(Bloomberg) – President Donald Trump's emergencymanagement director said he's pushing for an overhaul of disasterrelief so that states, cities and homeowners bear more ofthe costs, and less of the risk falls on the federalgovernment.

Brock Long,who was confirmed in June as the administrator at the Federal EmergencyManagement Agency, said taxpayers shouldn't be on the hook forhomes that keep flooding, and the threshold for triggering federalpublic assistance after a disaster might be too low. He alsoexpressed support for an Obama administration idea to make localgovernments pay more when a hurricane or flood hits.

Related: Homeowners trapped by repeated flooding under NFIP,report warns

Find ways to become comprehensively more resilient

"I don't think the taxpayer should reward risk going forward,"Long said in an interview in his office at FEMA's headquarters inWashington. "We have to find ways to comprehensively become moreresilient."

While some of these changes will require action from Congress,the imprimatur of FEMA's administrator could give them a boost aslawmakers face a deadline at the end of the September to rewritethe federal flood insurance program. Even without legislation, FEMAsays it could shift the initial costs for disaster relief to localor state governments.

Making those changes has the support of environmentalists, whohope it will make local leaders take climate change more seriously— passing stronger building codes, moving flood-proneresidents out of their homes or building stronger stormwalls. But making these ideas stick won't beeasy. 

State and local governments cried foul after FEMA underPresident Barack Obama proposed shifting onto them the initialcosts of rebuilding roads, bridges or buildings after a storm. Andthe 5 million households with federal flood insurance rely on thatprogram for protection against hurricanes or floods; after Congresstried to rewrite that program five years ago to cut the federalsubsidy, it had to beat a retreat in the face of voter anger.

Rising costs of natural disasters

Still, the costs of natural disasters are fast running upagainst the limits of Congress's ability to pay for them. Thefederal government spent $357 billion on disaster recovery over thepast decade; the number of billion-dollar disasters in 2016 was thesecond-highest on record, after adjusting for inflation. The U.S.Government Accountability Office, the independent agency thatadvises Congress, ranks climate change as one of the greatestfinancial risks facing the federal government.

Against that background, environmental groups welcomed Long'sappointment, calling him a professional who understood the risksand was equipped to handle them. Long was previously the directorof Alabama's Emergency Management Agency, and before that aregional hurricane program manager for FEMA.

Related: 8 keys to mitigating floodingrisks

But even for somebody who knows the terrain, cutting federaldisaster costs can be treacherous. Craig Fugate, who preceded Longas FEMA director under Obama, said that only local and stategovernments have the power to reduce people's exposure to stormsand similar hazards, through land-use planning, building codes and other rules. And so hepushed a plan to put those local governments on the hook for theinitial costs of storm recovery, saying that would induce them toprepare better.

'Disaster deductible' proposal

In January, just before Obama left office, Fugate released aproposal to impose on states what it called a "disasterdeductible": requiring that states pay some of the cost of disasterrecovery up front, before the federal government starts making whatit calls "public assistance" payments to rebuild publicinfrastructure.

States could reduce their so-called PA deductible by takingsteps to better prepare for disasters, such as imposing tougherbuilding codes or buying insurance for their facilities. State andlocal governments have resisted the idea.

Related: Draft legislation to overhaul National FloodInsurance Program released

"The merits of the PA deductible program are good," Long said,adding that he has concerns about the complexity of the idea,including how to fairly measure the actions states and localgovernments take. Still, he said, "the premise is good."

The most urgent challenge facing FEMA is the National Flood Insurance Program, which will expire atthe end of September unless Congress reauthorizes it. A series ofsevere storms have left the program $23 billion indebt; Congress is debating how to reduce its costs to thefederal government.

Cost burden

One option is limiting coverage for homes that flood over andover again. Long said he supports keeping those homes out of theprogram altogether.

"There are a handful of properties that create a large portionof that cost burden," Long said. "We've got to start there, and atsome point cut that off."

The number of homes affected by such a change could be enormous.There are more than 30,000 homes that FEMA classifies as "severerepetitive loss," according to figures obtained by the NaturalResources Defense Council. It's not clear how many of thosehomeowners could obtain private insurance at a price they couldafford.

Environmentalists support change in policy

Still, environmentalists support changing the policy. "Why isthe federal government continuing to foot the bill to rebuildproperties we know are going to flood again?" said Laura Lightbody,project director for flood-prepared communities at the Pew Charitable Trusts.

Another struggle for FEMA is whether and how to reduce spendingon federal disasters.

Related: Subsidies to live in areas that are vulnerable tonatural disasters may end

If the federal government really wanted to cut spending, themost direct way might be to increase the damage threshold FEMA usesto decide whether to make public assistance payments. Starting in1986, a disaster had to cost at least $1 per state resident toqualify. That figure, which has failed to keep up with inflation,is now $1.43. Long said it's an imperfect measure of a state's needfor federal help.

"Is it a true indicator?" Long said. "Some would argue that it'stoo low."

Long broke from environmentalists and Obama-era officials on onepoint: He declined to say whether he believed that human activityis warming the planet, instead citing deep-water ocean currents, ElNino and other "intrinsic cycles" as reasons for changes in weatherpatterns. He said his job was to help state and local governmentsprepare for the risks they face, no matter their cause.

"The term climate change has become such a political hot buttonthat I think it keeps us from having a real dialogue," he said.

Related: Changing weather patterns mean homeowners need torethink risks