See this article from the conservative newspaper, Washington Times: FEMA targets climate change skeptic governors, could withhold funding; New rules put Rick Scott [FL], Bobby Jindal [LA], Chris Christie [NJ], Pat McCrory [NC] Greg Abbott[TX] in bind. [The Diva filled in the states for the benefit of readers in other countries. All are coastal states with a history of frequent flooding.]
Excerpts from the article:
The Obama administration has issued new guidelines that could make it harder for governors who deny climate change to obtain federal disaster-preparedness funds.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency’s new rules could put some Republican governors in a bind. The rules say that states’ risk assessments must include “consideration of changing environmental or climate conditions that may affect and influence the long-term vulnerability from hazards in the state.”
The policy, which goes into effect in March 2016, doesn’t affect federal money for relief after a hurricane, flood, or other natural disaster. But states seeking disaster preparedness money from Washington will be required to assess how climate change threatens their communities, a requirement that wasn’t included in FEMA’s 2008 guidelines.
Recovery Diva 
The easy and defensible way to do this is to simply point to whatever trend is there in observations and say “We’re extrapolating.” You certainly can’t use the climate change models for this – (ignoring their notorious inaccuracy compared to observed data) the IPCC shows that the models being used are not suitable for regional or local use – the uncertainties are as great or greater than the predicted changes. Many (though not all, unfortunately) of the modelers explicitly state this.
Thus, if there is subsidence (e.g., NOLA), Bobby Jindal can simply point to that (I think it’s about 2 feet / century) and add in 8-10 inches for the current OBSERVED rate of sea level rise extrapolated to the next century.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page4.php
I expect a lot of confusion and difficulty in enforcing this requirement.
A few things will make that easier to swallow… 1) Don’t have to use the actual words “climate change” (Florida) 2) Don’t have to acknowledge human-caused changes 3) There are no specific areas of planning needed – the state just has to “consider” changes.