U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

28–280 PDF 2006

H.R. 4650, THE NATIONAL LEVEE

SAFETY PROGRAM ACT

(109–65)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

TRANSPORTATION AND

INFRASTRUCTURE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

APRIL 6, 2006

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

(
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Vice-Chair

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

SUE W. KELLY, New York

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey

JERRY MORAN, Kansas

GARY G. MILLER, California

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

SAM GRAVES, Missouri

MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

TED POE, Texas

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington

CONNIE MACK, Florida

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York

LUIS G. FORTUN ̃ O, Puerto Rico

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JERROLD NADLER, New York

CORRINE BROWN, Florida

BOB FILNER, California

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD,

California

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada

JIM MATHESON, Utah

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

RICK LARSEN, Washington

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

JULIA CARSON, Indiana

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado

JOHN BARROW, Georgia

(II)
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, Chairman

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

SUE W. KELLY, New York

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio

GARY G. MILLER, California

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania

TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska

TED POE, Texas

CONNIE MACK, Florida

LUIS G. FORTUN ̃ O, Puerto Rico

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana,

Vice-Chair

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio

DON YOUNG, Alaska

(Ex Officio)

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JOHN BARROW, Georgia

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

(Ex Officio)

(III)

(V)

CONTENTS

TESTIMONY

Page

Nicholson, Peter, Ph.D, P.E., M.ASCE, Associate Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Hawaii ................................................... 8

Pogue, Pamela Mayer, Chair, Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc. .. 8

Rabbon, Peter, President, National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies ................................................................................................. 8

Riley, Major General Don T., Director of Civil Works, U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers .......................................................................................................... 8

PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri ......................................................................... 32

Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois .......................................................................... 34

Johnson, Hon. Eddie Bernice, of Texas .................................................................. 36

Oberstar, Hon. Jamels L., of Minnesota ................................................................ 44

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES

Nicholson, Peter ....................................................................................................... 38

Pogue, Pamela Mayer .............................................................................................. 46

Rabbon, Peter ........................................................................................................... 56

Riley, Major General Don T. ................................................................................... 66

ADDITION TO THE RECORD

Association of State Dam Safety Officials, statement .......................................... 69

(1)

H.R. 4650, THE NATIONAL LEVEE SAFETY

PROGRAM ACT

Thursday, April 6, 2006,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, WASHINGTON,

D.C.

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John J. Duncan, Jr.

[chairman of the committee] presiding.

Mr. DUNCAN. I am going to go ahead and call this hearing to

order. This is a hearing on H.R. 4650, The National Levee Safety

Program Act of 2005.

I would like to welcome everyone to the hearing today. I was

very pleased that prior to the end of the first session of the 109th

Congress, Subcommittee Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson,

Chairman Don Young, Ranking Member Jim Oberstar and I introduced H.R. 4650, The National Levee Safety Program Act. We have

seen in the Gulf Region what can happen when hurricane and flood

protection infrastructure is inadequate or fails to perform. Yet

more Americans are moving to coastal areas where the risk of hurricanes and floods is greatest. In the south Atlanta region, the

coastal population grew 51 percent from 1980 to 2000, and is expected to increase another 13 percent by 2008. Along the Gulf of

Mexico, the population has also grown dramatically, and is projected to grow an additional 12 percent just by 2008.

We do not know where the next hurricane or flood will hit, but

we do know that many of our major cities, including parts of Washington, D.C., have a greater probability of flooding than did New

Orleans. For example, the City of Sacramento, California, has almost twice as many people as New Orleans, yet it has less flood

protection than any other major city in America. Cities like Houston, St. Louis and Miami also are at risk. We cannot treat

citiesdifferently unless we have a policy reason that we can explain

and justify to our constituents.

As we have learned from recent levee failures, our infrastructure

is aging. What we know about the existence and condition of these

other levees we often learn when one fails or is overwhelmed by a

flood event. For instance, the State of California recently declared

a state of emergency in the central valley in anticipation of the failure of 24 levees. According to the State of California, it would cost

$5 billion to make critical delta levees, not all delta levees, but simply the critical ones, stronger in the face of flood and seismic events

in the central valley.
2

In the past, this Committee has taken steps to ensure that the

Nation’s flood damage reduction infrastructure is properly inventoried, inspected and assessed. In 1986, the Congress authorized

the National Dam Safety Program Act to conduct an inventory and

assessment of all dams nationwide. This has been a successful program and we have modeled the National Levee Safety Program Act

after that law.

The national inventory of dams shows that 45 percent of all Federal dams are at least 50 years old and that 80 percent of them

are at least 30 years old. We know less about the status and capabilities of our levees. There has never been a national inventory of

levees. Little is known about the current condition of both Federal

and non-Federal levees, including whether these levees were designed to meet current conditions or whether they have been properly maintained by the non-Federal interests.

Over the decades, levees have been built by different entities at

different times and to different standards. They have been linked

together to provide a protective system, but with such a mixture

of conditions the true level of protection may be in doubt. Over

time, development has taken place behind some of these levees so

that much more may be at risk in terms of lives and economic resources.

There is so much that we do not know about the levees in America that we cannot be sure how safe our cities and towns really are.

We need more information. That is why we have introduced the

National Levee Safety Program Act, to get an inventory of levees

in the United States and work with the States to encourage them

to develop their own levee safety programs.

We have worked closely with members on both sides of the aisle

and the various groups to advance the goal of improving the infrastructure in the most cost effective manner. We have received favorable feedback from diverse parties. The National Levee Safety

Program Act embraces innovative solutions for the inventory and

subsequent assessments of these structures.

H.R. 4650 includes provisions for the Army Corps of Engineers

to conduct an inventory, inspections and assessments of all levees

nationwide. The legislation establishes an interagency committee

on levee safety to create standards for Federal levees and creates

a National Levee Safety Review Board made up of Federal, State,

local and private citizens to monitor levee safety and implementation of State levee safety programs.

The bill also provides incentives for States and localities to participate in the program.

In order to make the best investment of taxpayer dollars, we

need to do an inventory and inspection and assessment of levees

across the United States. We need to know what they are protecting and what is the level of risk associated with these levees. This

should help us prioritize future spending on flood protection. I hope

that our witnesses today will help us understand the current condition of our hurricane and flood protection infrastructure and what

it should look like in the future.

I hope to hear some suggestions on how this good legislation can

be made better. I look forward to an educational and enlightening

hearing.
3

Let me now turn to my good friend, the Ranking Member, Mr.

Johnson, for any opening statement she wishes to make.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding

the hearing today on an issue that is of tremendous to our communities: the condition of our Nation’s flood control infrastructure.

In the aftermath of the 2005 hurricane season, the American

public has again focused on the importance of adequately designed,

constructed and maintained flood control infrastructure and protecting lives and livelihoods. The image of flooding streets, homes

and businesses, as well as the thousands of displaced families, have

again brought home the message that we cannot take our Nation’s

infrastructure for granted. The consequence of failure is far too

great.

In the weeks and months that followed Hurricanes Katrina and

Rita, numerous communities throughout the Country started asking questions about their own disaster response plan, including

their potential vulnerability to flooding. Unfortunately, one lesson

learned from this exercise was that no single entity could quantify

the Nation’s risk of flooding, in part because no single entity has

ever conducted a nationwide assessment of the adequacy of our

flood control infrastructure.

In fact, no single entity even knows where all the flood control

infrastructure is located, let alone its condition. In response to this

need, Chairman Duncan and I introduced H.R. 4650, The National

Levee Safety Program Act. This legislation represents the first step

in a larger effort to locate and assess the conditions of the Nation’s

flood control infrastructure and to develop uniform guidelines for

levee safety. However, this legislative proposal takes only the

smallest steps in addressing the larger issues of assessment, adequacy or proper maintenance of flood control infrastructure.

Mr. Chairman, last year, the American Society of Civil Engineers

released its fifth report card on the condition of the Nation’s infrastructure. On average, they gave the Nation a D grade, and estimated that more than $1 trillion would be needed to address the

backlog of maintenance and required infrastructure upgrades.

Unfortunately, this report card did not or was not able to include

an assessment of the Nation’s flood control infrastructure, other

than dams. Yet in spite of the obvious need for increased spending

on infrastructure, the Administration and the Republican-led Congress have proposed cutting funding for both the—not you—both

Corps’ construction and operation and maintenance activities, further perpetuating the backlog of necessary work on flood control

protections.

Although I am pleased to work with the Chairman on this legislation to identify and hopefully one day assess and improve the

conditions of the Nation’s flood control infrastructure, I remain concerned whether we will take the next steps in ensuring adequate

protections for our citizens’ lives and livelihoods. Once we know

where the problems are, will we have the fortitude to ensure that

potential gaps in the Nation’s flood control infrastructure are addressed?

Again, I thank the Chairman for holding this hearing, and I look

forward to hearing our witnesses’ testimony. Thank you.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Ms. Johnson.
4

Mr. Gilchrest.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just a brief couple of comments. I want to thank you and Ms.

Johnson for the legislation. I have another hearing going on and

I may have to step out. I am not sure if I will be here in time for

questions, and I can probably call General Riley and some of the

other witnesses a little bit later on this. But I would like to get

these questions on the record.

I know there is a vast array of levees around the Country, not

to mention those in the Gulf of Mexico or Sacramento or places like

that. The focus is on Louisiana, and I hope I can stay to get the

answers a little bit later, but how many miles of levees in Louisiana need to be rebuilt? How many are going to be rebuilt? How

many are going to be moved from one side of the road to the other

side of the road? Is there an evaluation as to which ones should

be moved? Because I understand in Plaquemines Parish, there is

going to be quite a long stretch that is actually going to be moved,

which is along the Mississippi River, the west side of the Mississippi River, to the other side of the road, because of the failing

nature of that particular levee.

And should we consider moving people away from areas permanently where levees are failing or don’t meet a reasonable cost benefit analysis? This is a big job, and we are here to help. We are

from the Government. Well, actually, we are here from Congress,

and we are here to help.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Gilchrest.

Ms. Tauscher.

Ms. TAUSCHER. Is my friend from Maryland suggesting that the

Congress is not the Government?

[Laughter.]

Ms. TAUSCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a brief statement and I really appreciate the time to be able to engage these

fine witnesses, especially our witness from California.

I will submit my whole statement for the record and I will try

to be brief. But I think what is clear is the magnitude and the content of today’s hearings cannot be underestimated, both for our Nation and for my California district in particular.

While the Federal, State and local governments have invested a

great deal of capital in building a wide array of barriers and flood

barriers, we know that we have done too little to ensure that those

systems have been maintained to an appropriate standards. The

protection of human life and the viability of our Nation’s economy

requires our immediate attention and action.

I congratulate the Chairman and Ranking Member for introducing The National Levee Safety Program Act. I believe the Chairman’s ambitious yet necessary plan to inventory and assess our

Nation’s levee systems is a way we can begin to get our arms

around the scope of the problems we are facing. Using the best

science available, we should conduct a detailed review of design,

maintenance and natural conditions that play a role in whether a

levee will succeed or fail.

Mr. Chairman, in my own district in California, which contains

a large portion of the San Francisco Bay Delta, we know what it
5

is like to live behind, to maintain and to rely on levees. The Bay

Delta, a vast network of earthen levees, supplies drinking and agricultural water to over 22 million Californians, and millions of acres

of farm land. And more and more of these levees are protecting the

lives and property of thousands of Californians living in my district.

Should there be a massive levee failure in the Delta, not only

would there be a great risk of loss and life and property, but California’s major water supply would essentially be shut off. On a

smaller scale, we have begun to take similar action to that laid out

in the Chairman’s bill. As part of the Cal-Fed legislation adopted

in the 108th Congress, the Army Corps of Engineers is carrying out

both the Cal-Fed Levee Integrity program and the Delta Risk Management Strategy.

These two programs are geared to identify and repair the Bay

Delta’s most vulnerable levees while laying out a strategy fore the

long term future of the levees in the Delta. Unfortunately, the

President’s budget didn’t include funding for either of these programs, a mistake which I hope this Congress will correct.

Mr. Chairman, I point out the work going on in the Bay Delta

because I believe it is a good example of why your legislation is so

important. We first need adequate knowledge of the problem we

are facing before we can adopt any remedy. And Mr. Chairman, I

would also like to speak to one issue which I hope you will work

with me on as your legislation moves forward.

As the Chairman knows, there are thousands of miles of levees

that the Army Corps of Engineers had no part of constructing. For

example, in the Bay Delta, it is my understanding that there are

only two levees there that were built or maintained by the Corps.

This is out of hundreds of levees in the Delta.

While I know the Chairman’s bill will contain language to help

ensure that all levees are inspected and catalogued, I would like to

work with the Chairman to explore language which would more explicitly include these non-Corps levees.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your indulgence this morning. I

look forward to working with you to advance this legislation and

to today’s testimony, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Ms. Tauscher.

Mr. Pascrell.

Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you, Chairman Duncan, Ranking Member

Johnson. It is a tremendous shame that it took Katrina, a disaster,

for the Federal Government to focus on the importance of this flood

protection infrastructure, such as levees. While we cannot control

mother nature, proper flood control measures could have reduced

the number of deaths and limited the economic devastation around

the Gulf.

I feel so strongly about the mission of the Committee as we continue to call attention to the larger issue of the need for infrastructure investments nationwide. The Nation witnessed the catastrophic consequence that is possible when these levees fail or are

breached by massive flooding. We must not let Katrina’s hardlearned lesson pass us by.

But it is important to recognize that many other cities around

the Country face the same if not greater risk of flooding. In fact,
6

it was painfully clear to the people of Northern California just this

past week. Fortunately, there were no injuries or loss of life.

In New Jersey, levees protect both urban and rural areas. However, the location and conditions of many of the levees are unknown. Nobody knows where they are, to the Federal or State government. We do not know how many people depend on levees to

protect their homes and businesses from flooding. I daresay that

those people don’t know, either, how significant the levee may be.

We have a very serious problem throughout this Nation and various States about flood mapping. Much of that mapping is antiquated, no longer is timely, needs to be reviewed. I know that this

is basically controlled by each State. What is the Federal Government’s responsibility in making sure that the flood maps reflect the

exact situations now?

While there are now strict engineering standards required when

a Federal levee is designed and built, there are certainly thousands

of miles of other levees built by States, towns and farmers and

landowners. Some of these are well built, well maintained levees.

Others are not.

One might ask, how many miles of levees are not even accounted

for? Do we have an estimate of that?

Time, too, has taken its toll. Natural and man-made changes

have altered the landscape and the effectiveness of existing levees.

Levees originally designed to protect farm land may now be protecting homes or businesses. It is unfortunate that we only learn

about the condition of these and other levees when they fail or the

system is overwhelmed. I am therefore pleased that we are here

today to discuss H.R. 4650, which will establish a Federal program

to work in partnership with the States to help remedy the situation. The inventory, the inspection, the assessments of our Nation’s

levees will allow the Corps of Engineers and States to work together to identify unsafe structures.

Is the Army Corps up to doing this, Mr. Chairman? And do they

have the resources and will we provide the money for them to do

it? Or are we simply whistling in the wind?

Than you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Pascrell.

Mr. Shuster.

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your having this hearing today and highlighting the importance of us taking

a close look at the levee system in this Country, especially for you

introducing The National Levee Safety Program Act.

There are about 15,000 miles of levees in this Country, and while

most of them, the majority of them I would say, were well constructed and well maintained, we don’t know how many of them or

what percentage for sure are not maintained the way they should

be, or maybe it was poor construction when they were put in. I

think we can’t be in the dark over knowing that.

I know in Pennsylvania, one of my communities, Meyersdale,

Pennsylvania, in 2004, Ivan washed the levee away. If we would

have known the condition before the hurricane hit, we might have

been able to save thousands and thousands of dollars of property

damage. But it is extremely important that we know that and I

think it’s important to know if the Corps is up to the challenge.
7

And again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for introducing your legislation. We should be shedding light on this matter, so thank you.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Shuster.

Mr. Taylor.

Mr. TAYLOR. I’m actually going to have to leave. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr. DUNCAN. Okay. Mr. Boustany.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I too appreciate your bringing this legislation forward and holding this very important hearing. Certainly in the wake of what

happened on the Gulf Coast, in the previous hurricane season, this

is a very timely subject and very worthy of investigation. So I look

forward to hearing the testimony.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much.

Mrs. Schwartz?

Mrs. SCHWARTZ. Nothing at this time, Mr. Chairman, thank you.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Miller?

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. I am very interested in the testimony

today.

I am not sure what authority the Army Corps has over State and

private levees, so I would like to hear that addressed. And there

are some questions arising from what should be required, possible

failures near levees, and I am not sure how we determine that unless we know they are prone to failure. And requiring flood insurance and such in those areas that we are not sure that are really

at risk is of tremendous concern to me in California. So I look forward to the testimony today.

Thank you.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much.

We have a very distinguished panel here today. Representing the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is Major General Don T. Riley, who

has been with us before, the Director of Civil Works. Representing

the National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management

Agencies, Mr. Peter Rabbon, who is the President of that group. He

comes to us from Sacramento.

Representing the Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc.

is Ms. Pamela Mayer Pogue, who is the Chair of that group. She

is from Cranston, Rhode Island. And finally, representing the

American Society of Civil Engineers is Dr. Peter Nicholson, who is

Associate Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering. It

doesn’t say where he is professor, but maybe he can tell us that.

He is from Honolulu, Hawaii.

So we have witnesses that have come from very long distances.

We are very grateful for each of you being here. We always proceed

in the order the witnesses are listed in the call of the hearing. So

General Riley, you may begin your statement.
8

TESTIMONY OF MAJOR GENERAL DON T. RILEY, DIRECTOR OF

CIVIL WORKS, UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS;

PETER RABBON, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF

FLOOD AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AGENCIES; PAMELA MAYER POGUE, CHAIR, ASSOCIATION OF STATE FLOODPLAIN MANAGERS, INC.; PETER NICHOLSON, PH.D, P.E.,

M.ASCE, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII

General RILEY. I am pleased to be here today and have the opportunity to speak to you about the National Levee Inventory and

Technical Assessment Program. My testimony today will provide a

brief background and update to the Committee on the progress

made to date by the Corps of Engineers in the development of a

national levee inventory.

Although nearly 9,000 miles of levees have been constructed by

the Corps of Engineers, this accounts for only a portion of the total

number of structures protecting communities. Presently, there is no

data base or single source of information concerning these structures.

Emergency supplemental funds appropriated in December 2005

included $30 million for the Corps of Engineers to initiate a national inventory of flood and storm damage reduction projects, including an assessment of the condition of levee projects.

In addition, the President’s budget for fiscal year 2007 includes

$20 million to continue this effort. To be effective, we are coordinating this effort with the FEMA Map Modernization Program, and

we envision that data from the inventory will provide technical information to be used as a basis for periodic recertification of levees

as required by FEMA for flood mapping purposes.

The inventory will be a geospatial data base that will allow data

to be incorporated into the flood maps prepared by FEMA. The

Corps will also continue to coordinate with the Association of State

Floodplain Managers and the National Association of Flood and

Stormwater Management Agency on this inventory.

We are presently developing a criteria for assessments and we

will develop these procedures and methods for conducting the assessments in a uniform and consistent manner. The assessments

will rank projects using risk to human life and benefits of protecting population centers and the national inventory will provide an

overall condition of levees and indicate areas of higher risk.

We are committed to putting a program in place that will enable

us to better evaluate the risks to public safety in areas located behind the levees and help decision makers set priorities for future

investments. This work will also ensure that the public can make

more informed decisions on building homes, locating business and

purchasing flood insurance, based on the actual risk of flood and

storm damages where they live.

This concludes my statement. Again, I appreciate the opportunity

to testify and I will be pleased to answer any questions you might

have. Thank you.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. Rabbon.
9

Mr. RABBON. Good morning. Pete Rabbon, with the Department

of Water Resources, State of California, and as President of

NAFSMA, I am pleased to present this testimony on their behalf.

NAFSMA is an organization of over 100 local and State organizations that provide services to over 76 million citizens of the Nation,

in cooperation with the Corps, FEMA and EPA. We are supportive

of The National Levee Safety Program Act and today we offer suggestions to the Act for your consideration.

First, we recommend you focus on a national levee inventory.

You must identify all the Federal, State, local and private levees.

We need to know the universe of levees. As an example, California

has embarked on such a program. We have located almost 12,000

miles of levees in California statewide, of only which approximately

2,000 are Federal levees. We suggest the inventory program be administered at the Federal level, but developed with local and State

input such as to maximize the use and maintenance of such a data

base.

Secondly, assessments. The bill does speak of inspections and inspections are key for operations and maintenance and identifying

gross problems with a levee. However, a strong assessment program is critical to determine the true condition of the levee. As an

example, California estimates it will cost approximately $100 million to do technical assessments on the 2,000 miles of Federal levees.

Thirdly, we suggest you consider linking other Federal agencies

and programs to maximize the benefit of H.R. 4650. For example,

FEMA’s remapping program, which we heard mentioned, would

benefit greatly from having the levee information that could be developed by the Corps of Engineers through such an inventory program.

Additionally, H.R. 4650 recommends an inspection program. The

Corps already has an inspection program of completed works for

existing Federal levees.

Fourth, establishment of the levee safety program and the National Levee Safety Review Board should consider having local and

regional representation. This is for two reasons. First, the non-Federal partner with the Corps of Engineers on levee projects is almost

always a local or regional entity, such that they are the party responsible for operations and maintenance of the levee.

Secondly, if this is to be a broad program, the land use decisions

are made by local and regional entities. So there are two reasons

why we strongly recommend local and regional involvement.

Fifth, funding. Adequate funding is critical. Using California as

an example again, we have embarked on a five year program for

developing a levee data base. The program is expected to cost $2.5

million total, and this is strictly for California. It will develop a

geospatial data base. It will allow us to locate all the levees. We

will be able to populate the data base with available data and have

a gross ranking, and gross is key on this, of the criticalness of the

various levees.

That program in itself is $2.5 million. It does not include maintenance of the data base or completely filling that data base.

I would like to add two items that are indirectly related to The

National Levee Safety Program Act, but I think critical for your
10

consideration. First is the Corps’ policy and guidelines, that you

look closer at that, because those are guidelines to look at economic

benefits of protecting property and infrastructure. Today, after the

devastation we have seen, we suggest you look at a fundamental

concept of adding protecting lives and providing public safety when

determining what projects to fund through the Corps of Engineers

programs.

Then finally, we suggest you consider broadening the goal of The

National Levee Safety Program Act and consider creating a flood

management technical advisory committee. And the mission of that

committee would be to bring together the various Federal agencies

to facilitate and coordinate Federal policies, so that a package of

compatible and implementable Federal guidelines exists for future

flood prevention, response and recovery activities.

Thank you for your time.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Rabbon.

Ms. Pogue.

Ms. POGUE. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member

Johnson and members of the Subcommittee.

I am Pam Pogue, Chair of the Association of State Floodplain

Managers. My real job, if you will, is I am the State floodplain

manager from Rhode Island.

We appreciate the initiative of this Committee under the strong

leadership of Chairman Duncan to address our Nation’s urgent

need for more data and better information about where our levees

are and their physical condition. ASFPM supports H.R. 4650 in

general, but would also like to provide you with suggestions on how

we feel the bill might be strengthened.

The catastrophic hurricane disasters of this past year vividly remind the Nation that we are vulnerable to the effects of natural

hazards, especially flooding, and that we must have programs, policies and institutions that can adequately handle these events, efficiently use taxpayers’ money and build a more sustainable future

for our citizens. Nothing less than our Nation’s prosperity and viability are at stake.

The Association of State Floodplain Managers has over 9,000

members and 22 State chapters. We represent the State and local

officials and other professionals engaged in all aspects of flood loss

reduction, floodplain management and hazard mitigation. This includes mapping, engineering, planning, community development,

hydrology, forecasting, emergency response, flood protection

projects and insurance.

Many of our members work in communities impacted by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and work with organizations assisting

those communities to rebuild. All Association members are concerned with working to reduce our Nation’s flood related losses and

in rebuilding a safer Gulf Coast.

Our State and local officials are the Federal Government’s partners in implementing programs and working to achieve the effectiveness of flood loss reduction. Make no mistake about it: the potential for levee failure with catastrophic consequences and human

suffering is not just a New Orleans problem. Levees in California

are a disaster waiting to happen, complicated with earthquake

risk, for example.
11

Every State has levees. We just don’t know where they are, the

physical conditions of these structures or the number of people and

structures and critical facilities at risk behind these levees. All of

this points to the need for a comprehensive levee safety program

for the Nation and for national inventory of levees.

As I mentioned previously, ASFPM is in support of H.R. 4650 in

general. We have a few suggestions. First of all, as many of the

panel members have already mentioned, focusing first on an inventory of levees is critical, with a cursory assessment of risk for each.

It is critical that data be collected in order to make any determination of the magnitude of this problem. This data will be a vital

foundation for the design of a levee safety program.

Secondly, the long term levee program will have to focus on

States because they are the only entities with authority to regulate

design, construction, operation and maintenance of levees. The

Federal Government can encourage but cannot mandate.

Third, incentives to States must be built into a levee safety program. Perhaps levee safety expenditures can be banked against the

non-Federal share of future disaster costs in that State.

Fourth, levee data must be geospatial and readily accessible for

ongoing inventory and risk assessment and in a manner compatible

with other Federal data bases, such as FEMA’s Mapping and Modernization Program, the U.S. Geological Survey and the NOAA’s

weather data program.

Safety standards for levee construction must be developed. This

should establish criteria and definitions for high, moderate and low

risk levees to allow setting for priorities. We need to know, where

is the real risk with these various levees.

Sixty, detailed engineering analysis and design of engineering

remedies is the function of levee owners and sponsors, not the Federal Government. There is ample expertise in the private sector for

non-Federal levees. Federal and State policy groups should be

charged with recommending standards for various levees in the

Nation. The Association recommends standards for urbanized areas

and critical facilities using at least a .2 percent or 500 year flood

event and in coastal areas, a category five storm surge.

Finally, levees should not be built to protect that is undeveloped.

As a Nation, we have a long history of taking our rural infrastructure and upgrading the infrastructure to meet the demands of

growing and expanding populations. The dirt farm road becomes

the paved farm road, then the market road, which then becomes

State highways as the population expands to meet those needs. No

such similar upgrade, however, in infrastructure can be found with

many of our Nation’s levees. In essence, we are pretending that a

dirt farm road can serve the same function as an interstate highway.

In transportation, this failure to plan, improve and maintain

public roadways leads to a traffic jam. In levee management, this

failure to plan, upgrade and maintain leads to catastrophic damages, loss of life and loss of property, potentially destruction of a

local economy.

Lack of available data on levees and the inability to accurately

know where the people are at risk behind them are two very serious problems. With specific regard to H.R. 4650, we think the bill
12

should focus on the Corps of Engineers’ production of an inventory

of all levees in the Nation, or at least those that pose a subset

highest risk to humans. Secondly, provide an assessment of the

general condition of those levees, and third, provide the data base

that can lead to a national levee safety program between States

and levee owners.

ASFPM believes that a properly designed State levee safety program is appropriate. The program presented in this bill is patterned after the State dam safety programs and the Federal dam

safety program, which have some inherent weaknesses. These programs have become in essence a permit function and have led to

a stovepiping effect, which in the case of levee safety could effectively separate levee safety from management within the floodplain. A State levee safety program is integral to the State’s floodplain management program. We feel the funding is inadequate at $10 million a year. In terms

of engineering studies, we see this part of the bill as potentially a

real problem. We don’t think the Federal Government should be in

the business of performing engineering inspections and designing

engineering remedies. There is plenty of private sector expertise.

Levee owners should be told to hire an engineer for inspection and

design. The Corps should collect data and do cursory inspection to

report on the heights, general condition and maintenance and to inform owners in the State of their findings. This should only be done

for levees in the high and medium risk categories.

We do not believe that the Corps has the authority to order repairs for levees. States can do so if they have a law to that effect

and pass them, as some have.

Mr. Chairman, even before the 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons,

flood losses in the Nation exceeded $6 billion a year. I an the Association of State Floodplain Managers greatly appreciate the chance

to provide our thoughts on these issues. We are committed to working with you and your Committee in order to reduce the flood

losses in this Nation.

Thank you.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Ms. Pogue.

Dr. Nicholson, I understand you are from the University of Hawaii. You are welcome here. You may begin your testimony.

Mr. NICHOLSON. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Johnson, members of the Subcommittee. My name is Peter Nicholson, as you

have heard. I am pleased to appear today to testify on behalf of the

American Society of Civil Engineers as you consider H.R. 4650, The

National Levee Safety Program Act. I am a member of ASCE and

I chair ASCE Geo-Institute’s Committee on Embankments, Dams

and Slopes.

In 2005, last fall, I assembled an independent team of experts

and traveled to New Orleans to collect data and make observations

necessary to carry out the assessment of the performance of the

flood control levees in New Orleans after Katrina.

As engineers, our paramount concern is for the safety, health

and welfare of the public. We have learned a great deal from the

tragedy of New Orleans, and in order to help prevent future loss

of life and property in Louisiana and elsewhere in the Country. We
13

support the Federal, State and local agency efforts to ensure that

all infrastructure systems are one, robust, strong enough and reliable enough to do the job for which they are designed; to contain

redundant systems to prevent total system failure; and to ensure

that these systems are resilient enough to allow them to be quickly

repaired when the inevitable failures do occur.

Based on these basic engineering principles and our findings in

New Orleans, we believe that Congress should enact H.R. 4650

with some modifications. ASCE has some policy recommendations

for H.R. 4650 and specific amendments to recommend to the Subcommittee. For the levee inventory, which we have been hearing is

of paramount importance, the bill authorizes the Corps to maintain

an inventory of levees at its discretion. The inventory should be

compulsory. The Corps needs to account for every Federal, State,

local and privately owned levee in the Country. Without one, we

run the risk of missing potentially life-threatening conditions with

levees that are not accounted for.

The national inventory of dams, the data base maintained by the

Corps, covers all dams in the United States, including State and

local dams and privately-owned dams as well. The levee system requires a correspondingly complete survey.

Regarding levee inspections, the bill would require the Corps to

carry out one-time inspection of every federally-funded levee. We

believe the bill should be amended to require periodic levee inspections as well as the identification and inspection of larger independent flood and storm protection system within which the Federal levees function.

The bill also requires States to carry out levee inspections at

least once every five years for levees posing the greatest danger to

human life, in order to receive assistance to support the levee programs. We believe this provision is too limited. Every levee, whether owned by Federal, State or local agencies, or by private entities,

that would pose a significant threat to human life and property in

case of failure should be inventoried and inspected.

This category would consist of levees deemed to pose a high hazard in the event of a failure, a category comparable to the requirements for high hazard dams under The National Dam Safety Act.

Regarding peer reviews, ASCE strongly supports the use of independent project peer reviews for every new civil engineering works

project or significant modification to existing systems whenever any

one of four key principles is implicated. Sound engineering principles require independent peer reviews by outside experts when

one levee’s performance is critical to public health, safety and welfare, when levee reliability on emergency conditions is critical,

when using innovative materials or techniques to build levees, or

when the levee design is lacking in redundancy or short construction schedule.

We also believe that America’s civil works infrastructure remains

vulnerable to man-made attacks. H.R. 4650 should be amended to

require a court to carry out vulnerability risk assessment to determine which of America’s major levees may be susceptible to destruction by terrorists.

Regarding appropriations, the bill authorizes $60 million, $10

million a year for six years. The overall appropriation level we be-
14

lieve should be doubled to $120 million. We recommend an additional authorization of $20 million in the first three years to conduct the national levee inventory required under Section 4.

ASCE believes the bill should be amended to authorize annual

appropriations for the creation and maintenance of levee safety

programs within the Corps of Engineers. Specifically, $7 million

annually for State assistance to implement levee safety programs,

$1 million annually for the maintenance of national levee inventory, $1 million annually for the bill’s research program on levee

safety training programs.

That is the end of my testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I

would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Dr. Nicholson. Very fine,

very informative testimony by all the witnesses.

I am going to go first, in my members, go first to Mr. Gilchrest

for any questions that he has.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would ask basically the same questions that I went through

earlier. But I would add, we don’t have the same kind of problems

in Maryland as I am sure they do in Sacramento. I haven’t seen

the levees in Sacramento. I have seen extensive levee systems in

Louisiana that I know are under great scrutiny at this time and

also being repaired and analyzed and so on.

I am not sure if you can answer these questions at this point.

But Mr. Chairman, I would like in some way to have a follow-up

so these questions can be given to the Committee. I guess I would

say the first question is, how many miles of levees in Louisiana or

in and around Sacramento, California, need to be rebuilt? Is that

an appropriate question? Is there an answer that someone can

come up with that?

General RILEY. Mr. Gilchrest, if I could take the first stab at it.

In the greater New Orleans area, down in Plaquemines Parish as

well, and across the river, there is about 350 miles of levee system

there. During Katrina, 169 miles of those levees were damaged. We

are repairing all 169 of those miles and those projects will be complete this June.

You did ask also a question about any that might be moved. The

only thing that will come close to that is, we do have one proposal

we’re considering, there are non-Federal levees in Plaquemines

Parish, about 35 miles, that might be appropriate to incorporate

into the Federal system. Those levees, though, are really simply

soil that was piled up from the wetlands. So we wouldn’t build on

top of those. We would move off to the side and really re-engineer

a new levee, if the Administration chooses to propose that.

Mr. GILCHREST. So those are levees along the Mississippi?

General RILEY. No, sir, the Mississippi River levee itself would

not be moved. These ones in Plaquemines are on the back side off

the river on the wetlands side of the Parish.

Mr. GILCHREST. I see. You can’t build on them, so they would

have to be moved?

General RILEY. Moved to the land side of that levee rather than

the wetlands side. We would want to avoid as much as possible any

environmental impacts. So we would want to build new levee toward the land side of those existing levees.
15

Mr. GILCHREST. So that is about 35 miles. Is that a contiguous

35 miles?

General RILEY. Yes, sir, it is, on the west bank of Plaquemines

Parish.

Mr. GILCHREST. I see.

General RILEY. That is presently under consideration by the Administration.

Mr. GILCHREST. Were they damaged during the two previous

hurricanes, those 35 miles?

General RILEY. Yes. Those are again relatively small, non-Federal levees.

Mr. GILCHREST. Do you have an estimate of the cost for those,

that 35 miles?

General RILEY. No, sir, in fact we were looking over all those figures last night. All those figures are under review right now.

Mr. GILCHREST. You have made a recommendation to move about

35 miles of those levees. If that recommendation is approved, how

long would it take to actually start construction?

General RILEY. Well, sir, given certainly authority and funding,

we could start relatively quickly because of the contracts we already have in place in the area.

Mr. GILCHREST. So in your estimation, in the Louisiana area,

only about 35 miles of levees in that levee complex would actually

have to be moved?

General RILEY. Yes, sir, that that’s really, in my sense, engineering sense, not really a true move of the levees. We will just simply

build them to the land side.

Mr. GILCHREST. I see. Any estimate of the cost of the 169 miles

that were damaged, to be repaired?

General RILEY. Sir, I don’t have those figures with me. I would

like to take that question for the record, if I could.

Mr. GILCHREST. Is there any area, whether it is in Sacramento,

Louisiana, any area around the Country, of significance, similar to

what was done in the upper Mississippi flood of the early 1990s,

where they actually, the Corps and other agencies, actually moved

communities from one place to another? is there any consideration

or recommendation in Louisiana or maybe Sacramento that the

Corps would recommend or consider moving a community as opposed to trying to rebuild a failing levee system?

General RILEY. Sir, at this point, I think the Administration is

looking to the State to take the lead on any zoning laws which is

appropriately within the State’s authority to do and make any recommendations.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Taylor.

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I do want to commend the Chairman’s interest in this. I am a

little confused as to what it might accomplish other than what already exists.

So for instance, General Riley, in the case of the levees in New

Orleans that failed, when were they last inspected?

General RILEY. Sir, the levees that failed, and certainly the interior ones, interior drainage canals, those were turned over to the
16

local communities. Once the Federal Government constructs a

levee, we turn it over to local sponsorship, for ownership and operations and maintenance. Within the past year, prior to the storm,

they were inspected by the local owners with Corps participation.

Mr. TAYLOR. Okay, just for the heck of it, what does a levee inspection entail?

General RILEY. Sir, what the levee inspection entails is a visual

inspection of the levee to ensure that the local owners are maintaining that in accordance with the operations and maintenance

manuals.

Mr. TAYLOR. Okay, so again, for a novice, you are talking about

shrub removal so that the roots don’t penetrate the levee. Do you

run periodic soil borings to see what is going on?

General RILEY. No, sir. That would be up to the local owner and

operator to do that.

Mr. TAYLOR. Okay, now, I went to school in New Orleans. So on

your lake side, you have turned it over to the city.

General RILEY. Yes.

Mr. TAYLOR. And the river side is the Corps’ responsibility. This

contrast, on the river side, how often do you run soil borings?

General RILEY. Sir, those riverside levees are also run by levee

boards up through Louisiana. We look for visual inspection, visually inspected and any suspect areas then would be, we would

conduct subsurface investigations. If we had noticed any sloughing

or any kind of evidence of any other impending failure, then we

would conduct a further investigation.

Mr. TAYLOR. What if anything would have tipped you off or the

New Orleans Levee Board off to the potential problems with the

17th Street Canal? What would have tipped you off? What would

it have taken to have known in advance that something was going

to happen?

General RILEY. It would have taken a soil boring. Because what

our forensics investigators have found, and certainly Dr. Nicholson

has reviewed some of that work, as the failure mechanism was due

to initial deflection of the wall and then a weak layer of clay down

below the sheet pile. So to find those two conditions, it would have

taken soil borings in order to determine that.

Mr. TAYLOR. Okay. Now, I am kind of familiar with this, because

I am going through soil borings to rebuild my home. They tell me

in the case of my home, one soil boring in the middle of this 100

feet is going to be enough. But for a really accurate test, in a place

like Louisiana, how often would you, how close together would

those borings have to be for you to have a level of comfort that

would, beneath the surface, that needs to be there?

General RILEY. I don’t know if can answer that specifically, because it would be different for different conditions. But additionally

what you would have to do, like under the Dam Safety Program,

any assessment of a levee would require looking at tall the plans,

looking at previous inspection works, doing certainly a surface survey and indicators, and looking at recalculating sort of the hydraulics of the floodplain.

So any time there is new development, or a new storm, the hydrology of the area changes. So it would require all those compo-
17

nents, not just borings. So borings 100 feet apart in many areas

would be more than sufficient.

Mr. TAYLOR. I guess what I am getting at, General, is, and again,

I commend my colleague from Tennessee for wanting to help. It is

not just a Louisiana problem or an upper Mississippi River problem. It is, as he mentioned, a national problem.

What I am concerned about and what I hope we can address is,

is there really a way to legislative a national program to adequately inspect thousands of miles of levees?

General RILEY. Sir, if I could compare to the Dam Safety Act,

Dam Safety Program, which was legislated in 2002, that has many

of the necessary components: inspection, inventory and interagency

committee, dam safety review board. The program, which lays out

procedures for inspection assessment, the data base, research and

training program, all those components are very, very good components to have in a program.

And when you have all that, then you can very systematically,

and of course if it was funded properly, very systematically look at

the highest risk areas. So that is what we do in our Dam Safety

Program. We have 620 dams in the Corps; there are 80,000 in the

Nation. We look at our portfolio of dams and then look at what are

those that are at the highest risk and then begin the more in-depth

inspections and assessments on those and repairs as necessary.

Mr. TAYLOR. Will the Chairman oblige me for one last question?

Mr. DUNCAN. Sure.

Mr. TAYLOR. In the case of the 17th Street Canal, you have been

at this a long time, and you all are the pros. Is there anything that

from a visual inspection would have tipped you off, you in particular, since you have been doing this for a long time, that something

was amiss below the surface? Or would only a soil boring have told

you that something was wrong?

General RILEY. What we don’t know, and Dr. Nicholson might

speak to it as well, is, we know the mechanism of failure, we don’t

know what initiated deflection, whether it was a tree that was

blown over and caused a seepage path, whether it was a swimming

pool that was dug behind the levee which reduced some of the pressure, whether it was Formosan termites, which there is evidence

of, or nutria, that there was evidence of.

So any of those four things could have been visual indicators of

a problem which may have led to the initiation of deflection. We

don’t know that answer yet. But those are four examples that could

possibly have indicated a problem.

Mr. TAYLOR. Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Taylor.

I won’t take the time to give a lengthy or complete answer, but

as General Riley said, all the experts say that the National Dam

Safety Program after which this bill is patterned has led to great

improvements in dam safety all over the Country. We hope that

this will do the same for our levees.

The staff tells me that they have found on inspection trips, for

instance, in New Orleans, they found trees growing on some levees,

which creates problems. They even found one case in which a

swimming pool had been built into a levee. We do know that

throughout the Country, there are many places where these State
18

and local levees have not been inspected or improved for apparently many years. So we are just trying to—we know we can’t create a perfect situation, but we are trying to help, to the extent that

we can.

Mr. Boustany.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Clearly we have had, down in Louisiana, a lot of problems with

regard to how the Corps interacts with a lot of different local levee

boards, and Louisiana just took steps to consolidate, which I applaud. I think it was good. I would have liked to have seen one

levee board, but we have two.

Could you comment, General Riley, on the difficulties you have

had or the Corps has had in having to deal with so many cost

share sponsors in a given locale, such as New Orleans?

General RILEY. I think the challenge, sir, would be typical with

any project that has a local sponsor. In this case, you have a system with multiple local sponsors. Each one of those sponsors has

different funding sources themselves and different ability to fund

a piece of their segment of the system. So the great challenges is,

how do you take components and avoid a piecemeal approach, but

take a more systematic approach.

So the cost sharing challenge has caused us to a greater challenge, I guess is a better way to say it, and taking a systems watershed approach to any hurricane protection or flood system like

that. So that’s probably the greatest challenge.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you.

Mr. Rabbon, you were talking about the efforts in California.

How are you funding this?

Mr. RABBON. There are various efforts that we are undertaking.

The most recent one is the repair of 24 critical erosion sites that

is being funded through an emergency program. The Governor declared an emergency and it did open up special funds.

Other activities that we are moving forward on are primarily in

cooperation with the Corps of Engineers through existing Federal

programs. Then the levee inventory program that I spoke of is

partly funded by the State of California general fund. And then we

do have a grant from FEMA.

Mr. BOUSTANY. There is no dedicated tax revenue stream that

goes onto this, then? It goes through the appropriations process at

the State level?

Mr. RABBON. Correct.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Okay. Thank you.

Ms. Pogue, you had made a comment that levees should not be

built in undeveloped land. Do you include farm land as undeveloped land, or how would you deal with very vital farm country?

Ms. POGUE. Not necessarily, sir, but I think what happens is we

have seen with many of the levees throughout the Country is, as

they say, if you build it, they will come. You have a levee that was

initially designed, and we are talking about safety standards here,

and we are talking about public safety and regulatory standards

and so forth. If you build a levee to a certain standard, you can’t

then on the other side of that levee, if it is built to a lower standard, put in a very dense subdivision or critical facilities or those

sorts of things.
19

So I think what you need to be careful with and what that statement is referring to is when you build a levee or you design a levee

you really have to look at, which we get back to, State oversight

and local oversight with land use and zoning, what is going to be

on the other side of that levee.

Mr. BOUSTANY. What about vital transportation routes? For instance, in Louisiana, and of course, starting in Texas and going all

the way to Florida, we have the intercoastal waterway, which is a

vital transportation route. I know going through my district, the

banks of that are not considered levee, it is considered spoilbank.

So it is up to private property owners to maintain it. I can tell you,

having visually seen what those banks look like prior to the hurricanes, and of course afterwards, it caused significant problems.

Could you comment on vital transportation routes and levees and

do you think that this is a Federal function, State function, some

combination? How would you deal with it?

Ms. POGUE. Funny you should ask. I grew up on the intercoastal

waterway in Florida, and we had to spend an entire summer putting in tiebacks and digging down to the water table. So I am very,

very familiar with what it is like living on the intercoastal waterway. I think again, as we put in our written testimony, it does

have to be something that comes from the States, in those instances where there are non-Federal levees.

I work with our dam safety program in Rhode Island, and I think

we have probably one of the worst dam safety programs in the

Country. Unfortunately, we have 582 dams. And you get back to,

as you are saying, roadways and so forth, I think it has to be put

back to the States. I am saying that as a State regulator, unfortunately, but there perhaps needs to be incentives. One of the things

we mentioned in our testimony was possibly even putting in mitigation, putting in these right things and putting that towards the

non-Federal share in the event of a public disaster.

Mr. BOUSTANY. One final question for the panel. Do you consider

flooding a Federal problem or is it a State or local problem?

Ms. POGUE. If I can jump in real quick, I think it is absolutely

a State, local problem in addition to a Federal problem. One of the

things that we said about the levee safety program not necessarily

modeling after the Dam Safety Act is what we have seen with that,

is that there is no integration between floodplain management and

dam safety. I don’t have a single inundation map for any of the 582

dams in Rhode Island.

So my comment for the local and State, absolute necessity that

they get involved, they become part of this. Because it is going to

be inherently upon them.

Mr. BOUSTANY. What about the rest of the panel? Any opinion?

Mr. RABBON. I suggest it is a shared problem, local, State and

Federal, and even within the Federal Government there is a broad

range of agencies, the Corps and FEMA, that we need to bring together or similarly, we need to bring those types of agencies together at the State and local level also.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you.

General Riley?

General RILEY. Sir, I think we all speak with one mind on this.

It clearly is a shared problem. There is a Federal interest, of
20

course, in interstate flooding. But clearly, we look to the States to

take much of the lead in flooding problems.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Dr. Nicholson, do you have a comment?

Mr. NICHOLSON. I would agree with my colleagues here. I agree

it is a shared problem. I think it is important that one entity, perhaps a Federal entity, oversees something like this. But it has to

be on the States and local agencies to actually run the program.

Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank you all.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Dr. Boustany.

Ms. Tauscher.

Ms. TAUSCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

General Riley and perhaps Mr. Rabbon, I think that in our circumstance in the Bay Delta, as you know, we have a large watershed, we have a lot of wetlands, we have a big bay, we have a

bunch of rivers. What we have are hundreds of miles of levees.

Only two are Federal levees, which I am now gaining the importance of that.

And many of them are private levees. This is agricultural land,

and many of them have been built over the last 100 years, some

of them tended to occasionally, some of them tended to and

breached, some of them completely ignored. I guess I need clarification on how exactly we are going to fit into all this, because specifically, in our case, there couldn’t be in my mind more critical infrastructure. I think it crosses across these many different definitions

of what is important. Twenty-two million Californians get their

drinking water from there. There are hundreds of thousands of

people whose lives depend on the safety and security of these levees, because they are in the way. Agricultural property, not only

the value of it, but we are the breadbasket of the world.

So there is a lot of this. So how do I get assurance that, number

one, we are going to be classified as critical infrastructure, and

make sure that we are covered in the bill that Chairman Duncan

is working on, but also how do we get out from this definitional

problem of not being, of being treated like a second class citizen because we are not Federal levees?

General RILEY. Ma’am, if I could just address that in comparison

to the Dam Safety Program, with all those different aspects of the

National Dam Safety Program, it would catch something like that

in a levee safety program. Because the value of the data base, the

geospatial data base and the inventory, then assessments targeted

on the highest risk areas, whether they are Federal or non-Federal.

Of course, we would look to the States to take the lead on assessments of non-Federal.

But through that program, and the interagency committee and

the safety board, then lay out policies, procedures and guidelines

and priorities of where to focus the limited amount of funds that

I am sure would be available.

Ms. TAUSCHER. Mr. Rabbon?

Mr. RABBON. If I might add, you are talking of approximately

730 miles of non-Federal levees in the delta area for your area of

interest. So that is a major problem. The State has been providing

some minimal funding to help support the maintenance of those

non-Federal levees. But as the General had said, the way this legislation is written, these levees will be a part of the program. The
21

downside is because they are non-Federal, they will probably not

be eligible for Federal programs where they can receive funding.

At this point, I might toss out a very rough number the State has

put together to make the delta levees, just the critical delta levees,

reasonably flood resistant and reasonably seismic resistant. That

number is $5 billion.

Ms. TAUSCHER. Money well spent in my opinion.

But let’s just say this. I think we have identified a rhetorical

problem, that is non-trivial to say the least. And I am very anxious

to work with the Chairman on this. Because in our specific case,

you have a confluence of issues that are very hot button issues.

You have private property and property rights. You have basic,

completely unregulated levee construction, levee maintenance, to

the effect that it exists.

But at the same time, I think no one can dismiss the fact that

this is highly critical infrastructure, not only to health and safety,

water quality, the agricultural business, and then you have the

seismic issue, which on top of just the low maintenance and bad

construction and private property domain that these levees exist in,

in California obviously every once in a while the earth shakes and

bad things can happen.

So I am very anxious, Mr. Chairman, to work with you, because

obviously we want to get captured. But once again, we have to be

very mindful of private property rights and the fact that that is an

issue that we have to deal with as we look to find a way to regulate

and maintain and protect. Thank you very much.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Ms. Tauscher.

Mr. Miller.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When you are going

about doing a geotechnical review and you do borings on native

soil, it gives you a lot of insight as to what you are looking at, because you know what the structure of the soil is at different levels.

But once you move soil and it is moved by man, it takes on a much

more less substantial tone, it tends to be more prone to wear from

water, to erosion and such.

So how do you go about doing an assessment for risk on levees,

General, that you are unaware exactly of how they were put together originally?

General RILEY. Yes, sir, if we are unaware, if we don’t have any

of the plans or specifications or anybody that has worked on that

project, soil borings would clearly help determine the strength and

stability of the levee. Then we would have to look at all the conditions surrounding that levee, the hydrologic conditions, what kind

of development around it, what is the latest flood of record, what

is the history of flooding in that area, to determine how it responded during the past floods. So all those kinds of factors would

be taken into account to determine not just the structural stability,

but how it would act within the system of levees.

Mr. MILLER. So you are going to do a hydrology report to determine the amount of flow to a region.

General RILEY. Yes.

Mr. MILLER. You are going to do borings on private and State

levees where you don’t have specifications available to you. What
22

is the cost going to be per mile to do an assessment that is a realistic assessment?

General RILEY. Yes, sir, I have asked that question and there is

no answer to that, because it would be so changeable, depending

on the conditions.

Mr. MILLER. It would not be inexpensive.

General RILEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. MILLER. That is where this whole argument starts to run

into a problem, because to do an adequate risk assessment, developing safety standards for each individual levee, and they would

vary based on construction and design, what would you have to do

to accomplish that?

General RILEY. Sir, what you would have to do is, depending on,

you would have to look at all the design records, all the construction records, the record of flooding, and do a survey of the height

and the width of the levees, if there is any question about how it

was built, then you would want to go with soil borings. Then you

do the H&H, the hydraulics and hydrology modeling, to run models

of the floods through that area to see how that would respond. So

that’s where the expense would come.

And of course, we would look to the States to do that and take

the lead for non-Federal levees. But what we would want to do is

have it all in the data base, so that everybody could look at it and

see and touch and feel and manipulate.

Mr. MILLER. I had costs given to me that could equal $60,000 per

mile? Does that sound reasonable?

General RILEY. That is not unrealistic.

Mr. MILLER. Okay, so $60,000 per mile times how many miles of

levees are you going to review?

General RILEY. The Corps has 9,000 that we—

Mr. MILLER. How many haven’t you reviewed that we are considering you reviewing, private and otherwise?

General RILEY. I’m not sure I could even guess a number on the

total non-Federal levees.

Mr. MILLER. This $20 million could be—

General RILEY. Oh, no, sir, you are talking the $20 million, the $30 million in the appropriations last year, we proposed another

$20 million for the inventory, setting up the data base, the methodology for assessments. And just to get to the most critical Federal

levees, that would be ones that we built and maintained, build and

turn over to States and maintain or incorporate in our system or

the National Flood Insurance Program, can be up to $400 million

to assess, the Federal. The non-Federal is separate from that, of

course.

Mr. MILLER. Then we get to the next question, which I have a

problem with. Once this is accomplished, and once we determine

that the levees are safe, your comments said that we should require flood insurance for up to a 500 year flood on any area subject

to inundation should a levee fail. How realistic is that? If you build

a dam and you mitigate an area, that will take it out of the 100

year floodplain. You build a dam or a levee, and you take it out

of the 500 year floodplain.

The 500 year floodplain is a very, very large area, in many cases.

Don’t you think that’s an unrealistic requirement for the Federal
23

Government to place on people to have to get flood insurance in

those 500 year floodplain areas, when we have taken it out of the

impact?

Ms. POGUE. I don’t, and here is why. First of all, as the General

mentioned, I think one of the things that is very, very important

which is why it is important, which is what you are getting to, to

linking floodplain management with levee safety and dam safety,

is I do not know with the dams that I have in Rhode Island what

the areas of inundation are, exactly what those areas of inundation

are.

I think if one thing has been pointed out through the various

pieces of legislation on the Hill since Katrina is people need to

know the risks. Whether it is in the FEMA Map Mod program,

whether it is in the levee safety program, people really need to understand why they are at risk, where they are at risk and how they

are at risk. So I do think it is important.

One other thing that I think, though, when you talk about mandatory purchase of flood insurance, getting to this residual risk

issue, is I think that there needs to be a better understanding of

what we are talking about when we are talking about the policy

costs of what FEMA calls a preferred risk policy. People can live

in a 500 year floodplain, which as you say, it can be very, very

large, or as we say, fat.

However, a preferred risk policy which has the same coverage

can only cost anywhere from like $122 a year. So we are not talking about people living way far away from water or a water course

and having to pay $5,000 annual premiums. The preferred risk policy, which also covers those people in a 500 year floodplain, is

much less expensive.

Mr. MILLER. If you take an area such as the Sacramento area,

it is the second largest flood plain in the Nation other than the Mojave Desert, you are taking into consideration a huge area of development. And the closer you get to the river area, the higher the assessment is going to be based on the insurance premiums.

I think it is a huge windfall for insurance companies. But I am

not sure it is a Federal mandate that should be applied. I think

that the States or local agencies should apply that mandate,

whether the Federal Government designed a standard that States

must comply.

So I have a problem with the Federal Government making that

mandate. If the State wants to do it, Massachusetts, California,

they want to implement that, then I think that is wholly reasonable. But I think it is wholly unreasonable for the Federal Government to place a mandate.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DUNCAN. Very good point, Mr. Miller.

Mrs. Schmidt.

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Yes, I have a question for you, Ms. Pogue. I am

sorry I am late, I had to vote on another bill. But I was reading

some of the remarks that you had at the end of your testimony.

They are pretty extensive in which you would like to see included

in the language of the bill.
24

Have you had a cost assessment of some of these as well as a

property assessment of some of these requirements that you would

like to see added to the bill?

Ms. POGUE. I am sorry, could you be more specific in terms of

what in particular?

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Let me go back and look. Page 9 of 10, Section

7. You want us to consider delaying the legislation to set up a national levee safety program until the inventory is completed in

three years, whereupon added data is available to design such a

program, if included. You recommend adding after economically, socially and environmentally, you add and to build public awareness

of the risks and to build the State capacity for levee safety programs.

I just want to know, in wordsmithing such as this, there is usually a cost attached to these things. Have you done a cost analysis

of what this would add to the burden of the Federal Government?

Ms. POGUE. No, I have not. It is difficult to do a cost analysis

which is why I think what we have said, in agreement with everybody else on the panel, it is difficult to try to quantify the magnitude of the problem when we don’t even know the size of the

problem, because we don’t know how many levees are out there,

what condition they are in or so forth. Which is why under Section

7 in that paragraph, the emphasis really is on getting the inventory competed, not only the inventory in terms of the number and

location, but also the actual risk, how much risk this is posing to

this many people. Then you can start working with costs to try to

determine what this is going to cost.

Mrs. SCHMIDT. I don’t have any other questions at this time,

thank you.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Ms. Schmidt.

Mr. Shuster.

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Another cost question. I think, Ms. Pogue, you are absolutely

right, we have to figure out what the inventory is and the condition

of it as we move forward or we are never going to know exactly

what it is. I think Mrs. Schmidt, your question is—that is an appropriate question and that is why I guess we are really trying to

get to the bottom of it.

In the levee safety bill, do you think that there needs to be, we

need to strengthen the section concerning cost benefit analysis?

Where do we build a levee? You mentioned, Ms. Pogue, that we

shouldn’t be building them in undeveloped areas. But are there

places that there are levees today that we should look at and say,

and there is mitigation, move people out, they have done that in

my hometown of Altoona, Pennsylvania. There is a floodplain there

and we finally got eight houses, we have given them the money

and they have moved out.

So should we strengthen the cost benefit analysis so that when

we are deciding to strengthen levees we ought to be making that

assessment?

Ms. POGUE. I think that is why there were suggestions made in

there in terms of socially and economically and so forth. When levees were built, and again this gets back to the inventory and knowing what design standard it is, and what the risk is that that par-
25

ticular levee poses, when we target, if you will, certain levees, we

are talking about those that are high risk and medium risk, and

why? Because as you are saying, those are the ones that were built,

maybe not to an adequate standards, but subsequently, a lot of development occurred on the other side of the levee, which probably

wasn’t intentioned when the levee was originally built.

So I think when you are looking at socioeconomic factors, and I

think Mr. Rabbon talked about, and perhaps Dr. Nicholson, about

how with the Army Corps guidance in terms of looking at a cost

benefit analysis, we sort of need to add two things in there, and

that is public safety, health and welfare. And I think that hopefully

will tip the cost benefit analysis.

Mr. SHUSTER. Right. General, your thoughts on cost benefit analysis?

General RILEY. Yes, sir, I clearly agree. Within our principles

and guidelines, there remains a great deal of flexibility. A little

more than a year ago, we published engineering regulations which

descried that all of our planning studies will look at not just the

national economic development, but also regional economics, environmental and what is categorized as other social effects, where

loss of life would be a very important factor. So we are requiring

all of our planning studies to look at all four of those accounts.

We state you must identify the national economic development

alternative, but select that one which best meets the needs of the

Nation. So we have already directed that those kinds of factors be

considered. In our budgeting process as well, not just our planning

process, but our budgeting process, risk to loss of life is also a factor in our budgeting.

Mr. SHUSTER. I saw in New Orleans, what the Chairman was

saying about earlier, I am no engineer, but when I was in New Orleans, where the breach occurred, I don’t know which one, maybe

17th Street, Canal Street, there were yards, the levees were part

of people’s yards. There were trees planted in it. Across the canal

on the other side, there was an access road, a barrier, then the

buildings started.

So again, from an amateur’s eye or layman’s eye, it just seemed

obvious to me that that had to contribute to the failure of the levee,

having the trees in people’s back yards and other structures there.

In your analysis in New Orleans, I saw the breakdown where it was somewhere between $3.5 billion and $10 billion to raise the

standards of the levees, but 8 percent of the population in some off

those outlying parishes, about 8 percent, was going to cost $3 billion or $4 billion. My staff did a quick analysis that is $250,000 per

person, man, woman and child. That just seems to me that if I

lived there and somebody offered me, not $250,000, but some kind

of money, they would grab it and run out of there, and we could

use it for some other purpose.

The second question I have, have you learned anything from our

international partners around the world? For instance, the Dutch,

I know they build their levees to the 15,000 year floodplain, which

I don’t know who was around 15,000 years ago to be able to determine that. But what are your thoughts about that, General?

General RILEY. Yes, sir. We have the Dutch on our planning

teams. We have them also on the forensics team, as well as the
26

Japanese, who have great experience in this. So we are clearly

eager to accept any and all advice in our interagency performance

evaluation team, which Dr. Nicholson is doing the external review

on.

We have 50 different agencies and organizations represented in

that. So we are serious about bringing in all the expertise we possibly can get.

Mr. SHUSTER. Do any of the rest of you care to comment on anything you have learned internationally from the Dutch or the

Italians? Even the Russians in St. Petersburg have a significant

concern up there, with that city.

Mr. NICHOLSON. Yes, as well, we have, in our assessment team,

when we went to New Orleans, we had both Japanese and Dutch

participation. And as well, we have Dutch participation on our review panel of the Corps’ investigation.

Ms. POGUE. I will make one comment. In February I was invited

as the chair of ASFPM to speak before the French Parliament.

They had quite a gathering, over 200 people from around Europe.

The one comment I will make, which is less on structural design

and so forth, is more on the people’s psyche. In those areas of the

country, where they have been at this for a much longer time,

there is just an absolute accepted practice of mitigation. It is just

accepted, it is believed in, it is without question and it is looked

upon as an investment rather than expense.

So I think it is sort of in people’s behavior, it is much different

over there in terms of they accept the risk and they know the risk

and they are willing to do something about it.

Mr. SHUSTER. Is that the French or just Europeans in general?

Or are you talking about the Dutch?

Ms. POGUE. Well, there was a Dutch panelist who advocated

that, a German panelist and a French panelist, particularly in the

Noire Valley and in those areas.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mitigation meaning moving people or building up

stronger?

Ms. POGUE. Mitigation—exactly. Mitigation meaning moving people if need be, meaning elevating structures, meaning don’t build

there to begin with. Basically long term looks at reducing flood impacts.

Mr. SHUSTER. My time is up, so I will yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DUNCAN. Are you through, or did you want something else?

Mr. SHUSTER. I have another question if that is all right.

Mr. DUNCAN. Go right ahead.

Mr. SHUSTER. On the Dam Safety Bill, which the levee safety

program is modeled after, could you comment on, I think Ms.

Pogue, you mentioned there were some weaknesses in it. Could you

all sort of comment on what you think the Dam Safety Bill needs

to strengthen, as well as, I think you touched on the Dam Safety

Bill, $10 million is not enough? I think you are right.

Ms. POGUE. The Dam Safety Bill, first of all, thank God, they did

it when they did it. I will say, if not for that bill and that program,

Rhode Island would never have figured out how many dams we

have and how many are at risk and how many are categorized. So

it is a great starting point.
27

The disconnect, however, is that dams are built or dams are

taken down and there is no sort of, and the General referred to it

in sort of a watershed concept in terms of planning and management, looking at that more holistic approach.

So unfortunately, I think what is happening, at least in our

State, and many States with the Dam Safety Bill, is they are not

incorporating floodplain management principles when dams are

built or taken down or so forth, or when there is development on

the other side of a dam or as a levee. So I think the point we are

trying to make is start with that, but then you really need to incorporate the principles of floodplain management into levee design

and safety.

Mr. SHUSTER. Anybody else?

Mr. RABBON. One very short comment, which I think we need to

pay attention to, because of what we have here, California has an

outstanding dam safety program. It was because there was a dam

failure and people lost their lives.

Mr. SHUSTER. My district does not have Johnstown, Pennsylvania, but I live about 35 miles from there and over 2,000 people

in the late 1800s were killed because that dam was not properly

constructed.

Anybody else care to comment?

General RILEY. Sir, the only comment I would make, not on the

Act itself, but on the implementation, the Corps does have the authority in that Act to inspect any dam, regardless of Federal or not.

We have not done that, primarily one, we would want the States

to request our assistance, and when they do that, then we assist.

Nor is there any general funding to do that.

The other piece is the upgraded data base, geospatial data base,

it would be best to use it for that, too. Of course, we have that technology now. Not the funding to do that, but that is one of those

things that we could do better in the implementation.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Shuster, thank you very much. I think we are

getting close to some votes. Mr. Taylor has a couple of follow-up

questions.

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

General, and again, I don’t want to cast aspersions on the efforts

of this bill, because it is certainly a noble cause. My question is the

difference between identifying problems and fixing problems. And

I guess the for instance I would like to use is, what was the dollar

amount of levees that the Corps had identified prior to August 1

of 2005 that became in effect an unfunded requirement to be fixed,

just in the New Orleans area? Could you give me an idea?

General RILEY. No, sir, I don’t think I could right now. I would

have to take that one for the record. Would you please? Because

the one that sticks out in my mind is I remember going all the way

back to 1971, the Coast Guard at New Orleans being told they

were going to move their base so the Industrial Canal locks, which

were getting ready to fail in 1971, could be moved. It is now 2005,

and if my memory serves me right, those Industrial Canal locks are

still sitting in the exact same place.

So that is just one for instance of what I guess is going to be a

billion, multi-billion dollar tab of things you had identified prior to

the storm that needed to be fixed, but for lack of funding didn’t.
28

And again, so I guess I just want to point out that it is pretty easy

to identify problems. The hard part for this Congress has been coming up with the funds to fix those things once you identify that. But

I really would like to have that for the record.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DUNCAN. I thank you very much, Mr. Taylor. Certainly you

are correct about that.

Dr. Ehlers.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really have no questions, because I am hopping between three subcommittee meetings.

But as a scientist, I am fascinated with this topic. I appreciate the

evidence you brought, and I appreciate your holding the hearing,

Mr. Chairman. With that, I will yield back.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much.

Ms. Johnson.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. To the panelists, in most of today’s testimony, there is general criticism that

the funding levels in H.R. 4650 are insufficient to meet the need.

So what would each of you suggest would be a more appropriate

level of funding for the scope of levees included?

Mr. NICHOLSON. I will go ahead and speak. As you mentioned,

my spoken testimony here, we suggested approximately doubling

the appropriations amount, essentially front-end loading that for

the inventory, which has to be the starting point of this. So essentially put that $20 million a year for the first three years to get

that inventory done. Before we have that inventory, we don’t really

know where to go.

Ms. POGUE. I think at this point, we had gone somewhere between—I feel like I am playing with monopoly money, doubling or

tripling, but the point being, as Dr. Nicholson is saying, it does

need to be front-end loaded, so that you can get the inventory started and start to get an idea of what the magnitude of the problem

is, as I had mentioned.

Mr. RABBON. NAFSMA does not have a recommendation for the

additional amount of funding, but we do concur the first step must

be the levee inventory. And after that, I think it would be easier

to propose a number.

General RILEY. Yes, ma’am, our planning right now, of course we have $30 million that you provided last December, $20 million in

our 2007 budget. It looks to get through our phasing of the inventories over the period of the next three years we would need about

$20 million a year, which would be inclusive of that that’s already

been either provided or in our budget.

Now, to move on to an assessment phase, that is a different

story, which we really don’t have a true estimate. The bill asks us

to develop the methodology to do that assessment. So we are in the

process of doing that now.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much to the witnesses. Thank

you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you.

Dr. Boozman.

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As you know, FEMA and the Corps are placing a lot of scrutiny

on levees throughout the Country, including in my district. Is it
29

possible to investigate the integrity of the levees in a satisfactory

way without requiring outright certification?

My second question is, should there be different requirements

concerning Federal versus non-Federal. What is your thinking on

those questions?

General RILEY. Sir, if I could address the first one, there is, of

course, a FEMA requirement for certification for those levees in the

National Flood Insurance Program. We certify that both structurally and in the hydrology, we would have to model the 100 year

storm to go through there and see how that would respond, and determine the appropriate height.

You separate that now from your structural question, and it is

certainly possible to structurally determine the capability of a levee

to determine, and its capability to withstand a certain year of

floods. So we could determine the assessment of a levee, whether

it is a 20 year storm of 50 year storm or 100 or 200. Separate from

the FEMA’s national flood insurance program.

Mr. BOOZMAN. How about the Federal versus the non-Federal,

different standards.

General RILEY. Sir, the standards ought to be the same. There

is no question. And there are different categories, and the data

base will have all the different categories, but certainly standards

ought to be the same.

Mr. BOOZMAN. Government has a tendency to overreact sometimes when major events occur and that’s not to suggest that what

we’re talking about is inappropriate. I am very supportive of the

Chairman.

Along those same lines, regarding the FEMA mapping, I know

there is some talk of areas in Arkansas that might get remapped

in such a way that would cause problems with regard to the current usage, where we’ve never had any problems. What is your

feeling? Do you feel like there is a tendency to overreact in this

area?

General RILEY. Sir, the Administration has proposed a national

levee inventory in its budget for next year. So that is our proposal.

So we don’t think it is an overreaction. We think it makes eminent

sense to have that inventory to know what we have out there and

then to allow us then to focus on the assessments on the most critical ones.

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Dr. Boozman.

General Riley, I am not sure I was understood or was clear a

while ago about, or that it was clear to me what you said about

where you stand now with the $30 million that was in the supplemental. I thought I heard you say something about three years

time. Where are you?

General RILEY. Sir, right now—

Mr. DUNCAN. People make comments to me throughout the hearing and sometimes I miss part of the answers. What did you say?

General RILEY. In our inventory, we have got the four phases

planned in our inventory, Mr. Chairman. Phase one is to begin that

geospatial data base, and then phase two, begin to debate against

that, phase three, by the end of 2000 [sic], then incorporate and re-
30

fine the data base and bring in all the Federal and non-Federal levees into the data base.

That, by the end of next year, up to about $40 million to do that,

those two pieces. And then another, phase four, when you complete

this detailed inventory, another $20 million to $40 million. So that

is what I was saying is, with the $30 million appropriated, the $20

million in our budget, that will be necessary to get this moving and

it will get it off to a great start for the next two years. What we

would need probably to complete that is about $20 million a year

for the following two years.

Mr. DUNCAN. So if I understood you correctly, it would take you

about four years from now to complete the inventory?

General RILEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. DUNCAN. Okay.

And Mr. Rabbon, can you tell us where you stand? We have been

hearing and reading about all the rains in the Sacramento area

and so forth. I know that you have, or the State of California has

declared an emergency regarding their levees. I am told that you

are in the process of repairing 24 critical levees. Are most of those

in that area that we are hearing about? Or what is the situation?

General RILEY. Yes.

Mr. DUNCAN. You are going to complete that by the end of this

year, is that correct?

Mr. RABBON. The intent is for the State of California and the

Corps of Engineers to complete construction on the 24 critical erosion sites. And those have been identified primarily because the

levees that we are looking at protect highly urbanized areas. We

actually have over 180 erosion sites throughout the Sacramento

River flood control system.

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Well, we are getting into these votes now.

Let me just, I am not going to be able to ask all these questions.

But I do want to ask one of Ms. Pogue and Dr. Nicholson, separate

questions. Ms. Pogue, in your testimony, you suggest that the Federal Government, including the Corps of Engineers, should not be

performing the detailed engineering assessments for non-Federal

levees. Who should be responsible, and why do you say that or suggest that?

Ms. POGUE. I think again that gets back to what Representative

Boustany brought up, and that is that it is a Federal, State and

local problem. It needs to be shared. I think when those levees are

regionally owned, county owned or local or State owned, they bear

the burden of trying to have those engineered and surveyed.

So it is either going to be engineering staff on State departments,

which we don’t have in Rhode Island, so it is basically the private

sector, private engineers. But I think that burden again goes back

to the States and goes back to the local governments to bear that

brunt.

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, on most things, we find that the private sector, and then the local and State governments can do things a little

more cheaply and economically than the Federal Government. Do

you find that also?

Ms. POGUE. Not only do I agree with that, but I think also often,

more expeditiously as well.
31

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Dr. Nicholson, you suggest setting up a

system of independent peer reviews on all these federally funded

levee projects. We have added some of that for the bigger projects

into the WRDA bill that we passed. Why do you think that is important, and how much do you think something like that would

cost? Do you have any rough guess?

Mr. NICHOLSON. No, I don’t have an estimate on the costs associated. But what we find is that in most cases, certainly for large

dams, even if those are constructed by Federal agencies, those will

most often have an external peer review. Because there is no one

single, even though there may be a standard, every dam is going

to be different, the levees now in the same way that dams may be

protecting or providing flood mitigation for urbanized areas.

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, the problem I see, already they are talking

about $60,000 per mile for just the assessment phase. If you start

adding in all kinds of extra things already, then I just don’t, it is

just like talking about the Dutch. We certainly want to use their

expertise and their suggestions. But we are so much bigger, that

we can’t really do exactly what they have done all over this Country without spending our entire Federal budget on some of these

things. So that is the problem, I think.

Mr. NICHOLSON. I don’t think really it is a whole lot of extras.

Having an external peer review is not necessarily going to have

near the cost of doing the evaluations. When we talk about the

costs of actually doing evaluations or assessments of these

embankments—

Mr. DUNCAN. Sir, I tell you what. If we are going to take your

suggestion seriously, though, why don’t you send us an estimate

specifically, as specific and detailed as possible, as to how much

that would cost and how much time it would add to the process,

okay?

Mr. NICHOLSON. We could look into that, sure.

Mr. DUNCAN. Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate the testimony and the answers of all the witnesses. This has been a very

good panel. Thank you very much, and that will conclude this hearing.

[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77Æ