[Senate Hearing 111-1006]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-1006
FLOOD PREPAREDNESS AND MITIGATION:
MAP MODERNIZATION, LEVEE INSPECTION, AND LEVEE REPAIRS
=======================================================================
JOINT HEARING
before the
AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISASTER RECOVERY
AND AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE ON STATE, LOCAL,
AND PRIVATE SECTOR PREPAREDNESS AND INTEGRATION
of the
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 28, 2010
__________
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
58-405 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office, http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the
GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office.
Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
JON TESTER, Montana LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois
EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware
Michael L. Alexander, Staff Director
Brandon L. Milhorn, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Trina Driessnack Tyrer, Chief Clerk
Joyce Ward, Publications Clerk and GPO Detailee
AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISASTER RECOVERY
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana, Chairman
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts
Ben Billings, Staff Director
Andy Olson, Minority Staff Director
Kelsey Stroud, Chief Clerk
AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE ON STATE, LOCAL AND PRIVATE SECTOR PREPAREDNESS AND
INTEGRATION
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas, Chairman
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
JON TESTER, Montana LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
Donny William, Staff Director
Ryan Tully Minority Staff Director
Kelsey Stroud, Chief Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statement:
Page
Senator Landrieu............................................. 1
Senator Pryor................................................ 3
Senator Tester............................................... 4
Senator Collins.............................................. 4
Prepared statement:
Senator Landrieu............................................. 41
WITNESSES
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Hon. Jo-Ellen Darcy, Assistant Secretary of the Army, Civil
Works, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers............................ 5
Sandra K. Knight, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Federal
Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland Security........ 7
Hon. Robert Mehlhoff, District 26, Montana House of
Representatives................................................ 21
David R. Maidment, Director, Center for Research in Water
Resources, and Hussein M. Alharthy Centennial Chair in Civil
Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin; and Chair,
Committee on Floodplain Mapping Technologies, and Chair,
Committee on FEMA Flood Maps, National Research Council, The
National Academies............................................. 23
Sam Riley Medlock, Policy Counsel, Association of State
Floodplain Managers, and Member, National Committee on Levee
Safety......................................................... 24
Robert G. Rash, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Engineer, St.
Francis Levee District of Arkansas............................. 26
Joseph N. Suhayda, Interim Director, Louisiana State University
Hurricane Center, and Chairman, Independent Technical Review
Committee, FEMA/USACE Louisiana Storm Surge Study.............. 28
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
Darcy, Hon. Jo-Ellen:
Testimony.................................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 47
Knight, Sandra, Ph.D.:
Testimony.................................................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 56
Maidment, David R., Ph.D.:
Testimony.................................................... 23
Prepared statement........................................... 64
Medlock, Sam Riley:
Testimony.................................................... 24
Prepared statement........................................... 69
Mehlhoff, Hon. Robert:
Testimony.................................................... 21
Prepared statement........................................... 62
Rash, Robert G.:
Testimony.................................................... 26
Prepared statement........................................... 77
Suhayda, Joseph N., Ph.D.:
Testimony.................................................... 28
Prepared statement........................................... 80
APPENDIX
Map referenced by Senator Landrieu............................... 44
Map referenced by Senator Landrieu............................... 45
Chart referenced by Senator Pryor................................ 46
Questions and Responses submitted for the Record from:
Ms. Darcy.................................................... 82
Ms. Knight................................................... 89
Mr. Mehlhoff................................................. 102
Mr. Maidment................................................. 105
Ms. Medlock.................................................. 109
Mr. Rash with an attachment.................................. 118
Mr. Suhayda.................................................. 134
FLOOD PREPAREDNESS AND MITIGATION:
MAP MODERNIZATION, LEVEE INSPECTION, AND LEVEE REPAIRS
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 28, 2010
U.S. Senate,
Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Disaster Recovery,
Joint with the Subcommittee on State, Local,
and Private Sector Preparedness and Integration,
of the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 3:02 p.m., in
room 342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mary L.
Landrieu, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Disaster Recovery,
and Hon. Mark L. Pryor, Chairman of the Subcommittee on State,
Local, and Private Sector Preparedness and Integration,
presiding.
Present: Senators Landrieu, Pryor, Tester, Burris, and
Collins (ex officio).
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANDRIEU
Senator Landrieu. Good afternoon. Let me call this meeting
of the two Subcommittees to order, and we will be joined in
just a minute by Chairman Mark Pryor, who chairs our sister
Subcommittee and other Members will be joining us as the
afternoon unfolds.
I want to begin by saying how pleased I am to host this
joint meeting. It is a little unusual, but, I think, very
important and very necessary because of the information that
our Subcommittees are going to cover. Senator Pryor, welcome.
And I will be giving a brief opening statement, turning it over
to my co-colleague, Chairman Pryor, and we are thankful to be
joined by Senator Tester from Montana.
Before I begin my opening statement, I would just like to
refer the audience and those listening to this map,\1\ which
shows the United States counties where levees are found,
because that is what our hearing pertains to levee
certification, flood maps and flood insurance availability and
affordability. These are very important issues for our country,
and I thank you, Senator Collins, for joining us. This map
shows that this really is an issue of national significance,
and I am glad to be joined by the Senator from Maine because
she has quite a few counties in Maine that have levees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The map referenced by Senator Landrieu appears in the appendix
on page 44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can see that the State of California, which I am
learning has an extraordinarily intricate set of levees. Almost
the entire State is represented. Of course, you can see through
the Mississippi Delta, which is what I represent, a great
stream of levees all the way up the Mississippi. And in Montana
and in virtually every part of this country, there are levees.
The second map \1\ will show--the map in the light green
and pink--the areas where flood maps have already been updated,
but the pink are areas that are still under development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The map referenced by Senator Landrieu appears in the appendix
on page 45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am going to try to be brief because we have two panels,
but I want to call attention to a March 18 letter that 16
Senators of both parties signed to Administrator Fugate and
Secretary Darcy, who is with us today. I won't read the
entirety of the letter, but it says, in part, we represent a
diverse group of constituents with a variety of problems that
have arisen as the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) have been
updated. Our constituents have expressed several concerns about
flood mapping, including a lack of communication and outreach
with local stakeholders, a lack of coordination between Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Corps of Engineers
in answering questions about flood mapping, flood insurance,
and flood control and infrastructure repairs, a lack of
recognition of locally funded flood control projects when
determining flood zones, the affordability of flood insurance,
inadequate time and resources to complete flood repairs,
control structures before maps are finalized, etc, etc.
I just wanted to begin by saying this, that this is really
a concern of so many members of the Senate representing a
variety of different sections of the country. This is not just
a Southern issue. It is not just a Gulf Coast issue. It is not
an issue necessarily related directly to Hurricane Katrina,
although 5 years ago in August, that was probably one of the
most vivid and horrifying examples of what happens when one of
our levee systems fail. But we had the Midwest floods in 2008,
where Cedar Rapids, Iowa, was in large measure, parts of it
destroyed. We had the floods in Georgia and North Dakota in
2009, and then most recently in Rhode Island and Tennessee in
2010.
So this hearing is really an attempt to get a status report
on where we are, responding to some of these issues and
questions. I will submit the rest of my opening statement that
I prepared for the record. But I hope that we are getting some
answers to questions like, are FEMA's flood maps technically
accurate, and if not, how can they be improved? How can the
FEMA process for resolving map disputes with local communities
work better? Should the Corps of Engineers offer to inspect
locally-owned levees, and how else can local governments
finance these costly engineering inspections? How can people
afford flood insurance, and more?
So I am going to submit the rest of my statement for the
record, but this has been a particular focus of mine for
several years and I hope we can get to the bottom of some of
these issues.
Senator Landrieu. Senator Pryor.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PRYOR
Senator Pryor. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you for
working on this issue as diligently as you have been. We just
really appreciate your leadership on this and many other
things.
I want to thank all the Members of the Subcommittee who are
here today and who will be coming and going today. I know that
we have really two very strong panels, and I hope this doesn't
take too long, but there is a lot of ground to cover here, so I
appreciate all the witnesses coming today.
And also, I want to recognize two people who are not on the
Subcommittee. The first would be my colleague from Arkansas,
Senator Lincoln, because she has shown great leadership, not
just in Arkansas, but nationally on this issue. Second is
Senator Cochran, and he and I have worked on this issue
together and we have some legislation and he has been a great
partner in that, so I really want to thank both of them, even
though they are not here.
And then I would just like to say a few words that you all
know and my colleagues know that I have been working on this
issue for years now, and recently we were able to get a letter
to, I think, FEMA and the Corps that had Senators from 13
different States, and this has gone from the little problem in
Arkansas, where it kind of--we were one of the early States to
have to go through this, and it is really mushrooming into a
national concern.
And there are really two basic concerns, I think, that sort
of Senators here, or hits States in different ways, but two
basic concerns. I think Senator Landrieu really fits in this
category, first is the issue of levee certification and the
responsibility for the repairs, etc. We can play the blame game
all we want on this, but the bottom line is, right now, there
are lots and lots of locally owned levees that need a lot of
work, that need some repairs, need to be modernized, and they
just don't have the local resources to do it. As hard as that
may be, we need to think through that and see if we can come up
with a solution here.
The second is really a little different, and that is once a
levee is certified, what does that mean? When the maps are
done, I am going to have some questions about something on the
maps. They call it Shaded Zone X, but what does that mean to a
community? A lot of communities have passed an ordinance that
has been drafted by FEMA. What does that mean? If they don't
agree with the map, can they appeal? How do they appeal? What
is the redress there? So it falls under that.
We also have something in our State that is not unique to
Arkansas, but it is probably unique pretty much to the
Mississippi River States, and that is we have the Mississippi
River system of levees and I think the taxpayers, State, local,
Federal taxpayers, have invested something like $32 billion, or
maybe more, in that levee system. It has worked great. A lot of
these levees will keep out floodwaters to the 500-year mark,
and that is spectacular. But my sense is that when these maps
are drawn, there is really not a lot of credit given to the
fact that you have this extraordinarily good, strong levee
system and a lot of my State, at least, has ended up in what
they call Shaded Zone X, which is in the 500-year floodplain.
I know that some of my colleagues are frustrated about this
and I know that people in Arkansas are frustrated. If my
constituents are frustrated, that means I am frustrated. We
haven't had a lot of real progress that has been made on this,
as hard as we have tried. FEMA has not been the easiest to deal
with on this, quite frankly. But we are going to continue to
work on this and I just want to thank my colleagues for being
here today and thank you for your attention.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you.
Do the Members have opening statements? Senator Tester.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TESTER
Senator Tester. Just very quickly. First of all, it is in
order to thank both Chairmen of this Subcommittee, and I think
that if the folks who are testifying took notes of what Senator
Landrieu said about the questions, those are the real
questions. And I can tell you that this is not a little issue.
This is a big issue and we need to get it fixed, and I very
much appreciate you bringing this Subcommittee together.
One last thing. On the second panel, a good friend of mine,
a Representative from the State of Montana's Legislature is
here, Bob Mehlhoff, and I certainly appreciate Bob making the
trip out and being willing to testify on this very important
issue from a local perspective. Thanks.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Senator Tester. Senator
Collins.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLLINS
Senator Collins. Thank you, Senator Landrieu. I thank you
and Senator Pryor for your leadership in this very important
issue.
I support FEMA's efforts to modernize the outdated flood
maps with new modeling and more detailed data, but it is
absolutely imperative that FEMA work with the affected
communities in doing so.
In my State, initially, FEMA revised the flood map for
Maine's largest city, Portland, without consulting with
Portland city officials, and the result, and I know Senator
Landrieu can appreciate this because it was from her that I
learned about V Zones, but the result would have had the effect
of classifying much of the waterfront as a high-risk flood zone
and that would have had an extraordinarily detrimental impact
on the economic vitality of Maine's largest city. The city
questioned the accuracy of the map, hired a consultant to do
additional modeling, and FEMA was very helpful in accepting
that new data, taking a look at its own modeling, and
ultimately a good decision was reached and I am grateful for
FEMA's help in that regard.
But Portland's complaints and experience are not unique.
Now FEMA is revising the flood maps all along a part of Maine's
coast. Every community is very worried about where it is going
to get the money to pay for consultants to provide the kind of
detailed modeling that will lead to an accurate assessment.
So those are issues that I want to explore with our
witnesses today, and again, I thank you for holding this
important hearing.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you.
Well, let us get right into our first panel. We are
grateful to have Jo-Ellen Darcy, who is our first witness, who
serves currently as the Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, and in this role she oversees programs for
conservation and development of the Nation's water and wetlands
resources, flood control, and navigation. So this is squarely
in her jurisdiction. We are looking forward to your testimony
today.
Our second witness is Dr. Sandra Knight, who serves as
Deputy Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administrator for FEMA.
In this role, Dr. Knight oversees floodplain mapping,
floodplain management, flood insurance, and hazard mitigation.
I understand, Dr. Knight, that you have asked for some
additional time in your opening statement and I will allow that
because I think your testimony is extremely important, and we
are very anxious to hear any changes or updates that you could
present to us today.
But let us start with the Hon. Jo-Ellen Darcy.
TESTIMONY OF HON. JO-ELLEN DARCY,\1\ ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE
ARMY, CIVIL WORKS, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Ms. Darcy. Thank you, Senator Landrieu, Senator Pryor,
Senator Collins, and Senator Tester. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify before you today. With your permission,
I would like to make a short statement and submit my entire
written statement for the record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Darcy appears in the appendix on
page 47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) shares with the
Federal Emergency Management Agency the expertise and the
mandate to address the Nation's vulnerabilities to flooding.
However, the responsibility for managing the Nation's flood
risk does not exclusively reside with Federal agencies, such as
the Corps and FEMA. Rather, it is shared across multiple
Federal, State, and local government agencies with a complex
set of programs and authorities, including private citizens and
private enterprises, as well as developers.
The Corps and FEMA have programs to assist States and
communities to promote sound flood risk management. However,
flood risk can further be reduced locally through tools like
evacuation plans, land use planning, and public outreach.
Public safety is our top priority and our top responsibility.
FEMA has embarked on a Map Modernization Program to update
and improve the Nation's Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Throughout
this program, the Corps and FEMA have been successful in
leveraging data, partnering on floodplain studies, and
collaborating on related policies in order to provide the most
current flood hazard information to the public. Both agencies
will continue to build upon this strong partnership.
In 2007, the Corps created the Levee Safety Program to
assess the risk associated with levees and recommend courses of
action to reduce the risk to the public, to property, and to
the environment. There are approximately 14,000 miles, or 2,000
levees, within the Corps' authorities. A majority of these
levees are Federally authorized but locally operated and
maintained. The main activities within the Corps' Levee Safety
Program include creating and maintaining the National Levee
Database (NLD), levee inspections, and developing new
procedures for assessing levees, such as establishing tolerable
risk guidelines.
The Corps conducts regular levee inspections to verify
proper operation and maintenance, identify deficiencies that
need repair, and document performance over time. Following each
inspection, the Corps communicates the findings to the levee
sponsor in addition to recommending items for repair and
possible interim risk reduction measures, if they are
necessary. A copy of the inspection results is also provided to
FEMA. The Corps will assist the local sponsor and other
stakeholders to develop the best path forward. That may include
a more comprehensive flood risk management approach as opposed
to keeping focus on just the levee as the only means to reduce
flood risk.
Levee System Evaluations, otherwise, known as Levee
Certification, for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
is for flood insurance purposes and the 1 percent flood event.
It is not a safety standard for levees. Because local entities
are responsible to administer the requirements of the National
Flood Insurance Program and are often responsible for operating
and maintaining the levee, the Corps considers the levee
certification a local responsibility. However, the Corps will
work with FEMA and the local entity to provide information
collected through our Levee Safety Program.
Looking at the bigger picture, the 14,000 miles of levees
within the Corps' Levee Safety Program only represent about 10
percent of the levees nationally. The condition of many of the
levees throughout our Nation is unknown.
I would like to mention the work accomplished under the
National Levee Safety Act of the Water Resources Development
Act (WRDA) of 2007, which established the National committee on
Levee Safety and directed it to develop recommendations for a
National Levee Safety Program (NLSP). The committee completed
its draft report in January 2009 and put forward 20
recommendations for creating a National Levee Safety Program.
In May 2009, the Army provided the final draft report to
Congress. Although the Corps chairs the committee, the
recommendations do not and were not intended to represent the
administration's position. The Corps is working to implement
certain components of the Act and coordinate agency levee
safety activities with the committee for activities that align
with its recommendations.
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify
today on the Corps' roles and responsibilities in FEMA's
remapping program and levee safety. I would be pleased to
answer any questions that you may have. Thank you.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you. Dr. Knight.
TESTIMONY OF SANDRA KNIGHT,\1\ DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR,
FEDERAL INSURANCE AND MITIGATION ADMINISTRATION, FEDERAL
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Ms. Knight. Good afternoon, Chairman Landrieu and Chairman
Pryor and distinguished Subcommittee Members and Senator
Collins. We appreciate the opportunity to testify before you
today and discuss flood mapping and FEMA's role in helping
communities identify and address their flood risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Knight appears in the appendix on
page 56.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is my privilege to share the panel with Ms. Jo-Ellen
Darcy. I appreciate that we have the opportunity to demonstrate
our partnership as we manage the flood risk in our Nation.
Before I begin today, I would like to first thank the
Subcommittee for providing me with additional time to make my
opening statement. Flood mapping can be complex and at times
confusing, so it is understandable that many of your
constituents have questions or concerns about the program and
how it affects them. That is why I am pleased to have the
opportunity today to break down this complex issue so that we
can focus on the underlying goal of the National Flood
Insurance Program, which is to protect property and save lives.
To help structure my remarks today, I would like to address
the most common questions that we hear on flood mapping and the
National Flood Insurance Program.
Why is flood mapping important? Each year, communities in
every region of this country experience severe weather events
that lead to flooding that can cause damage to property, hurt
the economy, and tragically result in the loss of life. Flood
mapping is important because it helps communities identify the
risk posed by flooding before it occurs so that those losses
can be minimized or prevented.
New and updated maps not only reflect better data on
hydrology and topography, but also show changes due to
variations in weather patterns, changes in landscape, the
impact of development on drainage patterns, and the extent of
community vulnerability to floods. It is the responsibility of
FEMA to identify and map flood risks in communities across the
country so that it can establish and maintain a fair and
accurate insurance rating mechanism for the NFIP.
So why are we mapping now? As part of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968, Congress mandated that flood maps be
regularly updated to reflect the risk posed by flooding. And
more recently, in 2003, Congress began appropriating funds to
update and modernize these out-of-date flood maps that too many
communities were relying upon to make important decisions
regarding development and public safety.
Prior to 2003, flood maps were static paper documents,
limited in their detail, and hard to use and maintain. In some
cases, the maps were 20 to 30 years old and did not reflect
current risks or recent changes in the watershed. Today's maps
are digital and provide more detailed, reliable, and useful
data that can be updated more frequently and in a cost
effective manner. Using modern technology, digitized maps can
be easily shared among homeowners, community decision makers,
and other stakeholders. And, in fact, Flood Insurance Rate Maps
are accessed more than 30 million times a year.
As a result of this new mapping effort, we have a better
picture of what areas are most likely to be impacted by
flooding. In turn, this information will help emergency
personnel write response plans that account for new and
evolving flood challenges while also giving home and business
owners critical information on how flooding could impact their
property.
In short, accurate maps reflecting current flood risks lead
to better decisions how to protect a community.
So how do we do the flood mapping? Mapping the Nation's
flood hazards requires a process that incorporates data
collection, analysis, and review to make sure that each map
reflects the best information available to communities and to
FEMA. While we are confident that the science we use to develop
community maps is sound, making and maintaining accurate maps
is not simple or done without considerable investment. That is
why we work closely with State and local communities and other
Federal agencies, such as the Corps, to get the most accurate
information and latest science to ensure the best available
information is reflected on the maps.
Because of the scientific judgments and assumptions that go
into a flood study, there are sometimes differences of opinion
about the end result. That is why FEMA has an appeals process
for communities. FEMA reviews alternative analysis and
determines whether they are superior to those used for the
flood study. And further, to improve the process, beginning the
first of November, FEMA is making available an independent
scientific body, a scientific resolution panel that can be
convened at the request of the community or FEMA to resolve
conflicting data on the maps.
So why are people in floodplains required to purchase
insurance? Well, the short answer is that it is the law. The
1973 Flood Disaster Protection Act (FDPA) directed that
mortgage lenders require people in special flood hazard areas
who have a Federally-backed mortgage to purchase flood
insurance, and while some homeowners may question whether they
really need insurance, it is important to keep in mind that
during a 30-year mortgage, property owners located in a 100-
year flood zone or Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) have a more
than 26 percent chance of experiencing flood damage.
Even when flood insurance is not required, it is more often
than not still needed. A quarter of all flood claims come from
moderate and low-risk areas, and flood policies in these areas
are affordable. So we encourage all property owners to talk to
their insurance agents, discuss their risk and options, and
make sure they are protected.
However, we understand the concerns that many have about
the additional costs of flood insurance coverage, particularly
during these challenging economic times. To help reduce the
cost of insurance, the NFIP gives property owners the ability
to purchase a preferred risk policy at a discounted rate when
they are newly designated in high-risk areas. Further, in
response to concerns that we have heard from many of your
constituents, we are implementing a new policy on January 1
that will extend the time frame for property owners to purchase
these lower-cost preferred risk policies.
So why do levees need to be accredited? There are thousands
of miles of levees in the United States, as seen here. They are
designed and constructed to provide a last line of defense for
people and properties against major coastal and river flooding
events. Accurately depicting flood hazards near levees on flood
maps is critical to ensuring the public is aware of the unique
flood risks associated with levees so they are armed with facts
that will allow them to reduce their risk. Levees require
regular maintenance to maintain their level of protection. The
fact is, levees can and do decay over time and maintenance can
become a serious challenge. When levees do fail or are
overtopped, the resulting flood damage may be more significant
than if the levee was not there at all. So home owners and
communities must be aware of what protection they get and do
not get from a levee.
FEMA's levee-related responsibilities are spelled out in
Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Based on
these regulations, a levee owner must submit documentation to
FEMA demonstrating that their levee meets minimum standards in
order for it to be recognized on a flood map. Once it is
recognized, the community behind the levee will be identified
on the map as being protected against a 1 percent annual chance
flood. Flood insurance is not required in those areas, but it
is recommended.
We also understand that some local levee owners do not have
immediate access to the documentation required to certify their
levees, even though they may be performing well. While FEMA
does not have the funding nor the authority to manage this
process on behalf of the levee owners, we do have programs in
place, such as the Provisionally Accredited Levee (PAL)
designation, to give them additional time to produce and
collect the required documents.
So in conclusion, I would just like to say FEMA is working
diligently with our Federal, State, and local partners to
update flood maps nationwide and address the concerns of
communities. We will continue working with all of our
stakeholders to analyze and identify flood risks, produce
useful and informative flood maps, and communicate the true and
current hazards for Americans where they live, work, and play.
We have both the legal and moral obligation to depict that risk
accurately, and we are committed to meeting those
responsibilities.
Again, thank you for this opportunity to participate in
today's hearing and I am prepared to answer questions, as well.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Ms. Knight. We have quite a
few.
It is my understanding that under current law, FEMA can
provide a community up to $250,000 to help them with mapping.
Do you know how many communities you have been able to help
with these grants in the last year or two?
Ms. Knight. We are under statute authorized to do that, but
we haven't been appropriated to do it.
Senator Landrieu. So you haven't been able to help one
community?
Ms. Knight. However, I would like----
Senator Landrieu. I mean, with that grant program.
Ms. Knight. I am not sure it is a grant program under the
law. But what we do have is a Cooperative Technical Partnering
(CTP) program and we can provide funds through the CTP to the
State and communities that----
Senator Landrieu. How much money have you sent out to local
governments specifically, and how many communities do you think
you have helped come up with local flood maps? Do you have that
information?
Ms. Knight. I don't have the dollars. We do have the CTPs
in many of our States and communities and we pass funds to them
to help put the data together.
Senator Landrieu. Alright. If you could submit that,
because it is my understanding that FEMA is authorized to
provide up to $250,000 to a community for mapping support
activities like hydrology studies, but that you don't have any
money to do that.
Ms. Knight. Well, through the CTPs we do--I have been
passed a note that we do provide $75 to $80 million a year to
the----
Senator Landrieu. OK, and the CTPs are----
Ms. Knight. Cooperating Technical Partners.
Senator Landrieu. So is that actual money or is it just in-
kind assistance through professional services?
Ms. Knight. No, it is actual funds to actually do some of
the work. They can do some of the technical things. They can do
outreach. There is a list of activities that they can do with
that money to help us not only build the maps and the data, but
to communicate and do outreach.
Senator Landrieu. Do you have any idea of the numbers of
communities that you served, how many are still on the waiting
list that haven't received funds?
Ms. Knight. No, ma'am. We can get back to you with that----
Senator Landrieu. If you could get back to us----
Ms. Knight. I don't know that they have been--they have
asked--
Senator Landrieu [continuing]. Because that is what we are
trying to get. One of the things I am trying to get to is how
many communities around the country have asked for technical
assistance and been denied, either because we don't have the
personnel or the funding to help them. That is one thing that I
am trying to understand.
Another is this V Zone issue, which I continue to bring up
and you can imagine why, because that is the V Zone in
Louisiana. And a 1977 law prohibits Federal funding for new
construction in what we call High-Velocity Zones. In this area,
I would imagine, not counting the City of New Orleans, which is
slightly outside of that V Zone, that maybe a million people
live in that zone. The entire City of Houma, I think, is
included in the V-Zone. A large part of Cameron Parish is
there.
So my situation is that in a V Zone, when a hurricane hits,
and they will hit regularly this area, when a building is
knocked down, the current law prevents us from building a new
building in that zone, even if we build it 18 feet above sea
level. So we do not have a good understanding of how to get out
of this situation, because we can't move a million people. We
have to figure out how to live in a sustainable way. And so I
am going to come back to this in a minute. I have just one more
question and I will turn it over to Senator Pryor.
The other question is, and this comes from, I think, one of
our panelists on the second panel, and I want to state this for
the record. In Dr. Maidment's written statement, he says ``Base
Flood Elevations (BFEs) are only shown on floodplain maps that
have been prepared with high-quality land surface elevation
information and detailed flood modeling studies. Maps that show
only floodplain boundaries have the disadvantage of implying
that every building in a designated flood zone may flood and
that every building outside the flood zone is safe. Providing
floodplain residents with elevation of structures relative to
the expected height of a number of floods offers a better way
to define risk.''
What percentage of your maps right now, if you can say
this, include high-quality elevation data as opposed to
boundary lines? Do you know?
Ms. Knight. Well, I know that what we have for--of course,
the map modernization was actually moving the historic maps
into digital format. Of that, 30 percent of the stream miles
are represented with new science and information.
Senator Landrieu. So would you say that you think 30
percent of your maps, whether they are digitized or in the old
form, reflect this high-quality elevation data? Do you think
that is correct? And you don't have to answer now, but if you
could get that information, because I think it is very
important for our Subcommittee to understand what we are
dealing with, not whether the maps are digitized or not, it is
whether they are high quality and elevations because that would
help the local communities.
I have others, but I know my colleagues have questions, as
well. Let me turn it over to Senator Pryor.
Senator Pryor. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Knight, let me start with you, if I may, and that is I
will go ahead and ask you to look at these maps here. These are
two maps from Crittenden County, Arkansas, which is the West
Memphis and Marion area. This map that is closest to me, which
is on your left, is the map that you guys did in 1981. And next
to it, it is not exactly the same area, but that little area
that has all the streets on it is clearly on the second map.
That is Marion, Arkansas, a little part of Marion, Arkansas,
and it is on the second map, which is the proposed map that you
have now.
There are some differences in what you call Zone X, which
is the 100-year floodplain, and there are a few minor
differences, which I understand those happen. But the most
dramatic difference on that map is that the second map is all
gray, and that is the Shaded Zone X. In 1981, you didn't have a
Shaded Zone X--
Ms. Knight. I can answer that.
Senator Pryor [continuing]. And now you do. Can you tell us
why you have gone to the Shaded Zone X?
Ms. Knight. Yes, Senator, I can. Zone X is not the Special
Flood Hazard Area. It is an area that recognizes--there are
several designations for Special Zone X. The one you are
discussing here or pointing out here is actually an area
protected by a levee. And so in the map of 1991 [sic], there
was not a regulation in place that said that we were to certify
levees. In 1986, that was changed and we were required to do
that. As part of that, we included in our policy that Zone X
behind levees should be shown to the public so they understand
their risk of living behind a levee. It does not require--it
does not mandate insurance. It doesn't mandate that they do any
special floodplain ordinances. It is not a Special Flood Hazard
Area.
Senator Pryor. OK, but you mention that there is a note on
the map itself and the note reads, ``To mitigate flood risk in
residential risk areas, property owners and residents are
encouraged to consider flood insurance and floodproofing or
other protective measures.'' I have a lot of questions about
that, but I guess the first question would be, is it safe to
say that the Shaded Zone X is the 500-year floodplain?
Ms. Knight. No, sir. The Shaded Zone X represents what
would happen would there be a failure of the levee, in this
case. It also indicates to the public that there is a chance of
flooding from interior flooding. The event we had that came
over West Tennessee and Nashville recently was an unusual
event. Had it stopped a little short, there could have been an
opportunity for flooding inside that levee, between the St.
Francis and the Mississippi Rivers. So we want people to be
aware that there is a risk of overtopping or there is a risk of
interior flooding. But FEMA does not mandate any codes or, in
fact, we don't issue any land ordinances or building codes and
it is not required in Zone X.
Senator Pryor. OK. Well, in the map itself, on the legend
of the map where it has Zone X and it tells you what that
means, it says areas of 0.2 percent annual chance of flood.
Isn't that the 500-year floodplain?
Ms. Knight. There are several designations for Zone X. That
particular piece on the legend, I would have to get back to you
on that, because there are several designations for Zone X.
Senator Pryor. OK. It also says areas of 1 percent annual
chance of flood within average depths of less than one foot or
with a drainage area of less than one square mile in areas
protected by levees from 1 percent annual chance of flood. So
does this mean----
Ms. Knight. Oh, that is an area protected by a levee from 1
percent, which is the minimum standard. Certainly, as was
discussed earlier, perhaps Mississippi River and Tributaries
(MR&T) or the Mississippi River levees may have a higher level
of protection. But our minimum to look at certification is the
1 percent.
Senator Pryor. All right. I have some follow-up questions
on that.
Ms. Knight. OK.
Senator Pryor. We don't have a lot of time, but I will
submit those for the record. But I do have another question
about the Flood Insurance Program, and that is the way you set
your premiums. If someone is in the Shaded Zone X area and they
decide to buy insurance, or what I think is likely to happen,
the mortgage company or their homeowners' insurance company
would require them to purchase insurance because of this note
on the map and because they are in a shaded area on the map,
how is that premium set?
Ms. Knight. It is an actuarially-based premium. All our
premiums are. They reflect the risk taken by the Federal
Government to provide that insurance. The question--and I think
we have some data here today on some of what the dollar figures
are for those policies. Lenders--we do not mandate that the
insurance be purchased in that zone. A lender may do that. It
has not been our experience that is widely done, because the
lending institutes are very competitive and honestly would like
to get the mortgage--be able to persuade the homeowners to use
their institution for the mortgages.
Senator Pryor. Yes. Didn't you say earlier that the flood
maps are, Flood Insurance Maps are referenced more than 30
million times a year? I assume that is largely by financial
institutions that are doing title searches, etc.
Ms. Knight. It is by individual homeowners. It is by
community officials. It is by all sorts of stakeholders and
people that are engaged. So it is not just lenders.
Senator Pryor. So you said earlier that if you have a 30-
year mortgage and you are in a 100-year floodplain, you have a
26 percent chance of a flood during the life of that mortgage.
What is it if you are in the 500-year floodplain with a 30-year
mortgage?
Ms. Knight. I actually don't have the number off the top of
my head, but I actually saw something. There is a nice chart on
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE's) website that kind
of gives you the different probabilities for each frequency
flood.
Senator Pryor. And do you get a----
Ms. Knight. It is somewhat less than that.
Senator Pryor. Do you get a lower premium based on that?
Ms. Knight. The premiums are based on the zones themselves,
so depending on how the zone is classified. We map the risk,
but the Flood Insurance Rate Maps are done by zones. And within
each zone, those rates are variable, depending on depth and
depending on proximity and that sort of thing and what kind of
home it is. It is very individual based on the home itself or
the building itself.
Senator Pryor. You have several different premium levels,
is that right?
Ms. Knight. Yes, sir.
Senator Pryor. Well, I do have a lot more questions, but I
don't want to intrude on my colleagues' time, so I may just
submit those for the record.
Senator Landrieu. Well, I can say, as I recognize the
Senator from Montana, that no matter what zone you are in, most
of our constituents think they are paying too much for flood
insurance. And, of course, flood insurance only covers up to
$250,000 of a home. There are many, many homes in the United
States that are valued at much more than $250,000 that have to
go to the private market, and so that is on top of the premiums
that are paid and it gets back to the question of are your maps
boundary maps or are they elevation maps, and you can actually
see structures within shaded zones, or non-shaded zones, that
there is an advantage or disadvantage structure by structure.
But, Senator Tester, your turn for questions.
Senator Tester. Yes. Thank you very much. We have a lot of
questions and so I appreciate the opportunity and thank you
both for being here.
I just want to touch very briefly on the CTP funds.
Ms. Knight. Yes.
Senator Tester. How much are those grants for? What are
they capped at?
Ms. Knight. It is based on scope of work, and I don't
know----
Senator Tester. Is there a cap?
Ms. Knight. No.
Senator Tester. OK. And those amounts can be used for
technical outreach work, various works like that.
Ms. Knight. Yes, sir.
Senator Tester. Do you have any money for certification of
levees or is that not within your purview?
Ms. Knight. No, sir. It is not in our purview.
Senator Tester. OK. Secretary Darcy, I appreciate you being
here and I am feeling like you need some questions, so here we
go. [Laughter.]
Ms. Darcy. Thanks for asking.
Senator Tester. No problem. There are thousands of miles of
levees, and I think it was in Sandra Knight's testimony, that
were constructed mostly by the Army, or mainly by the Army
Corps of Engineers. Before January 2008, the Army Corps did
inspections. In fact, the town of Missoula, shortly before
January 2008, had their levee inspected by the Army Corps of
Engineers. Since that point in time, though, the agency doesn't
do it anymore. This puts small rural communities that don't
have a lot of population base to spread out funding in a very
precarious situation because of the certification of levees.
Could you give me some insight into why that policy was
changed?
Ms. Darcy. Senator, the policy change came before I did,
but I think the intent of the policy change basically was
because of the funding. We were focusing our funding on levee
safety and not certification, and the levee certification is,
as we have said, is a local responsibility. If a Corps of
Engineers levee has been built by the Corps of Engineers and is
maintained by the Corps of Engineers, it is their
responsibility. If the Corps of Engineers has built the levee
and turned it over to the local sponsor under a cost sharing
agreement, then part of the operation and maintenance of that
is the local sponsor's, so----
Senator Tester. Got you. Doesn't the Army Corps still do
annual and periodic inspections of those levees----
Ms. Darcy. We do inspections--
Senator Tester [continuing]. Even if they do turn them over
to a local entity?
Ms. Darcy. Yes, sir.
Senator Tester. Why can't they just take that to the next
step and do the certification?
Ms. Darcy. The inspection information is given to FEMA, and
for the purposes of floodplain accreditation, that information
can be used for that. But it is an evaluation and provision of
information.
Senator Tester. Thanks for that piece of information. So
why don't you use that information for determining the flood?
Ms. Knight. Sir, we do. We use all the information the
Corps gives us.
Senator Tester. OK. So why are we requiring a
certification?
Ms. Knight. It is required by the law in 1986 that we do
that, and there are some standards in there that say that we
have certain things to provide.
Senator Tester. OK. Let us bounce back then. So why can't
we take the extra step to say it is certified?
Ms. Darcy. When we do an inspection, we do annual
inspections and we do periodic inspections----
Senator Tester. Yes----
Ms. Darcy [continuing]. And again, these are of Corps-
constructed levees, only 14,000 miles of the 100,000 or more
miles of levees in the country. So it is a limited universe
that we have. And when we do our inspections, we do an annual
inspection, which is we walk up and down the levee and it is
visual and we give that information to the local sponsor and
FEMA.
Senator Tester. Right.
Ms. Darcy. Then we do a periodic inspection, which we do
every 5 years, which is a more detailed inspection. However,
that inspection is not--the sort of checklist that we have on
our periodic inspections does not include all of those
requisites that need to be done for a----
Senator Tester. So what additional information needs to be
collected to meet that?
Ms. Darcy. There is additional engineering information that
needs to be collected. That is in addition to what a regular
inspection that we do would involve.
Senator Tester. OK. The Army Corps in 1987 used risk-based
analysis caused--use of risk-based analysis--let me be clear--
caused a disconnect with FEMA, FEMA's numeric freeboard
standard. The disconnect made the standard Army Corps data
unsuitable for FEMA certifications. In that case, the two
agencies were able to come to an agreement so that the data was
usable by both sides. Have your two agencies attempted to come
to an agreement on data of inspection of levees, because I
think you have two different standards. If I am incorrect on
that, correct me.
Ms. Darcy. Senator, it is not incorrect. What it is, is
that the checklist that FEMA has in order to have a levee
evaluation for their program to be in the NFIP program----
Senator Tester. Yes.
Ms. Darcy [continuing]. Has more requirements than what we
have in our periodic inspection.
Senator Tester. OK. And there is no way to get those two to
match up?
Ms. Darcy. I am not saying there isn't a way. I think that,
as I say, it is additional requirements and we view those
requirements as operation and maintenance level of
responsibility.
Senator Tester. OK. Administrator Knight, in the last few
months, FEMA has announced a number of changes to attempt to
help struggling communities transition to their new flood maps.
We appreciate that. One of the struggles faced by communities
and homeowners in a new Special Flood Hazard Area, similar to
what the Senator from Arkansas talked about, are faced with
sudden unanticipated expenses, $1,700 a year. The tremendous
financial drain is not a part of their household calculations
and puts them in a heck of a bind.
Senators have expressed their support for at least a
phased-in premium for residents of areas that are newly mapped
in the floodplain. While FEMA has not put such a policy in
place, and correct me if I am wrong on that, I appreciate the
attempt to use an extended referral risk policy to grant relief
to some of those residents. One of the most important elements
of this new policy is that it is retroactive to when many of
the new maps from the Map Modernization Program began to go
into effect. I am getting somewhere with this. This allows
communities who are already struggling with new insurance rates
to better handle the shift.
Another concern that many communities have is the appeals
process for disagreements with FEMA findings. Last week, FEMA
proposed--you probably know where I am going now--proposed an
impartial third-party arbitration panel for resolving
scientific disputes that cannot be resolved through the
existing appeals process. However, this proposal, this one is
not retroactive, so it is unavailable to any community that
feels their appeal was wrongly rejected but for whom the new
flood maps have already gone into effect. What will FEMA do for
the communities that are already living with new flood maps
that they disagree with?
Ms. Knight. Well, sir, there is a lot of discussion in
there. First, I would like to start with the graduated rate
proposal.
Senator Tester. Yes.
Ms. Knight. That is not in our statutes to do that, but we
support that and we----
Senator Tester. I appreciate that.
Ms. Knight [continuing]. The Administrator has come on
board to say that we do support that.
Regarding the Scientific Resolution Panel----
Senator Tester. Yes.
Ms. Knight [continuing]. We think it is a great way forward
and we appreciate that----
Senator Tester. As do I.
Ms. Knight [continuing]. You are supportive.
Senator Tester. So why don't we make it retroactive?
Ms. Knight. So the retroactive piece is that for
communities that use these flood maps to make decisions in
their communities, these maps are already in place, and as many
folks that come into the maps go out of the maps as they are
updated and improved. And so to go back and change that could
change a lot of activities that communities are doing to reduce
their risk in their communities.
Senator Tester. But you do understand that without it being
retroactive, this doesn't help the folks who have already been
placed into a new scheme.
Ms. Knight. If they are placed--we resolved many of the
appeals. We have had 275 appeals out of 92,000 map panels,
which is pretty good, but there still is an opportunity. We
have a map change process----
Senator Tester. OK.
Ms. Knight [continuing]. And so any community that feels
like their data is still not correct, there is a map revision
process----
Senator Tester. Good.
Ms. Knight [continuing]. That they can submit to FEMA and
we will update the maps.
Senator Tester. And that process includes what?
Ms. Knight. It includes--there is a list of data that they
have to provide, much like the appeals, that demonstrates that
it is new, improved data.
Senator Tester. OK. Well, I have a town called Miles City
that is in a heck of a quandary over this and we were hoping
this Appeals Panel could help them, but it is not retroactive,
so they are out of luck. So if it was possible----
Ms. Knight. They can submit a map revision, a request for
map revision.
Senator Tester. OK. All right. One more question, real
quick. It doesn't have to do with this, but as long as we have
the Army Corps here, I have to do this, so a little bit--I want
to talk a little bit about some cabin transfers on Fort Peck
Lake.
For 10 years, Congress has allocated the Army Corps $3
million to perform these conveyances. Right now, I understand
the Corps is charging potential buyers and owners up to
$10,600, to be exact, in administrative costs to get these
transferred, triple the administrative costs for similar
transactions in the private market. Let me tell you, when I get
people from the private sector coming up to me and telling me
that Government isn't efficient, it is hard for me to argue
when--and I just got another, if it gets through the process,
$1 million for cabin conveyances in appropriations, and we are
still charging this kind of money.
The good Senator from Arkansas said when his constituents
aren't happy, he is not happy. My constituents are not happy,
and I can't tell them--I can't give them any reason why this is
happening.
I will tell you that for $3 million, you could probably buy
a fair number of the cabins around Fort Peck Lake. What is
going on?
Ms. Darcy. Well, Senator, in anticipation of your question,
I did ask staff to look at the administrative expenses that you
refer to, and you are right, that it is anywhere between $9,000
and $10,600, and we have broken down the expenses and a good
bit of them, quite frankly, like 36 percent of the
administrative expenses are due to our having to evaluate the
sanitation conditions for the----
Senator Tester. But these are all on the same lake.
Ms. Darcy. Right.
Senator Tester. You can't take a format and move it? It
would seem to me--this is $10,600 in addition to the $3
million.
Ms. Darcy. Correct. That is what--but that is what they
would have to reimburse the Corps for the administrative
expenses, correct.
Senator Tester. But Congress--do you understand what I am
saying? Congress has allocated $3 million, plus we are dinging
the owners $10,600 in addition to that. This is a ton of dough
for cabins that, truthfully, I don't know how many cabins are
on Fort Peck Lake, but you could probably, if you are talking
not the land but the cabin, you could probably buy a fair
number of those cabins for $3 million plus $10,600 for every
property.
Ms. Darcy. I know that these estimates are based on the 119
cabins that are in the Fort Peck Parcel.
Senator Tester. Yes.
Ms. Darcy. I will--it does sound like a lot of money----
Senator Tester. It is.
Ms. Darcy [continuing]. And----
Senator Tester. You could buy a fair part of Chouteau
County for $3 million. I mean, it is a lot of money. It is a
lot of money. Take it back to the brass. I thank you, if you
would, and I appreciate both of you being here. Thank you very
much.
Just in closing, I don't want to go off the levee thing.
This baby ain't going away. We have to figure out a way, and I
appreciate the work that FEMA and the Army Corps have done
together in towns like Great Falls, but we have to get this
fixed because we are breaking people. Thank you.
Senator Pryor. [Presiding.] Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Senator Pryor.
Ms. Knight, let me start first by thanking FEMA for
responding to my request and working with the City of Portland
to come up with a more accurate flood map. It turns out that
FEMA's baseline wind and wave measurements are not appropriate
for Casco Bay because it has so many islands and ledges and
peninsulas that change the flooding from what would be
predicted using your models. So we had an acceptable outcome
when it comes to the City of Portland, but the problem is that
the city had to spend $10,000 to hire a consultant to do the
kinds of specialized modeling.
There are now some two dozen coastal communities in Maine
that are going through the same process. When the Portland
Press Herald interviewed FEMA officials about why they were not
doing the more sophisticated modeling, FEMA replied that it
lacked sufficient funding to perform the more detailed
floodplain modeling that the City of Portland paid for and that
these other communities are paying for.
That prompted me to take a look at the budget that FEMA has
for flood map modernization, and last fiscal year, the
President's budget request was $220 million and Congress fully
funded that amount. This year, however, the administration's
budget request is only for $194 million. That obviously is $26
million less. That is more than a 10 percent cut. Did FEMA ask
for more money and get turned down?
Ms. Knight. I can answer that. Actually, Senator, the cut
was because of efficiencies in our program management and a new
system for information technology (IT) that helped us save some
dollars.
Regarding the technical pieces of it, there will be no
downgrade to the technical approaches we take.
And I would like to comment, if I can, on your discussion
about the technical levels of detail. We certainly recognize
coastal areas, as Senator Landrieu stated, are challenges, and
there certainly are different types of models and data that are
important in different regions, depending on the topography and
the conditions. And for the Portland area, what we really
appreciated was, in addition to the community reaching in and
updating their model, was the data itself, because the wind
data drives the coastal models.
So we have a new source of wind data that we will certainly
be using in the rest of the maps in your State and we also
encourage throughout the process, before we get to appeals,
that the community partner with us with whatever data they
have. So to minimize any expenses to the community, we would
gladly take any data that you have.
To administer the balance of the program across the United
States and the map we had up there earlier, it really does take
that we have a base set of data that we use and a base kind of
model that we start with. If we can get better information, we
certainly use it. We certainly take advantage of any data the
other agencies have or the State has.
Senator Collins. Are you using better data, for lack of a
better word, as you look at the rest of the coast, learning
from the experience in Portland?
Ms. Knight. I can tell you, as we roll out with our next
generation map that we will definitely be looking at upgrading
the science, and that is our version called Risk Map. For the
maps that we have now, we have a plan that we work with the
communities and do the basic things, and a lot of communities
that have had more data, we have used more sophisticated
information. It would be nice to have real granular data
everywhere and it is simply not available at this point.
Senator Collins. But, see, that is exactly the problem. It
is shifting the burden onto the coastal communities in York and
Cumberland Counties to spend the money for consultants to
produce this data, and that is expensive and a lot of these
communities are cash strapped right now due to tough economic
times, and we have communities like Harpswell, for example,
which, believe it or not, has 200 miles of coast, even though
it is a very small community, just because of the way Maine's
coast is. There are so many little bays and inlets. We have the
town of Kennebunkport. It is projected that two-thirds of
Kennebunkport would be placed in a flood zone. That is a 50
percent increase from the current flood map.
The implications for new development, as the Chairmen have
both indicated, for the cost of flood insurance, are enormous
both for individuals and for the community, and that is why I
feel so strongly that the financial burden of providing the
data that would lead to the most accurate possible flood maps
shouldn't fall on the communities. It should be FEMA's
responsibility.
Ms. Knight. Well, to have the level of data in every
community on every map would far exceed the budget that we have
to work with because of the level of data that it would take to
do that. And again, in places we have it and opportunities
where we can work with, through cooperative technical
partnerships, then you can provide that data. You can provide
it to us anyway, but we can work with you and give you funds to
help do that if you have a technical source that understands
your situation better. Those are the vehicles right now that we
use. As we do the next generation maps, where we are looking at
where the highest risks are and where that precision needs to
be improved. We will be able to step up some of the engineering
tools and some of the data tools there.
Senator Collins. Well, I would ask that you continue to
work with me and the other Members of this Subcommittee----
Ms. Knight. We would be glad to.
Senator Collins [continuing]. To help communities tap into
that funding source, because for a community to have to spend
tens of thousands of dollars to produce data to challenge these
maps is really difficult during these tough economic times.
Thank you.
Senator Landrieu. Yes, and I would just add that it would
seem to me a more reasonable approach would be to develop the
maps together, in sort of a not adversarial, but in a
partnership, because that is what this is. It is a partnership
to keep our communities safe and to do it in the most
affordable way.
I would like to ask--this has been a very good panel. I
hope you can all stay to hear the second panel, because we have
to move to our second panel, and I would like to introduce just
one member of that panel and then turn it over to Chairman
Pryor to introduce the others.
But we thank you for your testimony. We are going to follow
up. We have just scratched the surface here, the tip of the
iceberg. We have many follow-up questions and I am going to ask
the Members to submit those for the record. But thank you all
very much.
If the other panel will come forward, Dr. Suhayda is the
Interim Director of the Louisiana State University Hurricane
Center. He recently chaired the Independent Technical Review
committee of the Joint FEMA-Corps of Engineers Storm Surge
Study. We are looking forward to his testimony.
If the others would please take their seats, Senator Pryor,
to keep us moving, will introduce you as you are seated. And
again, thank you all very much. Senator Pryor.
Senator Pryor. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I will go ahead
and introduce this panel as our staff sort of swaps out the
nameplates and resets the microphones, etc. I will be very
brief in my introduction, and I am going to introduce three of
the panelists. Senator Landrieu has already introduced one. And
then Senator Tester will introduce the fourth.
But I would like to begin by introducing Dr. David
Maidment. He is Director of the Center for Research in Water
Resources and Chair in Civil Engineering at the University of
Texas in Austin. He served as Chairman of the National Research
Council's Committee on Floodplain Mapping Technologies and FEMA
Flood Maps.
Our next witness is Sam Riley Medlock. She is Policy
Counsel for the Association of State Floodplain Managers and a
member of the National Committee on Levee Safety. Ms. Medlock
has over 18 years experience working on hazard mitigation and
environmental policy.
And finally, I would like to introduce Rob Rash. He is the
CEO and Chief Engineer of the St. Francis Levee District in
Arkansas. Mr. Rash is responsible for all operations of the St.
Francis Levee System, which extends in Northeast Arkansas and
covers seven counties with 235 miles of levee.
And Senator Tester has the last introduction.
Senator Tester. Well, thank you, Chairman Pryor.
It is my pleasure to introduce Representative Bob Mehlhoff.
Bob made a career out of being a math and science teacher.
After that, he ran and was elected to the State legislature,
the State House from the West side of Great Falls, where one of
the levee problems exists right now, so he can give us an on-
the-ground view of it. He is a decent guy and a fair softball
player. [Laughter.]
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Pryor. Alright. Great.
Well, since we are all set up here, Representative
Mehlhoff, why don't we start with you and go ahead and give
your testimony. And I think we would like a 5-minute opening
statement. If you could limit your statements to 5 minutes,
that would be great. And, of course, all of your written
statements will be placed in the record.
TESTIMONY OF THE HON. ROBERT MEHLHOFF,\1\ DISTRICT 26, MONTANA
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. Mehlhoff. Thank you, Senator Pryor, for inviting me
here, and Senator Landrieu, and also Senator Tester, thank you
for your kind comments about my softball ability. [Laughter.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Mehlhoff appears in the appendix
on page 62.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My name is Robert Mehlhoff and I am a State Representative
from District 26 in Montana. I represent the West Great Falls
Flood Control Drainage District and also the Vaughn Small
Drainage District.
For the sake of time, I will quote statistics from Great
Falls Levee only. The Vaughn Levee is smaller, but has
proportionately fewer properties.
The Great Falls Levee System is a 7.65-mile project. It is
designed, engineered, and constructed by the Corps of Engineers
and was completed in 1987 at a cost of over $10 million Federal
and $2 million local. The levee has been inspected annually by
the Army Corps and has passed every annual inspection. A
periodic or 5-year inspection was just completed, but we have
not received the results yet. We anticipate no problems in that
particular inspection, however.
Now the Flood District has been told that in addition to
the Army Corps' inspections, there will be new and costly
requirements from FEMA for levee accreditation from the
National Flood Insurance Program. At about the same time Great
Falls learned that FEMA will require accreditation for the
levees, we also learned that the Army Corps no longer performs
these accreditations. Without the Corps, the communities alone
will have to bear the cost of private engineering firms to
conduct this expensive study.
Since the levees were built, the Corps of Engineers have
accepted responsibility to ensure levee safety. In fact, other
levees in Montana have been certified by the Seattle District,
as was stated earlier by Senator Tester. The Army Corps and
FEMA's cooperation that had worked for decades no longer exists
and the losers are the levee districts that will be forced to
pay for these additional requirements.
The levee districts in Great Falls and Vaughn are small,
sparsely populated, and low-income areas. All together, there
are approximately 1,000 properties behind the nearly eight
miles of levees. Great Falls and Vaughn simply do not have the
population or the tax base to pay for these increased FEMA
requirements without the help of the Corps. As if there wasn't
enough, we are told that they may have to redo these expensive
studies every 5 to 10 years.
FEMA has asked Great Falls, the flood district, Cascade
County, to enter into a Provisionally Accredited Levee
Agreement, the PAL, with FEMA. The PAL would obligate the
community to accept full responsibility for levee certification
and the costs that come with it, and it would set a deadline of
2 years for the completion of certification process. If we do
not sign a PAL agreement, our levee will be de-accredited as
soon as FEMA's new maps go into effect. The flood insurance
will become prohibitively expensive for my low-income and
moderate-income constituents. We cannot afford the cost to pay
a private engineer to certify the levees, and we cannot afford
the flood insurance if we do not complete the certification
process. This dilemma is having a devastating effect on our
area.
I appreciate that the fact that FEMA and the Army Corps
have at least come to Great Falls to do some community
outreach, and we are grateful to Senator Tester for his work to
help bring representatives from these agencies to hear
firsthand from the community. But the fact remains that for
Great Falls and many other small cities and many other towns in
our country, we do not have the resources to fund our own levee
accreditation required by FEMA, and it should not take the
personal intervention of a U.S. Senator for FEMA and the Army
Corps to work together to hear from folks and to come up with
some decisions.
Because of the economy, folks in my district are having a
difficult time making ends meet. Many families could lose their
homes if large unanticipated costs are added to their monthly
expenses. People who want to sell their homes are finding fewer
prospective buyers willing to take a chance to purchase a home
in the affected area.
We had over 800 people show up, many in a Montana blizzard
with chill factors well below zero, to sign a request of our
Congressional delegation to find a solution. That is the degree
of concern that is out there.
We have had many meetings and conferences called with the
Corps and FEMA. We feel that the buck keeps getting passed back
and forth and we are not getting definite answers on what Corps
data can be used in the certification process. A decision on
what data can be used is essential to determine what FEMA
certification will cost our local community.
We need the Army Corps and FEMA to sit down, go through our
data, and determine if there is sufficient data for the two
agencies to certify our levee. The Army Corps of Engineers
needs to represent our interests in this process. Essentially,
our levees exist today as they did the day they were built. We
cannot understand why the Corps of Engineers will not or is not
allowed to stand by their work.
I would be happy to answer any questions. I have some
solutions that I have submitted and I would be more than
thankful that you guys did give us this opportunity, and I will
submit any information you request.
Senator Pryor. Thank you very much, and before we move to
the next witness, would you like to comment on Senator Tester's
softball ability? [Laughter.]
Senator Tester. That is out of order, Mr. Chairman.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Mehlhoff. A great third baseman. You don't want to be
anywhere around where that ball comes in from third base and
incoming to first base.
Senator Pryor. There you go. Good. Dr. Maidment.
TESTIMONY OF DAVID R. MAIDMENT,\1\ DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR
RESEARCH IN WATER RESOURCES, AND HUSSEIN M. ALHARTY CENTENNIAL
CHAIR IN CIVIL ENGINEERING, THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN;
AND CHAIR, COMMITTEE ON FLOODPLAIN MAPPING TECHNOLOGIES, AND
CHAIR, COMMITTEE ON FEMA FLOOD MAPS, NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL,
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Mr. Maidment. Good afternoon, Chairman Landrieu and
Chairman Pryor, and Senator Tester and Members of the
Subcommittees. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
It is an honor and privilege to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Maidment appears in the appendix
on page 64.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My name is David Maidment and I am the Director of the
Center for Research in Water Resources at the University of
Texas at Austin. I chaired two National Research Council
Committees concerning FEMA's floodplain maps. References to
these reports and more detailed arguments than I will present
today are contained in my written testimony. My testimony today
addresses the accuracy of FEMA floodplain maps.
FEMA has undertaken an ambitious program to provide the
Nation with coverage of digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The
first phase of this program, called Flood Map Modernization,
operated from 2003 to 2008, and a subsequent phase, called Risk
Map, is now in operation. The Committees that I chaired
assessed flood mapping practices during the Flood Map
Modernization period. I will begin with the work of the
Committee on Floodplain Mapping Technologies.
During the annual appropriations hearings for Flood Map
Modernization, concerns were expressed to Congress that the
underlying framework data used as input to the flood mapping
progress were not of adequate quality in much of the Nation to
properly support the creation of new digital flood maps. The
underlying framework data consists of two components: First,
land surface reference information that describes streams,
roads, buildings, and administrative boundaries; and second,
land service elevation information which defines the topography
or shape of the land's surface. The Committee concluded that
the land surface reference information, which is derived from
regularly updated aircraft imagery, is adequate to support
floodplain mapping. The land surface elevation information is,
however, more questionable.
The main source of land surface elevation information is
the National Elevation Dataset (NED), which is derived from
contour information in U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 1-to-
24,000 scale topographic maps which were made over a long
period and have an average date of 1970. FEMA's floodplain
mapping standards call for elevation data that is approximately
10 times more accurate than the data in the National Elevation
Dataset. This means that the National Elevation Dataset is too
old and inaccurate to use for floodplain mapping.
The committee concluded that a new National Digital
Elevation Data Collection Program (NDEP), which it named
Elevation for the Nation, is required, and that light detecting
and ranging (lidar) should be the primary technology for
acquiring digital elevation data. The data arising from
Elevation for the Nation might have many beneficial uses beyond
floodplain mapping and management.
Following completion of that study, FEMA and National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) asked the
National Research Council (NRC) to conduct a further study on
flood map accuracy and the Committee on FEMA Flood Maps was
formed. Key components of the uncertainty of flood mapping are
hydrology, how large is the flood flow, hydraulics, how deep is
the floodwater, and topography, what is the elevation and shape
of the land surface.
In collaboration with the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping
Program, the committee carried out detailed case studies to
compare hydrologic, hydraulic, and topographic uncertainties in
three physiographically significant mountain areas: The
mountainous west of North Carolina, the rolling hills in the
Piedmont Region of North Carolina, and in the very flat coastal
plain. We chose North Carolina for these case studies because
the State had already collected lidar data Statewide to support
its flood mapping efforts.
Now, I might also add that North Carolina's flood maps are
the best in the Nation. In my own State of Texas, half of the
counties have no digital floodplain maps.
The committee concluded that the largest effect by far on
the accuracy of the flood maps is the accuracy of the
topographic data. A comparison of light detecting and ranging
(lidar) data and the National Elevation Dataset around three
North Carolina streams revealed random and sometimes systematic
differences in ground elevation of about 12 feet, which
significantly affects predictions of the extent of flooding.
These large differences exceed FEMA's stated error tolerances
for terrain data by an order of magnitude.
As Risk Map develops, there has been a significant policy
shift by FEMA to emphasize collection of better land surface
elevation information as a precursor to further floodplain
mapping activities. FEMA is also moving from simply showing
where Flood Hazard Zones are to communicating flood risk for
individual structures by adding other information such as the
depth of flooding to the maps. The resulting flood maps should
be more accurate and informative and should address the
concerns with land surface elevation information identified by
the National Research Council Committees.
Thank you again for the opportunity of testifying today. I
will be happy to address your questions.
Senator Pryor. Thank you. Ms. Medlock.
TESTIMONY OF SAM RILEY MEDLOCK,\1\ POLICY COUNSEL, ASSOCIATION
OF STATE FLOODPLAIN MANAGERS, AND MEMBER, NATIONAL COMMITTEE ON
LEVEE SAFETY
Ms. Medlock. Thank you. My name is Sam Riley Medlock. I
represent the Association of State Floodplain Managers. First,
we thank Chairman Landrieu, Chairman Pryor, Senator Tester, and
the other Members of these Committees for your attention to the
issues related to our Nation's flood risk and levees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Medlock appears in the appendix
on page 69.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM) and its 29
chapters represent more than 14,000 State and local officials
and others who are the Federal Government's partners in the
national effort to identify and reduce the loss of life and
property in floods.
Today, my testimony addresses the challenges and
opportunities at the nexus of levees, flood maps, and flood
insurance. By holding this hearing on both levees and maps, the
Subcommittees recognizes the relationship between these two
issues, that they are intertwined. ASFPM appreciates that
recognition and would further add the interrelation of flood
insurance.
Because of concerns about flood insurance as an added cost,
we are now hearing calls to withhold maps, keep risk under
wraps, and pour more Federal money into flood control
structures as the only approach to dealing with flood hazards,
despite their demonstrated limitations and the residual risk
that exists behind levees. In fact, we must recognize that
areas behind levees are at risk from flooding. Although some
may deny that risk, resist safety notices on maps, argue that
their levees will never fail, and that folks behind those
levees do not need flood insurance, the simple fact is that
those areas behind levees are at risk and the American people
have a right to be informed of that risk and be given every
opportunity and tool to prepare themselves for the next flood.
The problem with these elements--maps, levees, and flood
insurance--have crystallized to create an important opportunity
for all of us this afternoon and through the National Policy
Dialogue to identify ways to better manage flood risk. Today,
at least four significant policy initiatives are underway that
can lead to a more complete and integrated flood risk
management approach for the Nation.
One is the National Committee on Levee Safety that was
mentioned earlier by Secretary Darcy. This Committee on Levee
Safety was created by the Water Resources Development Act of
2007. The committee has completed its report to Congress and is
in the process of developing legislative recommendations. I
represent the ASFPM on that committee.
Additionally, FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate has launched
a comprehensive initiative to reconsider or rethink the
National Flood Insurance Program, actively seeking bold ideas.
We look forward to hearing back from FEMA on that initiative
with substantive recommendations for policy and even
legislative reform in the next couple of years and urge your
timely attention to that when those recommendations for reform
come through.
Additionally, the administration recently reestablished the
Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force (FIFMTF),
which had been dormant for 15 years but has great potential to
unite the Federal family, not just Corps and FEMA, but also
those agencies that put tremendous Federal resources behind
levees.
And then, last, the Council on Environmental Quality is
working to redesign the fundamental principles and guidelines
associated with big national water policy and projects.
In the time that I have left, I would like to raise three
important issues, one being that levees have too long been the
sole tool, the biggest tool, the most visible tool that State
and local governments and Federal leadership goes toward to
manage flood risk. That, combined with the 1 percent or so-
called 100-year flood standard, has, if you will, painted State
and local government into the situation, into the corner in
which we find ourselves today. When you add to that the
accreditation, a needed consideration of the state of the
Nation's levees along with the requirements under the National
Flood Insurance Program, we recognize that there are real
concerns that communities have and that families and businesses
have with that flood insurance requirement and would point to
some very bold initiatives and ideas that are emerging from
this national dialogue.
For example, levee districts could obtain group flood
insurance policies to protect every property owner or structure
in that leveed area, pool those premiums, but it would also
engage those policy holders in the health and maintenance of
that levee in order to keep premiums affordable. Additionally,
that same approach could be used by communities.
In closing, we would request permission to submit more
detailed comments into the record after today's hearing and
look forward to answering your questions.
Senator Pryor. Thank you.
Mr. Rash, I know that you have someone else who is with you
from the Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association, George
Grugett. I know you wanted me to recognize him, but go ahead.
We would love to hear your testimony.
TESTIMONY OF ROBERT G. RASH,\1\ CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
CHIEF ENGINEER, ST. FRANCIS LEVEE DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
Mr. Rash. Yes, sir. Thank you. Madam Chairman and Mr.
Chairman, other Members of the Subcommittee, Senator Tester, I
would like to thank you for the invitation to be here today.
Thank you very much. And I would like to discuss the concerns
that we as local citizens have with the FEMA Flood Map
Modernization process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Rash appears in the appendix on
page 77.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My name is Rob Rash and I am the Professional Engineer
currently serving as the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief
Engineer of the St. Francis Levee District of Arkansas. Our
headquarters are in West Memphis, Arkansas, and I maintain 235
miles of levee, 160 miles of Mississippi River mainline levee
and 75 miles of St. Francis Basin tributary levees. It may be
important to note that our district began in 1893, and so we
have been around quite some time.
These levees are part of the Mississippi River and
Tributaries Flood Control Project, which contains a total of
3,787 miles of levees, along with other structures, such as
flood walls, reservoirs, pumping plants, floodplains,
diversions, and every other proven method to prevent flooding
from the 41 percent of the waters of the United States that
flow to the Gulf of Mexico.
Since the MR&T project is a unique, one-of-a-kind Federal
flood control project, let me say that the law that established
this project states the project for flood control of the
Mississippi River and its alluvial valleys is adopted and
authorized as set forth and recommended in the report submitted
by the Chief of Engineers in House Document 90. That document
states that the flood used to design this plain is predicted by
the Weather Bureau as the maximum possible and by the
Mississippi River Commission (MRC) as the maximum probable
flood.
For the sake of time, I have not quoted the law nor the
document exactly or in their entirety. It may be well to
partially quote a little more of the law that says that the
works and outlets constructed under the provisions of this Act
shall be built in a manner and of a character which fully and
amply protect the adjacent lands. This law and this project has
served the country well, because for the last 82 years, no
project levee built to MRC standards has ever failed, despite
major floods in nine of those years, some of those record
proportions.
As I am sure, the flood maps are not new to us. The thing
is that the new fact of the flood maps is the area behind the
levees, within the boundaries of the St. Francis Levee District
of Arkansas, were shown as a Zone X on the old maps and are now
shown as a Shaded Zone X. The Zone X was a 500-year level of
protection, which was adequately shown, as you show here,
Senator Pryor. We are now in a Shaded Zone X area which does
not mandate flood insurance but strongly recommends it. This
recommendation and history show us that when a Federal entity
requests or recommends flood insurance, Federal mortgage
companies follow suit.
The millions of citizens and those that now inhabit the
alluvial valley of the lower Mississippi River have paid levee
taxes for over 100 years. They consider that these taxes have
been paid in lieu of flood insurance. The levee taxes are
collected and expended by the levee boards to finance the day-
to-day operations and maintenance of these levees and is of
great concern to us and the citizens of the valley that are not
going to pay flood insurance and levee taxes. The local
people's investment in our local levee system since we began
building them in the early 1800s is in excess of $17 billion,
which includes the original levee, the construction of the
original levee and the maintenance of these levees for the last
150 years.
In conclusion, my letter of invitation to appear before you
asked for my recommendations. My first recommendation will be
that FEMA use the best engineering and hydraulic information
available in the revisions of the Flood Rate Insurance Maps and
that they discontinue the practice of considering that every
Flood Protection Area in the Nation as being the same when, in
fact, they are different.
FEMA needs to take into consideration what has been done to
protect against floods and they also need to consider what the
demands for the sale of more and more flood insurance will have
on the economy of this Nation. The MR&T deserves a separate
designation on all Flood Insurance Rate Maps that clearly state
that protection is above the 500-year flood and no insurance is
required.
We are aware of the need that FEMA has to collect funds,
but we are also aware of the consequences their present actions
will have on the future of this Nation, especially in the rich
alluvial valleys that produce so much that is necessary in our
day-to-day lives, including, but not limited to, the majority
of the food and fiber required for this country.
The Mississippi River is a critical natural resource and
one of our Nation's greatest assets. At 2,320 miles, it ranks
as one of the largest rivers, supplying 18 million people with
drinking water and linking agricultural, timber, coal, and
other producers to markets around the world. Each year, the
Mississippi River Valley generates more than $12 billion in
agriculture and forest products and $213 billion in
manufacturing goods. The return on the Federal investment for
the MR&T project is 27-to-1. It is the finest flood control
project in the country, and I ask that you please recognize
that in the flood map updates.
That concludes my statement and I will answer any questions
that you may have.
Senator Pryor. Thank you. Dr. Suhayda.
TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH N. SUHAYDA,\1\ INTERIM DIRECTOR, LOUISIANA
STATE UNIVERSITY HURRICANE CENTER, AND CHAIRMAN, INDEPENDENT
TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE, FEMA/USACE LOUISIANA STORM SURGE
STUDY
Mr. Suhayda. Thank you very much. Senator Landrieu, it is
good to see you again, Chairman Pryor and Senator Tester. My
name is Joe Suhayda. I am the Interim Director of the Louisiana
State University (LSU) Hurricane Center. I want to describe
some recent experience of the State of Louisiana and the
communities within that State as a result of both Katrina and
then the remapping effort on the part of the Federal
Government, and then the reconstruction of many of the levee
systems that are critical to Louisiana.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Suhayda appears in the appendix
on page 80.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A lot has been happening in Louisiana. Most of the stories
you can tell around the country, I think I can top, but I
won't. But we do have a wealth of experience. I did serve as
the Chairman of the Technical Review Committee and participated
in the preparation of the maps for Louisiana. I also worked
with several of the communities when it came to appeal the
maps. So I saw how they were prepared and how it impacted the
communities. My knowledge that I brought to the process,
because I participated in it, was critical to the success that
we have so far had in dealing with the appeal process in FEMA.
In terms of the accuracy of the maps, we did find a number
of local topographic and bathymetric issues that limited the
accuracy of the maps. Senator Collins and Dr. Knight referred
to the local effects and the lack of ability to pay for what is
needed to be done at the local level. In many cases, we had the
data at the local level already.
We had concerns, also, with the mapping of the stillwater,
which is part of the coastal evaluation, and the wave heights.
The model being used, called the Wave Height Analysis for Flood
Insurance Studies (WHAFIS) model, we believe is not appropriate
for Louisiana. We believe the complexity of the coast exceeds
the ability of that model. The Corps does not use that model in
its own assessment for the levee protections.
We also had questions with regard to the procedural issues.
Did FEMA's contractors follow FEMA's guidelines? We felt
obliged to follow the guidelines in preparing the appeal. We
found inconsistencies when we looked through the details
between what the contractor did originally and then what the
guidelines were.
As far as mechanisms for resolution, dispute resolution, we
have evolved to the point now where, as a result of the
involvement of Senator Vitter, there have been a series of
meetings set up outside of the normal, I would say, appeal
process procedure, where we have met with the technical people
that created the maps, the contractors, and related some very
detailed criticisms and suggestions for change.
The maps are being changed. I feel like we made a big step
forward. My concern is that the accommodation that FEMA has
made to our concerns in Louisiana are ad hoc, that the next
time we do this, and I will mention that there is going to be a
next time, I am not sure that we have a new protocol for
dealing with appeal issues. But certainly things are improving
in terms of interacting with FEMA.
Levee inspection, I just want to use, and levee
certification, a couple of examples. We have had levees that
were in the past, in a sense, certified for 100-year protection
at a fixed elevation. The criteria changed. Hence, these levees
no longer were certifiable. Hence, they are taken out of the
analysis of flood protection. So we have communities right now
that have had levee protection for a number of years, that had
the Base Flood Elevation at three feet. Under the new maps,
they have 11 feet, and the irony is, outside the levee system,
the stillwater is 11 feet. It is like the levees don't even
exist. So the Federal Government and the local community have
cost shared on levees that are not included in the analysis.
Plaquemines Parish, we have BFEs in some of the protected
areas that are 18 feet, and I just am trying to estimate here.
I think 18 feet is close to the ceiling elevation of this room.
That is how high the new buildings would have to be built.
In terms of coastal restoration projects and non-levee
structures, Louisiana is replete with roadways and railroads
and other non-levee structures that should be included in the
analysis that get unequal treatment. We have coastal
restoration projects that we are planning in terms of barrier
restoration, in terms of ridge restoration, that we believe
should be treated through a process similar to levee
certification so that we could certify these coastal features.
And just to conclude, I do believe that a Cooperative
Technical Partnership is the means for preparing the State of
Louisiana to take over more responsibility and be more
involved, because we will be revising the maps and redoing the
area around New Orleans in the 2012 to 2013 time period when
the new levees are completed.
Thank you very much.
Senator Landrieu. [Presiding.] Thank you.
Chairman Pryor, I appreciate you allowing me just to make a
brief statement. Unfortunately, I am going to have to slip out,
but I just wanted to thank our witnesses. I really appreciate
your testimony. I was particularly moved by, Mr. Rash, your
testimony about the effort that your community has undergone
since 1892. I mean, New Orleans will be celebrating its 300th
year in 2018, and literally for 300 years, the people of New
Orleans and surrounding areas have been building levees and
investing millions and millions and billions and billions of
dollars, and we have to find a way in this country to honor
that and respect the money that the taxpayers have already paid
and not require them on top of all that to pay exorbitant
insurance rates, as well. I mean, that is the problem.
And under insurance rates now, which I am going to submit
for the record, many of my constituents--this started before
Hurricane Katrina, but it really came to a head after
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita--I cannot tell you the number of
people that have come to me and said, ``Senator, I can afford
my mortgage. I cannot afford my insurance.'' They are paying
taxes to a levee district. They are paying exorbitant insurance
rates. And we have to find a better way, whether it is along
the Mississippi, for which we are very appreciative and
understand it is very unique, the Mississippi River and its
tributary system, which you beautifully outlined.
And so, Ms. Medlock, I would just say that I look forward,
and I think the Chairman and I both look forward to working
with you and your Association to try to find a better way, more
community input, more local input, more support for the
communities, one size doesn't fit all, honor the money that has
already been spent, and try to find an affordable way for this
country to have safe communities and peace of mind. And we know
that levees aren't the only answer, but when we build them,
they shouldn't break or bust or be breached, and we are looking
internationally.
I will tell you--I will conclude with this--I hope that
Assistant Secretary Darcy will accompany me to the Netherlands,
where they protect their people from floods that might occur
once every 10,000 years, and they do it in a very affordable
manner and they don't have, or haven't had since 1953, a
massive flood. We can't seem to be able to afford or find a way
to protect our people from one every 100 years and are
struggling with the one to every 500 years and have people
building 20 feet above the ground. Senior citizens, the
disabled community, I mean, they are having serious issues with
what is happening to us on the coastal area. I can only
imagine, Senator, in your State of Montana and inland in
Arkansas.
But this really is a big problem, and I thank Senator Pryor
for joining me in this effort. It is not going to be easy, but
it is imperative that we find some solutions here for our
people. And I thank you and I am sorry that I have to leave
early.
Senator Pryor. [Presiding.] Thank you, Senator Landrieu.
Thank you for your leadership, and I am glad you were able to
stay as long as you did.
I have a few questions here and I think I would like to
start with Mr. Rash. Mr. Rash, you see this map up here of
Marion, Arkansas, which is, if I understand it, it is inside
your territory----
Mr. Rash. Yes, sir.
Senator Pryor [continuing]. The St. Francis Levee
District----
Mr. Rash. Actually, my house is on that map.
Senator Pryor. Is that right?
Mr. Rash. Yes, sir.
Senator Pryor. How much of your territory that is in the
St. Francis Levee District, how much of your territory is in
the new Shaded Zone X on the maps?
Mr. Rash. The three counties that are being remapped right
now are completely shown in the Shaded Zone X within our
district. If all seven counties in our district were remapped,
they would all be shown in a Shaded Zone X, at best.
Senator Pryor. Can you give us a sense of what your
experience has been with FEMA and the Corps of Engineers during
this process?
Mr. Rash. Senator, we had a meeting--I will go back 2 years
ago--that you set up in our office with FEMA representatives to
sit down and discuss these very issues about the Shaded Zone X
and the delineation of the Shaded Zone X. They listened to our
concerns and we did not hear back.
However, we did have a meeting Monday. We did have a
meeting Monday with FEMA representatives in Washington, D.C.,
about the very same issues. The concern is that the actual
flood maps are complete in our area. They just have not become
effective. But the entire area in Crittendon County within our
district is shown as a Shaded Zone X. We have voiced our
concerns. We were told Monday that the map will go out as is,
and we have some concerns about the delineation, as we have had
all along, the delineation of that Shaded Zone X because of
the--when you look back at other areas, the 1927 flood, you can
see the areas that were submerged and that should follow that
Shaded Zone X, which is what we recommended to FEMA.
So our process has been somewhat cumbersome, but they have
worked with us recently very well.
Senator Pryor. OK. Can you tell the Subcommittee here how
often local communities in your area face issues of flooding?
Mr. Rash. Senator, I heard mention of the area in
Millington and the 10 to 12 inches of rain that they received
and were flooded. We received 8 to 10 inches of rain in that
time period. We had some homes that were flooded, but certainly
nothing from the riverine flooding that is portrayed on these
Flood Insurance Maps from the Mississippi River. So we have
these 8 to 10-inch rains.
I would like to mention that Cedar Rapids and the effects
there in the Northern part of the country, we saw, I think we
probably all saw some of the levee breaches there. I want to
point out that the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project,
it is designed for 41 percent of the continental United States,
everything from the Continental Divide in Colorado to the
Western tip of New York State and even two Canadian provinces.
Any rainfall event that occurs in that area comes right by our
house in Arkansas. So that system is set up in a much different
dynamic than anything else in the country.
And so my entire concern, and you well know this, the
entire concern is that as these isolated flooding events, as
occurred in Millington and in Nashville and in other areas, in
41 percent of the continental United States, you will have
isolated flooding events. However, when it came past our house
within the confines of the floodway, within the confines of
that, we still had 18 feet of levee remaining as that river
crested with the results of all those isolated flooding events.
So it is a different dynamic. It is a different project and
we don't feel that FEMA is adequately reflecting that level of
protection. I have heard mention of the 100-year level of
protection and the 100-year flood and how it is portrayed on
the maps. There is nothing that portrays anything from 100
years up, and the areas in our entire district have been taken
out of that 500-year flood zone, or 500-year flood protected
area and placed in this Shaded Zone X, which gives an element
of concern that does not exist.
Senator Pryor. I have a couple more questions for you, and
then I am going to turn it over to Senator Tester, and then I
have a few follow-ups with the rest of the panel.
You said in your opening statement that you think the
Mississippi River and Tributaries, MR&T, should either be
exempted from the flood mapping or at least treated
differently.
Mr. Rash. Yes, sir.
Senator Pryor. Is that why, because of the huge Federal
investment and basically because of the track record of the
system?
Mr. Rash. Yes, sir. And I understand the need that FEMA has
mentioned and that Congress has mentioned of warning people of
the risk, and I understand that. We want it accurately warned.
I have seen the number on the 26 percent chance of having flood
events occur in a 30-year mortgage. That is a blanket
probability or statistic across the country. It applies the
very same in Denver, Colorado, as it does in the Everglades.
And so the difference in the two, it is not taken into account,
the protective measures that are there.
And the MR&T has a history of protection and it needs--in
my opinion, there needs to be a separate designation that says
this area protected by the Mississippi River and Tributaries
Project, that would serve the purpose of warning people of the
risk of living behind the levee, but it would also say that
this area is protected above the 500-year level of protection.
Senator Pryor. Let me ask one last question to you, and
that is on the map that we have there that has the Shaded Zone
X, the whole map is shaded gray area, there is that note that
encourages people to purchase flood insurance. What is your
concern about basically this entire county and other counties
like it being in the Shaded Zone X?
Mr. Rash. We had a meeting in West Memphis. It was June 21,
2010, and representatives from FEMA Region VI came to display
the flood maps. And even the FEMA representative there in his
presentation made this statement, that FEMA is--their minimum
standard is to recommend flood insurance in the Shaded Zone X
area, but they are finding that the lenders, the mortgage
companies, are requiring it. And so our concern was solidified
by that statement.
Senator Pryor. So here you have the problem of people
paying their levee taxes----
Mr. Rash. Yes, sir.
Senator Pryor [continuing]. Paying for their levee
district, paying for the protection, and then also having to
pay flood insurance.
Mr. Rash. Yes, sir. And in the MR&T and in our entire levee
system, please understand that there is a $13 billion Federal
investment in that system and there is a $17 billion investment
of local people's money in that system over the last 100 years,
115 or 150, depending on the area you are looking at. So it was
noted in the 1928 Flood Control Act that there was no cost
sharing to be done by the local people because they had already
paid their cost share up front. So the money expended by the
local people from 1928 to now is the day-to-day operations and
the maintenance on these levee systems themselves, and those
are substantial investments.
Senator Pryor. Senator Tester.
Senator Tester. As long as Senator Pryor has you warmed up,
Mr. Rash, we will keep going.
Mr. Rash. Yes, sir.
Senator Tester. You said you live up in this area.
Mr. Rash. Yes, sir.
Senator Tester. When did it change from the diagram on your
left to the Shaded Zone X?
Mr. Rash. The map, I believe, becomes effective October 6.
We were granted a 90-day extension, so----
Senator Tester. October 6?
Mr. Rash. Yes, sir.
Senator Tester. On the map on the left, did you need to buy
flood insurance?
Mr. Rash. No, sir.
Senator Tester. You did not. The map on the right, you are
saying the realtors are saying you have to buy health
insurance--you have to buy flood insurance?
Mr. Rash. Yes, sir. It is--the indication is that the
mortgage companies will require it.
Senator Tester. Did anything change with the levees?
Mr. Rash. No, sir. As a matter of fact, we have received 58
continuous outstanding maintenance awards from the Corps of
Engineers, 58 straight years on those levees.
Senator Tester. OK. Do you have a loan on your house?
Mr. Rash. Yes, sir, I do.
Senator Tester. Are you going to have to buy flood
insurance?
Mr. Rash. Yes, sir.
Senator Tester. Do you have any idea what flood insurance
is going to cost you?
Mr. Rash. I do not, actually. I was looking at this
preferred risk policy, which under that Shaded Zone X and
because the levees are certified, we would fall under that, and
it states here that for a $100,000 home, it is about $600 per
year.
Senator Tester. OK. Thank you very much.
Mr. Rash. Yes, sir.
Senator Tester. Before I go on with some questions for
Representative Mehlhoff, I do want to say thanks to Secretary
Darcy and Dr. Knight for being here for this portion. I very
much appreciate you folks sticking around. That speaks well of
you.
Representative Mehlhoff, I appreciate you coming here. As I
said earlier, it is a long ways from Montana to Washington,
D.C. I also appreciate your tireless effort on this issue for
your constituents.
You have seen in the levee certification inspection from a
local perspective. Would you please let me know or explain to
me what you see as a potential solution?
Mr. Mehlhoff. Thank you, Senator Tester, for your efforts,
too, on this. What I would see from the local perspective that
we have is, first of all, we are also--our flood levee system
was designed for a 500-year flood, and we have had very little
change in our area over the years. Like, some areas have an
awful lot of new development. Ours looks about like it did 50
years ago. So we have had very little change upstream. In fact,
modern farm practices with no-till farming is holding the
moisture even more in place, which should result in even less
chance of runoff in the spring.
But what I see as a solution to this is the Corps of
Engineers needs to take over responsibility for levee
certification. The Corps has the data all the way back to the
construction of our two levee systems in Cascade County, plus
data from annual and periodic inspections.
Second, when the annual and periodic inspections are
completed, the Army Corps should require their contractors to
collect enough data to meet FEMA's certification requirements.
That would result in a great cost savings to our local
taxpayers.
Third, the local levee district elected officials need to
be given back their original responsibility of overseeing levee
maintenance only. They are, for the most part, unpaid people
that thought when they took the job for the local districts
their only responsibility was going to be to maintaining
levees, and that is a very good responsibility for them because
they see the levees on a day-to-day basis. Now they are told
they are the owners, they are responsible, and they have some
liability problems, and they are saying, wait a minute. We are
not getting paid for doing this and we are risking personal
liability problems? That is a real dilemma.
And last, the Corps of Engineers should do a risk
assessment on all Corps-sponsored levees around the Nation and
FEMA should exempt levee systems designed to withstand a 100-
year or more flood that the Corps deemed to be of low risk.
Everybody is being treated as one here, one shoe fits all,
and has been said by Mr. Rash, that is the problem that we are
facing, is that is not the case in many areas. Some areas have
levees that do have a lot of problems, but our area and
apparently Mr. Rash's area are living under levees that have
been well maintained and should be put in a different category
to make the certification process much easier.
Senator Tester. Thank you. Before I head out, and I
appreciate those recommendations, I want to thank everybody on
this panel. I usually ask everybody a question or two, but the
fact is, I think, that the explanations you gave from your
perspectives add a lot to this hearing and they are critically
important.
I would like to think this issue will be resolved after we
come back from the August recess, but I have a notion it won't
be, and so I appreciate you folks presenting your opinion and
being open to talk about the situation from your perspective.
So thank you all for being here.
Senator Pryor. Thank you, Senator Tester.
I have a few follow-up questions. You all don't worry about
those buzzes there. That is just telling us what is going on
the floor.
Let me start, if I may--I will go ahead and start with you,
Ms. Medlock, because I have a question about this sheet here\1\
and I just don't understand the policy, the rates, how they are
set, etc. But, for example, you have seen in this map here in
Marion, Arkansas, you see that we are in the Zone X, the shaded
area there, what we call Shaded Zone X. And if I understand
this right, if you are in--say you have a $100,000 home and you
are in Zone A, which is within the 100-year floodplain, if you
are in Zone A, it is going to be $794 a year. But if you are in
Zone X, it is going to be $593 per year. So that is still about
70 percent of the higher-risk flood area. Do you know how these
rates are set?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Chart referenced by Senator Pryor appears in the appendix on
page 46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Medlock. Well, first, I would draw on the expertise of
FEMA folks and folks within the Flood Insurance Administration
to give detailed response. But generally, based on my expertise
and experience on this, and also as Dr. Knight explained
earlier that it is based on the characteristics that are there
and you have basic rates that are set, and then the policies
are rated farther based on things that are unique to that
structure, for example, its proximity to the flooding source
and, importantly, its depth.
If I understand your question, it sounds like--and I might
ask you to clarify it, but it sounds like you are asking, if
you are outside of an identified Special Flood Hazard Area----
Senator Pryor. Right.
Ms. Medlock [continuing]. Then what is that risk based on.
Senator Pryor. Right.
Ms. Medlock. OK. I sensed that, and basically what it comes
down to is the fact that there is still residual risk. And even
if you are outside a Special Flood Hazard Area, particularly if
you are in an area subject to inundation when a levee fails,
you have still got a risk back there, and the policies and the
rates and the premiums are going to reflect that risk.
Senator Pryor. I understand that. I think what troubles me
about this is there is not a very big change. Again, it is
about a 70 percent difference, or it is a difference of $593
versus $794, and I haven't done the math, but that seems to be
about 70 percent or so to me. That if you are in, say, a 500-
year flood area versus a 100-year flood area, it would seem to
me there would be a really big drop-off in your premium because
the risk would be so much less. Is that not how it works?
Ms. Medlock. It will vary a little bit. And again, I am
answering based on my expertise as a Certified Floodplain
Manager (CFM) for 9 or 10 years. But the difference between the
so-called 100-year and the so-called 500-year really may not
actually be that different because the ratings are not just
about probability. The ratings are also about the value of the
property that is at risk. And for a more detailed response than
that, I would really need to rely on the experts within the
Flood Insurance Administration or do some more digging.
Senator Pryor. Right. I mean, I understand that, but you
can just see, given these maps, see the really dark gray areas?
Those would be the Zone A areas. And then the lighter gray, the
shaded areas would be the Zone X areas. And you can see they
are right next to each other. In terms of the property values,
they really shouldn't be all that significantly different,
maybe a little bit here and there, but not that significant. It
is one community. But nonetheless, we can follow up on that
more for our previous panel in written questions.
Let me ask you, Dr. Suhayda, as I understand your testimony
before, you were saying that someone that you are aware of went
through the appeal process. Was that someone locally down
there?
Mr. Suhayda. There have been about five different
communities that did submit a formal appeal and are in the
process of being resolved.
Senator Pryor. How does that appeal process work?
Mr. Suhayda. There was usually a pre-release of the digital
Flood Insurance Maps, well before the 90-day official period
started so that the communities had some forewarning of what
the maps might look like.
Senator Pryor. Were those posted on the Internet or were
they sent to the courthouse or how did people get hold of
those?
Mr. Suhayda. Those, as I participated in, were actually
delivered at a meeting that FEMA called to give a preview. Then
there was the official time when those maps were released to
the community that triggered the 90-day appeal period. But we
had already seen the maps before that, in most cases.
Senator Pryor. OK. And then if you wanted to appeal, if you
didn't agree with what was on the map, how did you actually go
through that appeal?
Mr. Suhayda. As described by Dr. Knight, we would look for
technical and scientific deficiencies. We were able to redo
many of the wave calculations, and in some cases storm surge
calculations, which are required, and then submit updated BFEs.
That is, we redid certain panels----
Senator Pryor. When you say ``we''----
Mr. Suhayda. The community, the individual parishes----
Senator Pryor. And you paid for that?
Mr. Suhayda. They spent an aggregate about $1 million. It
ran about $250,000 to $300,000 per community to do this.
Senator Pryor. So the communities paid for that out of
their resources, whatever----
Mr. Suhayda. That is correct. Just to illustrate a point,
the V Zone issue for the State tied up, and I am using rough
numbers because they were never real clear, hundreds of
millions of dollars of public assistance projects. So there was
no doubt that there was going to be a strong motivation on the
part of our parishes to at least look into the validity of
those V Zone designations.
Senator Pryor. OK. And then what do you do? Do you write a
letter to FEMA? How does the appeal process actually work?
Mr. Suhayda. We prepared an appeal report, which is a
detailed presentation of criticism, identification of
deficiencies, and then presentation of new data, and then a
replacement set of calculations, and then ultimately the new
flood zones and elevations. So we had to recompute the flood
zones and elevations within the 90 days.
Senator Pryor. And that was all at your own expense?
Mr. Suhayda. All at the community's expense.
Senator Pryor. And how much did the maps change after your
appeal process?
Mr. Suhayda. We are not through all of them. The first
response we are getting related to Cameron Parish is that many
of the V Zones appear to be remapped in a subsequent set of
maps as A Zones, and that was a major issue for Cameron Parish.
Senator Pryor. And so that is an improvement?
Mr. Suhayda. That is an improvement. I think more accurate,
but it also addresses the expenditure of this public assistance
money not only for the current situation, but the next time we
have a problem in Cameron Parish. The V Zone issue now, I
think, has been properly addressed.
Senator Pryor. Was there ever a third party? I mean, I know
you had to hire a third party, but was there a third party that
participated in this appeal in terms of someone who reviewed
FEMA's work versus your work, or did FEMA just evaluate the
work that you turned in to them?
Mr. Suhayda. They evaluate it, but, of course, they have a
number of contractors. They have a separate contractor,
separate from the contractor that developed the maps, they have
a separate contractor that handles appeals. And so we dealt
with the contractor that deals with appeals directly.
Senator Pryor. And did you feel that you were being treated
fairly during the appeal process? I know they are not all over
yet, but so far, have you felt like you have been dealt with
fairly?
Mr. Suhayda. I would say it started off kind of slow, but
did improve and that we are at a point now where I think our
involvement is much more effective than the first, actually
within the 90 days.
Senator Pryor. And how long has the appeal been going on?
The appeals, how long have they been going on?
Mr. Suhayda. Oh, my gosh, some of them--we submitted the--a
year or more, in some cases 18 months.
Senator Pryor. Is there any sort of stay in the meantime in
terms of flood insurance and other issues?
Mr. Suhayda. Yes. Until we get that letter of final
determination, we are in the process of dealing with appeal
issues. And then there is, of course, a six-month period of
time after that before they have to be enacted, so----
Senator Pryor. I think you are touching on something that
FEMA can't fix right now, or no one else can fix right now
except the Congress, and that is that I think that there is
something that we need to fix, and that is FEMA pretty much
controls this whole process, start to finish. They get the
Corps of Engineers to do the technical work on the maps. FEMA
makes decisions on the maps. They run the Flood Insurance
Program. They set the premiums. They feel like they have a
fiduciary duty under the Flood Insurance Program. If there is
an appeal, it goes to FEMA, and if it is not FEMA itself, there
is a FEMA contracted entity, whoever that may be.
I just think that FEMA controls this process from start to
finish and I am not sure that is healthy, especially
considering the fact that FEMA has, quite frankly, an incentive
to sell insurance, sell flood insurance. But that is not really
the subject of this hearing because that might actually fall
under the Banking Committee in terms of reworking the National
Flood Insurance Program, which I think we probably need to do
much sooner rather than later.
Let me ask you, Mr. Mehlhoff--again, thank you for coming
from Montana--have you had any dealings with FEMA during this
process?
Mr. Mehlhoff. Yes, Senator, I have, and I would just like
to say that your last comments, I totally agree with. I think
that is something that needs to be done.
FEMA has come to Great Falls two different times to meet
with us. We have been told different things each time they are
in. We seem to have a moving target on acceptable data. At
their first meeting, they seemed to say that the data you
originally had when the levee was certified should work for
certification. The next time, they started backtracking on what
they said. Now, we are not exactly sure where we stand.
We haven't had a flood since these levees were built in
1978, when they were finished--or 1987, I am sorry. Our last
flood was in 1975. So the data that was originally given to us
should be workable, but nobody seems to be able to make that
decision to say, yes, go ahead. We can accept what you have, or
you need this, this, and this, and then we are ready to go.
Senator Pryor. I think we have had that experience in
Arkansas, too. I have heard from Mr. Rash and many others who
have been in the process that it has been very hard to get
clear guidance and clear communication from FEMA on how all
this is going to work, and there are a lot of particulars that
seem to change.
Did you want to add to that, Mr. Rash, before I move on?
Mr. Rash. Yes, sir. We have worked with FEMA, as well, on
the certification process. We currently have sections of levee
on the tributary that are awaiting analysis on the Corps'
recommendation for that certification and how it is going to be
interpreted by FEMA.
I would like to say something else. Dr. Knight has been
very helpful and worked with us recently on some of these
issues, so I do want to say that and that we did meet with them
Monday. We went through a number of issues that we have
addressed here today and they are looking at them. But we have
worked with them much better recently and they have been much,
much more receptive to our concerns.
I also would like to say that I left out earlier, not one
acre of area protected by MR&T levees has ever had--has flooded
since 1928, since the Federal Government took over the
construction of them.
Senator Pryor. OK. Let me ask, Mr. Rash, while I have you,
one last question for you, and that is tell us--you have how
many miles of levee in your system?
Mr. Rash. Two-hundred-and-thirty-five in the St. Francis--
in our district.
Senator Pryor. OK. And your district also connects with
other districts, is that right?
Mr. Rash. That is correct, sir.
Senator Pryor. And what would happen if, say,
hypothetically, there is a district that is not in yours, but
in an adjacent district that may have a problem, even if it is
a minor problem, and they can't get their levee, whether it be
certified or whatever the technical term may be. What impact
would that have on you?
Mr. Rash. Well, we are waiting on that very determination
now in that scenario, Senator. We have an area north of us in
Dunklin County, Missouri, that has been found under these new
guidelines to be inferior and have issues and problems. The
Corps--originally, we started off where the entire area was
going to be decertified, everything downstream. Since then, the
Corps has done some analysis to show the actual effects if
there were a levee breach. They have done a breach analysis on
that particular section of levee. We are waiting for FEMA to
decide what the ultimate effects on the other hydrologically
connected sections are going to be.
The best case scenario is that the area of confinement
where the breach analysis shows to be affected would receive
the higher rate or the higher Special Flood Hazard Area
designation. The remainder would get an acceptable rating and
be certified.
The worst case scenario is that the entire 111 miles of
levee would be decertified and everything that would be
protected by that would be in the highest rate of insurance or
the highest flood risk. And it could fall anywhere in between
and it is based on how FEMA takes the Corps--how FEMA
interprets the Corps recommendation.
Senator Pryor. OK. And do you know when you will find out
how that is going to be resolved?
Mr. Rash. I do not, Senator. When we talked Monday with
FEMA, they did say that they were under--they had just received
the report. In all fairness, they just received the report and
so they are looking at all of the aspects of it and told us
that they would get back to us on their determination.
Senator Pryor. OK. Dr. Maidment, let me ask you, this is
from my standpoint a technical question. For you, it may be
just a lay question. But there is a term called Base Flood
Elevation.
Mr. Maidment. Mm-hmm.
Senator Pryor. And if I am not mistaken, in Arkansas, we
don't have a Base Flood Elevation. It is not determined. Is
that right?
Mr. Maidment. Well, the determination of whether a map has
a Base Flood Elevation or not is made----
Senator Pryor. And can you tell us the significance of that
as you are explaining what it means?
Mr. Maidment. OK. So Base Flood Elevation is that elevation
that the water will achieve when a 1 percent annual flood
happens. So if the 100-year flood happens, it refers to the
water service elevation above a geodetic data. I mean, that is
what the term Base Flood Evaluation means.
The significance of that is the term that is used by local
entities for regulating floodplain development. So the houses
have to have their base--their first floor elevation above the
Base Flood Elevation, sometimes just immediate or sometimes a
foot above the Base Flood Elevation.
Senator Pryor. OK. Well, we have--I guess on this map, I am
looking at Zone A. It says, no Base Flood Elevation determined,
but then Zone AE, it said Base Flood Elevation is determined.
Mr. Maidment. That is right. So AE means you have Base
Flood Elevations and A means you don't.
Senator Pryor. OK. Based on that Base Flood Elevation
designation, do other things happen as a result of that, or is
that just pretty much local building codes and zoning, things
like that?
Mr. Maidment. Yes, it is basically to support local
building codes and zoning.
Senator Pryor. OK. Well, you all have been great. Oh, I did
have one more question for you, Dr. Maidment, and that is you
talked about the U.S. Geological Survey----
Mr. Maidment. Mm-hmm.
Senator Pryor. And apparently they had done a lot of maps
in the past and they have a pretty old average age at this
point.
Mr. Maidment. Mm-hmm.
Senator Pryor. Is there a reason why they didn't do these
maps here for this round? Do you know why the Corps of
Engineers did that and not U.S. Geological Survey?
Mr. Maidment. No, sir, I don't.
Senator Pryor. OK. Do you know who is better at making
maps, or are both good at their own map making? I mean----
Mr. Maidment. Well, I would say the two agencies have
different responsibilities. The fundamental contribution of the
U.S. Geological Survey is the base map input information. So,
in other words, in a flood map you have three things. It is
where are things horizontally, where are they vertically, and
the USGS supplies basic information that defines that. Then you
put the water layer on top, and that is where the Corps of
Engineers and FEMA come in. It is that hydrology expertise that
supplies the third piece of the puzzle.
Senator Pryor. OK. Well, that is helpful.
I want to thank all of you for your testimony today. What
we are going to do is we are going to leave the record open
here for 15 days, and I can almost guarantee you each of you
will get questions, as well as the earlier panel will get
follow-up questions from the Committee, either folks who are
here today or who couldn't be here today, and we would love to
get those responses from you as quickly as possible.
I just want to thank you all for your attendance and your
preparation and the time. This is an important issue. It is not
just a local issue, it is a national issue, and we appreciate
all your contributions to it.
So with that, I will adjourn the meeting and thank you for
your help.
[Whereupon, at 5:09 p.m., the Subcommittees were
adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8405.098
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
