the mismatch between insurance payouts and conservation investments, and policy changes that are making resilience harder to access.
The widening gap: more floods, less federal support
Across the Midwest and Northeast, intense rainfall and repeated flooding are becoming routine. These events erode soils, damage crops, and force difficult decisions about whether to keep farming flood-prone acres.
At the same time, federal programs and staffing intended to help farmers implement resilience practices have been reduced or redirected.
Practical resilience on the farm
In Indiana, lifelong farmer Ray McCormick illustrates what can be done locally. He has restored wetlands and adopted improved soil-health practices to hold soil on fields and reduce crop loss during floods.
Many conservation practices—such as cover crops, perennial buffers, and no-till systems—are proven to reduce erosion and improve a field’s ability to absorb heavy rains.
But, even proven measures are harder to adopt when technical assistance and program funding are scarce.
Smaller farms and those in chronically wet areas, like parts of Vermont, feel the pinch most acutely because taking acres out of production directly reduces income.
Policy realities and the money trail
There is a stark financial imbalance between disaster payments and preventive investments. Current budget choices are widening that gap.
Crop insurance has become the dominant federal response to flood damage, while investments in long-term resilience remain small.
Where the money goes
Key figures illustrate the mismatch:
Programs such as the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), which paid farmers to restore wetlands and reduce flood risk, are approaching expiration without guaranteed reauthorization.
This puts a proven flood-mitigation tool at risk.
Administrative barriers are real
Even when funds exist, they are often inaccessible because USDA field offices lack staff to provide technical assistance or process enrollments.
In some proposed budgets, conservation technical support is eliminated entirely, which would leave farmers without the guidance necessary to implement complex conservation contracts.
Advocates’ proposals for a way forward
Farmers, conservationists, and some economists argue that federal programs should be retooled to reward resilience rather than simply paying for damage after the fact.
Among recommended reforms:
Without these changes, experts warn, farming in floodplains may become increasingly untenable—forcing land abandonment or repeated emergency payments that do little to reduce future losses.
The choice is between short-term payouts and long-term resilience; right now, federal policy favors the former.
Here is the source article for this story: As Extreme Weather Increases Flooding on Farms, Federal Support for Climate Resilience Evaporates