From Counties to Congress: Your Guide to Effective Federal Policy Advocacy in Washington, D.C.

Background

• The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) (P.L. 117-58), also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, is the current federal transportation law. It was passed in 2021 and is set to expire at the end of September 2026.
• The IIJA set multi-year funding levels for the programs that support highways, roads, bridges, transit, passenger, freight rail and other surface-transportation infrastructure.
• The IIJA made record investments in transportation infrastructure, but counties only saw a small percentage of these funds.
• Most IIJA funding moved through formula programs that go directly to state departments of transportation (state DOTs), with only minimal requirements for pass-through to counties and other local governments.
• While an increase in the number of discretionary grant programs gave counties more opportunities to compete for federal dollars, this funding often went to states as well.
• It is critical in the upcoming reauthorization that Congress prioritizes funding for counties so that we can meet our obligations to maintain and upkeep the infrastructure that our citizens and businesses rely on.

Why Counties Should Care

• Counties own and operate nearly half of America’s public roads, including:
  • Counties manage 44 percent of all public road miles nationwide.
  • Counties own 38 percent of all bridges and nearly half of all bridges categorized as being in “poor condition”.
• Counties are involved in 34 percent of U.S. airports and manage or operate about 40 percent of public transportation systems, playing a major role in a variety of transportation assets.
• Under IIJA, there were increases in certain suballocations beneficial to local governments. For example, the off-system bridge set-aside was raised, but IIJA’s reliance on state suballocations and competitive grants often left counties without predictable funding.
• As counties grow, build housing and manage increasing emergency response demands, aging infrastructure remains a core local challenge. Without improvement, residents face persistent issues: poor roads, limited transit access, closed bridges, long detours, unaddressed safety risks and constrained economic growth.

Challenges for Counties

• Federal formula funds moved exclusively through state DOTs, leaving counties to compete with other local governments for limited suballocated funding. Many counties ultimately receive little or no benefit from IIJA’s increases in funding.
• Competitive grant programs, which are often presented as the main way for counties to receive federal transportation funding, remained difficult to access due to complicated applications that required time, capacity and data that in turn necessitated expensive outside consultants.
• Even when counties win discretionary grants, it takes years to break ground while waiting to execute grant agreements or receive necessary permits. Amid high inflation, this often pushed project costs outside of expected budgets, leading to further delays.
• Many county-owned roads and bridges are rural or comparatively low-volume, which often means they don’t align with state or federal prioritization processes. However, these assets are still crucial for local and regional economic success.

Talking Points for County Leaders

Use these in meetings with your member of Congress or staff. Insert your county story where prompted.

• As Congress debates and prepares the next surface transportation reauthorization bill, counties need long-term certainty to be able to plan for and invest in their infrastructure. Share your county story: Describe a delayed project, cost escalation or multi-year planning challenges.
• Counties maintain 44 percent of public roads and 38 percent of bridges, but IIJA provided limited direct funding to counties. Share your county story: Detail a county-owned road or bridge that is still awaiting repair due to a lack of direct funding.
• Given that locally owned infrastructure is more than twice as likely to be in poor condition than state-owned infrastructure, Congress must increase counties’ access to federal formula funding.
• Federal directives to increase direct funding should include growing programs like the Surface Transportation Block Grant program, which requires suballocation to regions and locals, while also adding suballocation requirements to other key programs like the Bridge Formula Program and the Highway Safety Improvement Program.
• For rural counties: Congress must also create parity in planning by making it easier to form a regional transportation planning organization, giving them project selection authority and providing them with federal funding to ensure that rural counties can access federal formula funding that is meant for them.
• For urban and suburban counties: Congress must also empower metropolitan planning organizations to ensure that suballocated funding is used for locally led projects selected in coordination with counties and other local governments, as Congress intended.

NACo Priorities for Surface Transportation Reauthorization

Inclusion of key provisions from the bipartisan Bridges And Safety Infrastructure for Community Success (BASICS) Act (H.R. 7437) in the final bill, such as:

• Increased county access to federal formula transportation funding, including formula funding for bridges and safety improvements.
• Stronger project selection authority to ensure that federal dollars reach local projects.
• Better support for planning organizations, especially in rural areas.
• The retention of discretionary grant programs with a strong local nexus, like the BUILD program, the Safe Streets & Roads for All program and the Railroad Crossing Elimination Grant Program.
• Streamlined permitting processes to accelerate project timelines and reduce overall costs.
• No increase to maximum truck sizes and weights without commensurate federal funding.
• Support for public transit systems, many of which are operated by counties.

Background

• The Fixing Emergency Management for Americans Act (FEMA Act) (H.R.4669) and related reform legislation aims to modernize federal disaster policy to make disaster assistance faster, more transparent and more county-driven.
• Disaster reform proposals would reduce the severe fiscal strain counties face after disasters by reforming the Public Assistance delivery system, establishing stricter reimbursement timelines, creating a universal disaster application, strengthening mitigation funding and increasing program transparency and accountability.

Why Counties Should Care

• Counties are the front line for disaster response, including emergency operations, debris removal, shelters and early recovery. NACo’s data shows many counties are waiting years for reimbursements and often must front costs themselves.
• Fiscal exposure: NACo’s survey estimated counties are carrying between $237 million and $665 million in currently outstanding Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) reimbursement claims, with many claims pending multiple years. Long delays force counties to use reserves, borrow or cut services.
• Growing disaster frequency and cost: Recent years show dozens of billion-dollar events and rising tolls on counties’ budgets and capacity, underscoring need for predictable, timely federal support.

Challenges for Counties

• The current reimbursement model leaves counties exposed. Counties often must pay upfront and wait years for FEMA Public Assistance payments, creating cash-flow and service risks.
• Administrative burden & complexity. Multiple applications, documentation requirements and lengthy reviews cause delays and high local administrative costs.
• Capacity gap for small/rural counties. Competitive processes, match requirements and complex federal rules disproportionately disadvantage smaller counties.

Talking Points for County Leaders

Use these in meetings with your members of Congress or staff. Insert your county story where prompted.

• Counties are first responders. We lead emergency ops, debris removal, shelters and recovery — and we are paying for it up front. Share your county story: Describe a recent natural disaster and the immediate county response cost.
• Reimbursements take far too long. NACo data shows many counties wait years for FEMA reimbursement, carrying between $237 million and $665 million in outstanding claims. This forces budget cuts or borrowing. Share your county story: Explain how long your county’s Public Assistance claim has been open and the local budget impact.
• We need up-front and faster funding. Ask Congress to support grant options or advance payments so we can respond without jeopardizing services. Share your county story: Detail a post-disaster response you could have accelerated with advanced funds.
• Simplify and standardize the process. A universal application and clearer timelines will reduce delays and administrative cost. Share your county story: Share examples of documentation hurdles or red tape that slowed your claim.
• Prioritize mitigation and equity for small/rural counties. Prevention lowers costs; small counties need technical assistance and flexible match rules. Share your county story: Describe a mitigation project you could complete with targeted, accessible funding.
• Support the FEMA Act (H.R.4669) reforms consistent with NACo’s Intergovernmental Disaster Reform Task Force recommendations: faster reimbursements, grant options/advance funding, a universal application, more mitigation dollars and stronger federal–local coordination.

NACo Priorities for Disaster Reform

• Passage of the FEMA Act (H.R.4669) in the U.S. House and introduction of companion legislation in the U.S. Senate. Specific provisions included in the FEMA Act that county leaders should emphasize support for include:
  • Up-front grant options, as such grant-based aid or expedited advance funding, so counties are not forced to borrow or raid reserves.
  • Universal disaster application and simplified process to reduce duplication, increase transparency and speed approvals.
  • Expanded and accessible mitigation funding targeted to counties including technical assistance and no-wrong-door access for rural or low-capacity counties.
  • Improved federal–state–local coordination and transparency through the creation of Public Assistance and Individual Assistance dashboards, as well as other transparency measures.

Background

• Federal environmental review and permitting under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) has become slower and more complex, driving up project costs and delaying housing, broadband, energy and infrastructure projects.
• The Standardizing Permitting and Expediting Economic Development (SPEED) Act (H.R.4776) is a U.S. House proposal to modernize and accelerate federal permitting timelines while improving coordination.
• The SPEED Act (H.R.4776) includes language negotiated by NACo staff to specifically designate counties as cooperating agencies for NEPA reviews.
• Counties are responsible for land use, zoning, siting and local environmental protections but are not consistently recognized as formal partners in federal permitting processes.
• Recent and proposed federal actions risk expanding federal and state preemption of local authority and excluding counties from early decision-making.
• Because counties are closest to impacted communities, Congress and the Administration must recognize counties as cooperating partners — not barriers — to timely, responsible project delivery.

Why Counties Should Care

• Counties oversee zoning, comprehensive planning and development permitting in most states.
• Counties directly coordinate infrastructure, energy, broadband, water and transportation projects that rely on federal approvals.
• When counties are excluded from early federal coordination, delays, litigation and public opposition increase.
• Federal guidance shapes how agencies work with local governments — and counties are often missing from formal consultation frameworks.
• When counties lack a seat at the table, projects take longer, cost more and lose community trust.

Challenges for Counties

• Counties are not consistently designated as cooperating agencies under federal law or NEPA guidance.
• Federal and state preemption efforts increasingly override local zoning and siting authority.
• Counties are engaged too late in project design, creating avoidable conflict and rework.
• Small and rural counties lack resources to navigate complex, multi-agency permitting systems.

Talking Points for County Leaders

Use these in meetings with your members of Congress or staff. Insert your county story where prompted.

• The SPEED Act (H.R.4776) is a practical way to modernize permitting while strengthening coordination with local governments. Share your county story: Describe a project in your county delayed by federal permitting timelines.
• Counties must be named as cooperating agencies in future White House NEPA guidance so local expertise is built into decisions early. Share your county story: Recount a time your county had local data or insights that were not used by intergovernmental partners.
• Permitting reform should not expand federal or state preemption of local zoning and land-use authority. Share your county story: Detail a siting or zoning decision overridden on constrained.
• The Senate should introduce a companion version of the SPEED Act (H.R.4776) to ensure reforms can move through both chambers. Share your county story: Explain why faster, more predictable permitting would matter to local projects.
• Counties support faster timelines, but not at the expense of environmental stewardship, public safety or community trust. Share your county story: Recount how local engagement improved a county outcome.
• Thank your member of the U.S. House if they supported passage of the SPEED Act (H.R.4776).

NACo Priorities for Permitting Reform

• Encourage introduction and advancement of a Senate companion bill to the SPEED Act (H.R.4776) or a similar permitting reform package that protects county siting and zoning authority.
• Ensure counties are formally named as cooperating agencies in future White House NEPA guidance.
• Protect counties’ land-use, zoning and siting authority from federal and state preemption.
• Require early, meaningful county consultation in federal project reviews.

Background

• Counties with large amounts of federally owned land cannot collect local property taxes on those lands.
• The Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program helps offset lost local tax revenue from federal lands.
• The Secure Rural Schools (SRS) program stabilizes funding for counties affected by declining federal timber receipts.
• PILT relies on annual appropriations, and SRS has required repeated short-term extensions, creating funding uncertainty for counties.
• Without long-term funding, counties cannot reliably budget for essential public services.

Why Counties Should Care

• Over 1,900 counties nationwide contain federal lands eligible for PILT payments, and more than 700 counties nationwide receive SRS funding.
• In many rural and western counties, federal land comprises 40–70 percent of the total land area, significantly limiting local property tax bases.
• PILT and SRS funds help support:
  • Law enforcement and public safety.
  • Road and bridge maintenance.
  • Emergency services and search and rescue.
  • Schools and rural infrastructure.

Challenges for Counties

• PILT is not permanently authorized and depends on annual discretionary funding.
• SRS has repeatedly expired and been temporarily extended, causing budget instability.
• Late or uncertain federal payments disrupt county hiring, contracts and long-term infrastructure planning.
• Counties cannot replace lost revenue from untaxable federal lands.

Talking Points for County Leaders

Use these in meetings with your members of Congress or staff. Insert your county story where prompted.

• Congress should make PILT a permanently authorized, mandatory funded program to give counties budget certainty. Share your county story: Explain how uncertainty in PILT affected staffing, public safety or road services.
• The SRS program needs long-term reauthorization, not short-term patches. Share your county story: Describe programs, positions or services your county funds through SRS.
• Counties should not bear the financial burden of federally owned lands without reliable federal compensation. Share your county story: Detail costs your county absorbs because of federal land ownership.
• Funding instability forces counties to delay projects, cut services or shift costs onto local taxpayers. Share your county story: Explain how unreliable payments resulted in a delayed project, service cuts or budget constraints.

NACo Priorities for PILT & SRS

• Enact mandatory, permanent funding for PILT.
• Pass a long-term reauthorization of the SRS program.
• Ensure payments are timely, predictable and insulated from annual appropriations battles.

Background

• Counties are a central pillar of the nation’s behavioral health safety net, serving as first responders and operating crisis lines, public hospitals and detention centers.
• About two-thirds of the U.S. population relies on county-based behavioral health services through more than 750 county-supported or operated behavioral health authorities.
• In nearly every state and the District of Columbia, at least one mental health facility is operated by a county, local or municipal government.
• Counties also help finance and administer Medicaid, the largest funding source for behavioral health services in the United States.

Why Counties Should Care

• Counties deliver care to residents with the most serious and complex behavioral health needs.
• The Medicaid Institutions for Mental Diseases (IMD) exclusion limits Medicaid reimbursement for adult psychiatric facilities with more than 16 beds.
• Without reform, patients are diverted from appropriate care into emergency departments, jails or are left untreated, creating added financial and administrative burdens for counties.

Challenges for Counties

• The IMD exclusion prevents county-operated hospitals and behavioral health facilities from expanding treatment capacity and providing inpatient care to those who need it most.
• Counties are forced to manage behavioral health crises with outdated federal rules that do not reflect current needs.
• Emergency rooms and detention centers have become de facto mental health treatment sites.

Talking Points for County Leaders

Use these in meetings with your members of Congress or staff. Insert your county story where prompted.

• Counties are the frontline providers of behavioral health care for millions of Americans. Share your county story: Describe how your county delivers crisis care, inpatient treatment or jail-based services.
• The IMD exclusion diverts patients from appropriate treatment and strains local emergency and justice systems. Share your county story: Detail emergency room and jail overcrowding due to the lack of treatment bed.
• The Michelle Alyssa Go Act (H.R.5462) expands treatment capacity by increasing the number of Medicaid-eligible beds in county-operated facilities. Share your county story: Provide how many beds your county could add or services you could expand if reform was enacted.
• For the U.S. House: Please cosponsor the Michelle Alyssa Go Act (H.R.5462) to modernize behavioral health care and support counties. Share your county story: Explain why your community urgently needs this reform.
• For the U.S. Senate: Please introduce and advance companion legislation to ensure bicameral progress on IMD reform. Share your county story: Explain the consequences for the residents in your county if Congress fails to act.

NACo Priorities for Medicaid IMD Reform

• Secure passage of the Michelle Alyssa Go Act (H.R.5462) and enact reforms to the IMD exclusion to strengthen county-based behavioral health systems nationwide.

Background

• Counties play a central role in addressing the nation’s housing supply shortage and homelessness crisis, particularly in unincorporated and rural communities.
• Counties are major administrators of federal housing and community development programs, including the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) programs, which support housing, infrastructure and economic development for low- and moderate-income residents.
• The Senate housing package, the ROAD to Housing Act (S.2651), includes a number of county priorities, including permanent authorization of the CDBG-DR program, reauthorization of the HOME program and provisions for technical assistance or streamlined administrative processes. However, this bill also includes a provision that would tie CDBG allocations to housing growth, threatening vital community development funds.
• Passed on February 9, the U.S. House counterpart, the Housing for the 21st Century Act (H.R.6644), includes modernization and common-sense exemptions for the HOME program, as well as similar technical assistance and reduced administrative barriers as the Senate bill. Notably, this bill does NOT include major changes to CDBG funding distribution.

Why Counties Should Care

• Counties rely on CDBG funds to support:
  • Affordable housing development and rehabilitation.
  • Homelessness prevention and shelter capacity.
  • Water, sewer and neighborhood infrastructure.
  • Small business and workforce development.
• Section 206 of the Senate’s ROAD to Housing Act (S.2651) would alter or reduce CDBG funding flows, directly impacting counties’ ability to deliver services to vulnerable populations.
• HOME program funds are a valuable tool for any county looking to invest in their affordable housing stock. The Housing for the 21st Century Act (H.R.6644) expands the program’s income thresholds to better address gaps in workforce housing, and authorizes program funds for housing adjacent infrastructure. The bill also reduces administrative barriers, such as duplicative inspection requirements and environmental reviews, under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
• The Housing for the 21st Century Act (H.R.6644) also authorizes the use of CDBG funds for new construction. This provides counties an additional resource to boost supply and drive down housing costs.

Challenges for Counties

• Section 206 of the Senate’s ROAD to Housing Act (S.2651) weakens the CDBG program, reducing predictable funding for counties.
• Stable year-over-year funding is particularly important for counties pursuing multi-year community development projects.

Talking Points for County Leaders

Use these in meetings with your member of Congress or staff. Insert your county story where prompted.

• Section 206 of the ROAD to Housing Act (S.2651) would reduce or disrupt CDBG funding relied upon by counties. Share your county story: Describe a housing shelter, water or neighborhood project funded by CDBG.
• It is important that any housing reform bill recognize counties as vital partners in guiding housing development and addressing affordability on the front lines. Share your county story: Explain how your county is increasing housing supply through zoning reforms, tax incentives or private-public partnerships.
• While counties are instrumental in guiding development, their individual housing needs vary greatly. Share your county story: Share why local control matters for your county’s housing needs, including your decisions to focus on old house restorations versus new construction or your “built out” status.
• As the two chambers prepare to negotiate outstanding differences in their bills, Congress must pass housing reform legislation that expands key county programs and preserves local flexibility. Share your county story: Explain how additional program support for HOME and CDBG will enhance your county’s ability to support vulnerable residents and pursue localized housing solutions.

NACo Priorities for Housing Reform

• As the two chambers prepare to negotiate outstanding differences, urge Congress to pass a final product that supports county housing and community development programs while respecting local flexibility.

Background

• As the digital landscape has evolved, emerging technologies offer new opportunities and challenges for counties.
• Counties are responsible for the cybersecurity of essential local services to ensure resident data is adequately safeguarded.
• The State and Local Cybersecurity Grant Program (SLCGP) offers new investments in local government cybersecurity support that should be preserved and expanded to meet new needs.
• The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) (P.L. 117-58), also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, provided the SLCGP with a one-time appropriation, and the program’s authorization.
• The SLCGP needs to be reauthorized and appropriated on an annual basis to continue to provide federal support for an expanding array of local cybersecurity needs.

Why Counties Should Care

• Malware attacks against state and local governments increased by approximately 148 percent from 2022 to 2023, and ransomware attacks targeting government systems increased by more than 50 percent during the same timeframe.
• State and local governments consistently rank among the most targeted sectors for ransomware attacks, with cyber incidents now including data breaches, unauthorized access and service disruptions in addition to ransomware.
• Counties manage a significant share of sensitive resident data, including personally identifiable information (PII)
• Counties are increasing investments in cybersecurity across the country, but many counties are resource-constrained with nonexistent or limited IT staff to support cybersecurity efforts.

Challenges for Counties

• The SLCGP has allowed states and local governments to create cybersecurity plans, yet the program’s premature ending would not allow counties to access additional funds to implement key provisions of cybersecurity plans and to meet emerging threats.
• The uncertainty around SLCGP’s future has provided counties with little budgetary insight on how to fund cybersecurity activities.
• The SLCGP also has the opportunity to increase its flexibility in providing direct funding to counties of all sizes, who may have varying cybersecurity needs.
• Absent this federal program, state and local cybersecurity coordination efforts would be negatively impacted or reduced in capacity.

Talking Points for County Leaders

Use these in meetings with your members of Congress or staff. Insert your county story where prompted.

• Congress should treat federal investments in local cybersecurity needs as a national security priority. Just as the federal government protects our nation from military invasions, they should also play a role in the protection of our nation’s cyber borders from malicious actors and cyber intruders.
• Counties must continue to receive access to funding that is essential to the cybersecurity of county information and operational systems to successfully mitigate or prevent cyberattacks. Share your county story: Explain costs your county has incurred due to a cybersecurity breach.
• Funding instability reduces the ability for counties to invest in services and programs that will improve the cybersecurity readiness of a county’s systems. Share your county story: Describe how funding uncertainty will reduce dollars placed into cybersecurity, therefore limiting initiatives at the local level and increasing vulnerabilities across county systems.
• The SLCGP provides cybersecurity planning support, in-kind services and direct funding at the state and local level to achieve new levels of cyber-readiness.

NACo Priorities for Local Cybersecurity Needs

• Reauthorize the SLCGP to preserve an essential cybersecurity planning and initiation tool for state and local governments.
• Provide predictable and adequate appropriations for the SLCGP that allows counties with varying cybersecurity needs to access and utilize funding in a flexible manner.

Background

• The Farm Bill is a multi-year, multi-title package governing federal policy on agriculture, nutrition assistance, rural development, conservation and farm labor.
• The most recent Farm Bill, the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (P.L. 115–334), expired in 2023 and has been extended multiple times; it is currently extended at existing funding levels through September 30, 2026.
• H.R.1, also known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, enacted several provisions traditionally included in the Farm Bill, including expanded agricultural disaster assistance and major changes to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), such as stricter work requirements and significant cost shifts to state and local governments.
• On February 13, House Agriculture Committee Chairman G.T. Thompson (R-Pa.-15) introduced the House version of the 2026 Farm Bill, the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 (H.R.-7567).
• The Farm, Food, and National Security Act advances key county priorities by investing in rural childcare, health access, water infrastructure and broadband, boosting technical assistance for resource-constrained counties, strengthening conservation and watershed resilience, and expanding tools to manage public lands and reduce wildfire risk. View NACo’s analysis here.

Why Counties Should Care

• The Farm Bill is a cornerstone of county economic development, land stewardship, infrastructure investment and nutrition access.
• Farm Bill programs support roughly 1.9 million U.S. farms and help sustain agricultural production, working lands and rural economies that anchor county tax bases and employment.
• The nutrition title authorizes programs that help county residents access affordable, healthy food. Nearly 42 million people receive SNAP benefits nationwide.
• Counties directly administer SNAP in ten states, representing approximately 34 percent of all SNAP participants, making federal policy changes an immediate operational and fiscal issue for county governments.

Challenges for Counties

• Many Farm Bill programs are difficult for counties to access due to complex applications, inconsistent timelines, burdensome reporting and rigid match requirements, challenges that are especially acute for small and rural counties with limited staff capacity.
• Rural development and conservation programs often rely on discretionary or short-term funding, creating uncertainty and oversubscription that leaves many county projects unfunded.
• Recent SNAP policy changes increase operational risk for counties. Beginning in FY 2027, H.R.1 reduces the federal share of SNAP administrative costs from 50 percent to 25 percent, shifting 75 percent of costs to non-federal governments in county-administered states.

Talking Points for County Leaders

Use these in meetings with your member of Congress or staff. Insert your county story where prompted.

• Counties need a bipartisan, five-year Farm Bill before the current extension expires on September 30, 2026, to provide certainty for local governments, producers and residents. Share your county story: Recount a project delayed or a local producer impacted by uncertainty.
• More than 70 percent of U.S. counties are rural, yet Farm Bill program design often fails to account for challenges rural communities face on the ground, including limited staff capacity, long service distances and higher per-unit infrastructure costs. Congress should use the Farm Bill to simplify access to federal resources by streamlining applications and reporting, standardizing timelines across USDA Rural Development programs and right-sizing match requirements so low-capacity communities can compete. Share your county story: Describe staffing shortages, match challenges or delivery constraints that makes the current Farm Bill program design difficult for your county.
• SNAP changes must be workable for county-administered systems. Without adequate funding, transition time and technical assistance, cost shifts risk backlogs, service disruptions and increased pressure on county budgets. Share your county story: Detail eligibility backlogs, IT modernization needs or staffing gaps that will be compounded by SNAP changes.