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

31–544 PDF 2007

A LOOK AT THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE

PROGRAM AND FLOOD MITIGATION EFFORTS:

IS BUCKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA,

READY FOR ANOTHER FLOOD?

FIELD HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

AUGUST 15, 2006

Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services

Serial No. 109–115

(

(II)

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio, Chairman

JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

DEBORAH PRYCE, Ohio 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio 

SUE W. KELLY, New York, Vice Chair 

RON PAUL, Texas 

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio 

JIM RYUN, Kansas 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut 

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio 

MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

JEB HENSARLING, Texas 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida 

RICK RENZI, Arizona 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

TOM PRICE, Georgia 

MICHAEL G. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

JOHN CAMPBELL, California 

BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts 

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon 

JULIA CARSON, Indiana 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

BARBARA LEE, California 

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee 

RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA, Texas 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEVE ISRAEL, New York 

CAROLYN MCCARTHY, New York 

JOE BACA, California 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

AL GREEN, Texas 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

MELISSA L. BEAN, Illinois 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin, 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

ROBERT U. FOSTER, III, Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on: 

August 15, 2006 ................................................................................................ 1

Appendix: 

August 15, 2006 ................................................................................................ 35

WITNESSES 

TUESDAY, AUGUST 15, 2006

Cawley, Hon. James F., Chairman, County of Bucks, Office of Commissioners 8

Collier, Carol R., Executive Director, Delaware River Basin Commission ......... 19

Keller, Hon. Laurence D., Mayor, New Hope Borough ......................................... 11

Komelasky, George F., Vice President, Paiste & Noe, Inc., on behalf of the 

Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America ..................................... 21

Maurstad, David I., Acting Mitigation Division Director and Federal Insurance Administrator, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, 

Department of Homeland Security ..................................................................... 6

Mohn, Hon. Daniel, Council Member, Yardley Borough ...................................... 10

Smith, Sam, flood victim, Langhorne, PA ............................................................. 23

Winslade, C. William, Manager, Yardley Borough ............................................... 27

APPENDIX 

Prepared statements: 

Oxley, Hon. Michael G. .................................................................................... 36

Cawley, Hon. James F. .................................................................................... 38

Collier, Carol R. ................................................................................................ 40

Keller, Hon. Laurence D. ................................................................................. 59

Komelasky, George F. ...................................................................................... 63

Maurstad, David I. ........................................................................................... 66

Mohn, Hon. Daniel ........................................................................................... 73

Smith, Sam ....................................................................................................... 88

Winslade, C. William ........................................................................................ 92

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Hon. Michael G. Fitzpatrick: 

Statement of Jeanne Doyle .............................................................................. 100

(1)

A LOOK AT THE NATIONAL FLOOD 

INSURANCE PROGRAM AND FLOOD 

MITIGATION EFFORTS: IS BUCKS 

COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, READY FOR 

ANOTHER FLOOD? 

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES, Washington, D.C. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., at Yardley 

Community Center, 64 S. Main Street, Yardley, PA, Hon. Michael 

G. Oxley [chairman of the committee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Oxley and Fitzpatrick. 

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. Today the 

Committee on Financial Services is holding a hearing on the National Flood Insurance Program here in Yardley, Pennsylvania, in 

the 8th Congressional District of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, entitled, ‘‘A Look at the National Flood Insurance Program 

and Flood Mitigation Efforts: Is Bucks County, Pennsylvania, 

Ready for Another Flood?’’ 

I want to thank our host, Congressman Mike Fitzpatrick, for inviting the committee here today. During the 108th and 109th Congresses, this committee spent consideration time and effort on legislation to reauthorize and reform the National Flood Insurance 

Program. On June 30, 2004, President Bush signed the BunningBereuter-Blumenaur Flood Insurance Reform Act into law. The 

major goal of the Flood Insurance Reform Act at the last Congress 

was to reauthorize and reform the program with an eye toward 

maintaining the financial viability of the NFIP. 

While some provisions were included to address administrative 

and procedural concerns regarding the NFIP, we did not focus on 

issues that were procedural in nature such as the filing of claims, 

the timeliness of response to the claims filing, policy holder education, and insurance agent sales and training. During deliberations on last year’s reauthorization legislation concerns were raised 

regarding the administration of the program. In fact, several concerns were brought to the attention of FEMA. 

First, it is alleged that policyholders often do not have a clear 

understanding of their coverage under the policy. Secondly, insurance agents often do not clearly articulate the terms and conditions 

of the policy at the time of sale and they do not know how to process claims correctly. Third, policyholders do not know or understand the appeal process. Fourth, many questions regarding the 

2

adequacy of payments and the adjustment system were raised. Finally, a lack of coordination between private insurers, the NFIP, 

and FEMA, and inadequate training have been cited as possible 

sources for some of the administrative problems plaguing the 

NFIP. 

Since the enactment of the Bunning-Bereuter-Blumenauer Flood 

Insurance Reform Act, Members of Congress have continued to 

hear from their constituents who are frustrated with the flood insurance program. During this Congress, the House overwhelmingly 

approve H.R. 4973, the Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization 

Act of 2006, also know as the FIRM Act, on June 7, 2006, with a 

416–4 vote. In an effort to make the NFIP more actuarially sound, 

the FIRM Act phases out the subsidized rates currently enjoyed by 

the owners of hundreds of thousands of vacation homes and second 

homes. 

In addition, the bill introduces new lines of coverage at actuarial 

prices and increases the program’s coverage limits to reflect inflation. These are common sense reforms that will again be actuarially priced. The FIRM Act requires FEMA to administer the program more responsibly. Flood maps will be improved and updated 

and FEMA will have to certify to Congress that they have done so. 

The NFIP’s borrowing authority will be temporarily increased to 

ensure that all outstanding claims will be paid. 

The FIRM Act increases the amount that FEMA can raise policy 

rates in any given year from 10 percent to 15 percent, and for those 

lending institutions that drop the ball in enforcing mandatory flood 

insurance purchase requirements, fines will be tripled from where 

they are now. It is important to note that this program was created 

in 1968 because there wasn’t an affordable private sector insurance 

alternative that would cover flooding events, particularly for residential homes and small businesses. Hence, the Federal Government stepped in where the market was clearly not working. 

Some 30 years later, as the consumer market becomes more sophisticated, its expectations regarding the insurance industry, and 

particularly the NFIP, appeared to have outpaced the original intent and purposes of the program. In late June of 2006, east coast 

communities from Virginia to Vermont experienced heavy storms 

and flooding leading to damaged homes, loss of property, and physical injury. In Pennsylvania alone, nearly 150,000 people were displaced by those storms. 

Particularly, the flooding left Bucks County with 308 severely 

damaged single family homes. About 4,000 residents living along 

the Delaware River were ordered to evacuate. This flood was the 

third time since 2004 that homes and businesses in Bucks County 

have been damaged by flood waters. On June 30, 2006, 28 counties 

in Pennsylvania, including Bucks County, were declared disaster 

areas by the President, thus qualifying the region for Federal aid. 

On July 17, 2006, Congressman Fitzpatrick held an ad hoc field 

hearing in New Hope, Pennsylvania, a community located here in 

Bucks County to review the recent flooding of the Delaware River 

and what can be done to prevent future damages. This hearing 

today will give us an opportunity to hear from both practitioners 

and policyholders on how well the program is working and to what 

extent this Congress should address any further reforms to ensure 

3

that the National Flood Insurance Program is meeting the original 

Congressional intent of protecting and assisting families and businesses in the event of a flood. Thank you to Mike Fitzpatrick for 

your leadership on this important issue, and I look forward to today’s testimony. I yield the floor to the gentleman from Bucks 

County. 

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Thank you, Chairman Oxley, for making the 

trip to Yardley Borough, Bucks County, Pennsylvania, and for your 

interest and advocacy in reform of the National Flood Insurance 

Program. Also, thank you for convening this important hearing to 

discuss the damage and potentially mitigate future damage from, 

as you just described, 3 successive floods in just 2 short years, and 

it is really hard to overestimate the devastation that has occurred 

to residential property owners and business owners, not just here 

in Yardley, but throughout the Bucks County area, and specifically 

the Delaware River watershed. 

Before I make my remarks, I do have a video clip. It takes about 

7 minutes. It is an indication of—actually the videos were made 

here in Yardley Borough, but it is an indication of the devastation 

that the flooding caused in the communities of the 8th Congressional District up and down the Delaware River. Please refer to the 

screen in front here. 

[Video] 

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Thank you, Bill. For the record, just identify 

your name and your title. 

Mr. WINSLADE. Cyril William Winslade, borough manager as well 

as risk management coordinator. 

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Thank you, Bill, and thank you also to Karl 

Gober for providing that footage to us here today. Mr. Chairman, 

I know that you have been referred to in the headline of the local 

Bucks County Carrier Times this morning. The underground infrastructure referred to as a house of cards, almost, which is crying 

out for—that is a result of the damage resulting from the flood, 

successive floods, but specifically the flood of June 27–28 of this 

year, crying out for coordinated Federal, State, and local response, 

which is what we are going to provide. 

I would like to thank the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee for traveling to Bucks County for this vital hearing. 

I would also like to thank our distinguished witnesses for taking 

time from their busy schedules to testify to their experiences with 

the National Flood Insurance Program and flood mitigation efforts 

throughout Bucks County, Pennsylvania. This morning I look forward to an instructive discussion on the current state of the National Flood Insurance Program and how the program responded to 

the recent flooding in Pennsylvania’s 8th Congressional District. 

In addition, this hearing will focus on how State and local governments operate under the NFIP, as well as the steps currently 

being taken by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, local 

officials, and the insurance industry to resolve problems dealing 

with inconsistencies and delays which are inherent in the program. 

I trust that after this hearing everyone will understand what NFIP 

is doing now, and can do better in the future, to resolve these problems. As you all know, the 8th Congressional District is exceptionVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:42 Mar 14, 2007 Jkt 031544 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\31544.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
4

ally susceptible to Delaware River flooding; Bucks County has 

faced a devastating flood in each of the last 3 years. 

Floods have displaced hundreds of families and businesses, destroyed countless homes, degraded our environment, and damaged 

the local economy. When flooding struck Bucks County in April 

2005, it was the second event of its kind in only 7 months. Many 

residents and businesses had just completed repairing the damage 

from the last flood when the Delaware River spilled over its banks 

once again. April’s floods forced the evacuation of more than 6,000 

people. More than 500 homes sustained major damage, another 500 

minor damage, and 100 businesses felt the effects of the worst 

flooding in the region in a half a century. National flood insurance 

claims paid in Bucks County amounted to over $18 million for the 

2004 flood and over $23 million for the 2005 flood. 

In the days leading up to our most recent flood on June 28th, intense heavy rainfall in the Delaware River basin caused near 

record flood crests along many streams and rivers throughout the 

river basin. In New Hope the Delaware River crested at approximately 19.5 feet, just below the 2005 level of 19.6 feet. The flood 

levels again led to the evacuation of many local residents and uncalculated costs to repair the affected areas. It is estimated that 

there is major damage to 250 Bucks County homes and nearly 50 

businesses this time. 

As I previously discussed, flooding has hit Bucks County and surrounding communities with startling regularity. With such frequent flooding in our region over a relatively short period of time, 

it is not surprising that serious concerns have been raised regarding the cause of these events. I have made it a top priority of my 

Congressional agenda to shed light on the causes of flooding along 

the Delaware and to find ways to mitigate damage from future 

events. 

I have discussed the issue with various Federal, State, and local 

officials who say a combination of factors contribute to flooding 

events including extreme rainfall, the release of water from upstream reservoirs, pollution, and increased development within the 

flood plain. One cause, in particular, has not been addressed and 

must be a focus of our efforts to deal with the threat of future 

flooding—a new flood mitigation study of the Delaware River. 

Even though flooding is a regular event along the Delaware, the 

last flood mitigation study is more than 30 years old. Directly after 

the April 2005 flood, I introduced my first piece of legislation in 

Congress specifically designed to fix this oversight. I introduced 

H.R. 1983, legislation calling for a new flood study of the Delaware 

River. This legislation quickly gained bipartisan support, and was 

included in the Water Resources Development Act, which passed 

the House last year. 

Recently the Senate passed their version of the legislation. The 

House and Senate conference negotiation is the next step to a final 

version of WRDA. After the June floods, I was encouraged when 

Senator Specter pledged his support for this legislation and committed himself to seeing that it would be passed in this conference. 

The Delaware River basin is located within four States; Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, and Delaware. Because of this, it is 

imperative that the four States work together to improve conditions 

5

in the Delaware River basin. Water use upstream impacts downstream areas and similarly actions on one side of the river affect 

the other side. 

I strongly believe that we must work together and plan together 

to mitigate flood damage, which is the reason why I formed the 

Congressional Delaware River Task Force. The task force has established a network of Congressional offices to improve communication and coordinate efforts to support initiatives that benefit the 

environmental and economic vitality of the Delaware River interstate watershed and its communities. This task force continues to 

meet and invites comment from interested conservation groups. 

I have also worked to restore funding to the NRCS watershed 

protection and flood prevention programs which the President zeroed out in his Fiscal Year 2006 budget request. I fought to return 

the program to its Fiscal Year 2005 level. Through negotiations 

with Congressional appropriators, we were successful in securing 

$75 million for watershed operations, $7 million for watershed 

planning, and $31.5 million for rehabilitation of aging watershed 

dams; $3 million of that total was secured specifically for flood 

mitigation programs along the Neshaminy Creek, including buyouts in razing and elevation of homes. 

In addition to my flood study legislation, I introduced the National Flood Insurance Program Further Enhanced Borrowing Act, 

which was signed into law by the President on November 21, 2005. 

This legislation increased the amount of money FEMA is permitted 

to borrow from the Treasury to pay flood insurance claims from 

$3.5 billion to $18.5 billion. Although the program has been financially self supporting for the average historic loss year since 1986 

last year’s fate of massive hurricanes overwhelmed this, and if this 

had not been passed possible claims by Bucks County residents 

would not have been met. 

These are some of the initiatives I have undertaken to deal with 

flooding right here in our area. However, this work cannot be successful without the combined efforts of local, State, county, and 

Federal Government representatives. I look forward to hearing 

from today’s witnesses their thoughts on the state of the National 

Flood Insurance Program, the government’s response to recent 

floods, and their expectations for the future. Before we begin, I 

would like to ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, for submission to the record of testimony of my constituent, Jeanne Doyle, 

whom I met with this past week. Jean resides in Upper Black 

Getty, currently lives in Regalsville, and she has been out of her 

home since 2004. She is having serious problems in negotiating 

with the underwriter of her flood insurance policy, and would ask 

that her remarks be submitted into the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

Mr. FITZPATRICK. And additional remarks from constituent Sam 

Smith, whom I met in, I guess, the midpart of the 1990’s, but as 

a result of a hurricane that occurred here, Hurricane Floyd in 

1999, we worked closely with Sam Smith and some of his residents 

along the Neshaminy Creek. Sam’s home has been elevated. He 

and his family have avoided habitual and additional flooding damages, I suspect, saving the National Flood Insurance Program quite 

6

a bit of financial resources, and would ask unanimous consent that 

his testimony be submitted as well. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, 

thank you again for your continued leadership, and I yield back the 

balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania and 

once again thank him for his leadership on this issue. I am sure 

the local folks thank him, as well. It is relatively rare, very rare, 

that we have a new member who has been able to accomplish as 

much in a short period of time. We thank you for that. Let me now 

turn to our first panel and introduce them. Mr. David I. Maurstad, 

Director and Federal Insurance Administrator, Mitigation Division 

of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of 

Homeland Security. Welcome, Mr. Maurstad. The Honorable James 

F. Cawley, chairman, Office of County Commissioners, Bucks 

County, Pennsylvania. Welcome. The Honorable Daniel Mohn, 

member, Yardley Borough Council, Bucks County. Welcome. And 

the Honorable Laurence D. Keller, Mayor, New Hope Borough, 

Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Mayor, good to have you with us. We 

thank you all for your participation, and, Mr. Maurstad, we will 

begin with you. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID I. MAURSTAD, ACTING MITIGATION DIVISION DIRECTOR AND FEDERAL INSURANCE ADMINISTRATOR, EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE DIRECTORATE, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Good morning, Chairman Oxley, and Mr. 

Fitzpatrick. It is good to join you this morning. I am David 

Maurstad, Mitigation Division Director and Federal Insurance Administrator for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. After 

three Bucks County flood events in the last 21 months, I am 

pleased to say that the Mitigation Division, particularly FEMA’s 

Region III office in Philadelphia has worked well with Pennsylvania to carry out an integrated mitigation strategy of analyzing 

risk, reducing risk, and insuring risk. 

In the risk analysis arena, we work with State and local officials 

to collect, study, and distribute pre- and post-event data, to carry 

out technical activities, and to develop policy and guidance as needed. For instance, FEMA Region III is working with Pennsylvania, 

the Delaware River Basin Commission, and others to reevaluate 

the flood risk along the Delaware and Susquehanna Rivers and to 

correct any inaccurate flood insurance data and flood hazard data. 

Results will be combined with other information to help areas rebuild stronger and plan wisely primary parts of mitigation’s second 

element, risk reduction. 

Risk reduction helps States and communities prepare for the future with pre-disaster mitigation planning and mitigation projects. 

State and local governments must develop hazard mitigation plans 

as a condition for receiving hazard mitigation grant program funds. 

There are two levels of hazard mitigation plans, standard and enhanced. Standard plans entitle States to HMGP funding that is 7.5 

percent of disaster assistance. All 50 States have approved standard plans. Enhanced plans require a higher commitment to mitigaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:42 Mar 14, 2007 Jkt 031544 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\31544.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
7

tion and States with such plans, and there are seven now, are entitled to HMGP funding of up to 20 percent of disaster assistance. 

FEMA Region III has been working closely with Pennsylvania’s 

mitigation staff as they put the finishing touches on their enhanced 

plan, and barring any unforeseen issues, we expect it will be approved soon. State mitigation plans are the gateway to HMGP, 

which provides 75 percent of the funding for activities such as acquiring flood-prone homes from willing owners, elevating floodprone homes or businesses, and retrofitting buildings to minimize 

damage from flooding and other hazards. HMGP projects must be 

cost-effective, with the benefit cost ratio greater than one. 

This leads to the essential third priority of our mitigation strategy, insuring against flood risk. The National Flood Insurance Program is simple and effective. Communities join the program and 

adopt building codes and land-use planning policies to mitigate future flood dangers. Residents can then purchase the flood insurance, which standard homeowner coverage usually does not provide, and the NFIP provides insurance coverage to policyholders 

after they suffer a loss. Now, thanks to the 2004 Flood Insurance 

Reform Act, the NFIP is even stronger. Two Reform Act informational documents, the Flood Insurance Claims Handbook, and the 

NFIP Summary of Coverage can help thousands of NFIP policyholders clearly understand their flood insurance coverage. 

These materials were distributed throughout affected Pennsylvania counties after the June floods, and we are mailing these documents to new and renewing policyholders across the country, as 

required. FEMA has also developed the training and education requirements called for by the Act. Pennsylvania’s Department of Insurance proactively informed their insurance partners of the requirements months before they appeared in the Federal Register, 

and I am pleased that the State is processing continuing education 

credits for agents who complete relevant insurance workshops. 

We have also instituted an interim final flood insurance claims 

appeals rule, formalizing how policyholders may appeal the decisions of adjusters, agents, insurance companies, and FEMA regarding claim settlements. Finally, I would like to thank you, Mr. 

Chairman, and the committee for the repetitive loss mitigation 

tools the Reform Act provides. The Flood Mitigation Assistance 

Program’s funding is up to $28 million a year. The $10 million repetitive flood claims program is in the awards process, and the severe repetitive loss pilot program is almost underway. We stay 

committed to aggressively implementing these programs as we continue to address the repetitive loss issue and work to eliminate the 

flood-rebuild-flood cycle that Bucks County residents unfortunately 

have become so familiar with. 

As Pennsylvanians know, common events like spring rains and 

no-name tropical waves can cause flooding just about anywhere, 

yet year-in and year-out, we see flood victims in highly vulnerable 

areas without flood insurance. In the northeast, only 28 percent of 

the homes located in the high flood risk areas are covered by the 

NFIP flood insurance. In Pennsylvania, roughly 25 percent of 

homes in the high risk areas are covered. In Bucks County, it is 

a little higher, 30 percent. 

8

Mr. Chairman, I have attached to my written statement some 

NFIP statistics for Pennsylvania, Bucks County, and Yardley, and 

I would ask that this material be included in the hearing record. 

We must also do better to see that every homeowner, renter, and 

business located in the Nation’s high risk areas are insured against 

flood because no matter how well we plan and mitigate, floods happen, so it only make sense to protect the public and private investments with the financial safety net of flood insurance. After three 

flood events in less than 2 years, Pennsylvanians know that flood 

hazards can’t be completely eliminated. 

However, through coordinated mitigation strategies the impacts 

of flooding can be dramatically reduced. FEMA, the Mitigation Division, and the NFIP will continue strengthening our partnership 

with Pennsylvania, so that future flooding events can be managed 

through sound mitigation planning, not disaster declarations. Mr. 

Chairman, I will be happy to answer any questions the committee 

might have. I appreciate the opportunity to listen to the comments 

that will be made today. As a former mayor, State senator, lieutenant governor, and insurance agent, I have some experience in all 

of these areas and I look forward to hearing what the experiences 

are here in Yardley and Pennsylvania. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Maurstad can be found on page 

66 of the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Cawley. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES F. CAWLEY, CHAIRMAN, COUNTY 

OF BUCKS, OFFICE OF COMMISSIONERS 

Mr. CAWLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. I want 

to thank you, the committee, and of course our Congressman, Mike 

Fitzpatrick, for allowing us to share with you some thoughts on the 

National Flood Insurance Program. I am especially pleased to see 

two of our municipal partners as part of the hearing today. I think 

that they will bring a unique perspective both to the National 

Flood Insurance Program and to flooding and its aftermath here in 

Bucks County. 

The National Flood Insurance Program response in Bucks County has been integrated into a flood plain that is constantly being 

redefined. Maps need to be perpetually updated due to changes in 

geography, construction and mitigation activities, and meteorological events. During the Bucks County floods of September 2004, 

April 2005, and June 2006, FEMA has worked well with local and 

State emergency management officials. FEMA came into the area 

for disaster assessment along with the Pennsylvania Emergency 

Management Agency within days of the events. 

Our emergency management director, John Dougherty, who is 

here with us today, supervised the respective site inspections. The 

FEMA and PEMA officials agreed with our assessment, and we got 

the disaster declarations that we desperately needed quickly. They 

also worked well with Bucks County on getting a Disaster Recovery 

Center up and running quickly following each flood event. I want 

to specifically, again, thank Congressman Fitzpatrick for his hard 

work in establishing the most recent Disaster Recovery Center following the June event. 

9

During the recovery process from the June 2006 flood, 153 DRC 

visitors were able to perform one-stop shopping services for processing low-interest loan applications through the Small Business 

Administration, receiving assistance with Disaster Unemployment 

Assistance, Federal, and State disaster tax assistance, and finding 

cost-effective measures for reducing the impact of future flooding 

and disaster losses. The DRC also offered flood plain rebuilding advice, as well as American Red Cross referrals. 

County departments included at the DRC included the Health 

Department, which offered well testing kits, tetanus shots, and 

mental health counseling; the Area Agency on Aging for specifically 

senior concerns; and, of course, our emergency management agency. During the September 2004 storm, we had a problem with some 

of the dollar amounts FEMA was using for temporary housing and 

repairs because they were using figures from Philadelphia that 

were much less than those here in Bucks County. 

Once we got PEMA and brought it to FEMA’s attention, they 

made the needed changes and we were able to identify much needed help. One of the biggest NFIP problems, if I may, is that we see 

an outdated nature to a lot of flood maps as the previous speaker, 

I think, indicated in his remarks. We also see a significant need for 

more public service announcements noting the 30-day waiting period. We need as many resources as possible to help our citizens 

buy early, and if I may, being that Pennsylvania, I am told, is the 

most—one of or the most flood-prone States in the Nation, perhaps 

a special effort toward public service announcements here in the 

Commonwealth would be extremely beneficial to the residents of 

the Commonwealth, and certainly to the residents of Bucks County. 

In Bucks County, we have had enormous success, as Congressman Fitzpatrick mentioned, with the Neshaminy Creek Elevation 

Program that was implemented by the National Resources Conservation Service. During each of the three floods, houses that were 

elevated through this program were spared from structural damage 

to their living space and utility infrastructure. Elevated residents 

simply swept out water from the concrete shell basement. 

Along the Neshaminy Creek watershed, Bucks County’s Community Alert Network, CAN, uses five water-level gauges to notify 

residents of rising creek levels. The CAN system provides a model 

for implementation within the Delaware River communities, as 

well. Already, it has created a phone bank that is triangulated with 

zip codes of communities within the Delaware River flood plain. 

The next phase for CAN implementation involves coordination with 

a Geographic Information System (GIS), which will make the old 

zip code system obsolete. 

As a first step in understanding the frequent flooding dynamic, 

we urge the Congress to pass legislation that was introduced by 

Congressman Mike Fitzpatrick authorizing the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct a study of the Delaware River Basin. Such a 

study would provide an invaluable data base line. Additionally, it 

would help government officials at all levels to coordinate flood 

mitigation. Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to 

enter those remarks. 

10

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cawley can be found on page 38 

of the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. The next witness is Honorable Daniel Mohn, a member of the Yardley Borough Council. Mr. Mohn, 

thank you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL MOHN, COUNCIL MEMBER, 

YARDLEY BOROUGH 

Mr. MOHN. Chairman Oxley, Representative Fitzpatrick, thank 

you for inviting me to testify today. My name is Daniel Mohn, and 

I am a member of Yardley Borough Council. Since 2004, I have 

worked with residents, State and Federal Government, and various 

public agencies to explore mitigation options for borough residents. 

This committee has asked several important questions. I believe 

the most important question that is raised is, what steps are being 

taken to mitigate future flood damage by FEMA, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and specifically Bucks County? 

The unfortunate answer to this question is that since late 2004 

when the first of three floods that have affected up to one-third of 

our community occurred not one dollar has been saved due to 

FEMA hazard mitigation programs in our municipality. This represents not only a loss for residents of our community, but a loss 

for all taxpayers who fund NFIP claims. But it is not for lack of 

effort. Substantial effort from local community, State, and Federal 

officials have resulted in very little progress. 

It is also not for lack of potential savings. The top NFIP claim 

payments for the 2005 flood only in the Borough of Yardley totaled 

$4.2 million. These NFIP payments ranged from $42,000 to 

$169,000. Had a grant been offered of 2 times the NFIP payments 

made to residents from the previous flood with a maximum of 

$80,000, an investment of $4 million would have a payback of one 

flood event. The most comprehensive change that can be made to 

minimize the impact is a return to funding of structural elevation 

projects. Currently, FEMA’s mitigation program prioritizes acquisition projects over all other types. This one-size-fits-all approach 

does not suit communities like ours and leaves communities like 

ours with no viable mitigation options. 

Acquisition projects can never be a long-term solution for Yardley 

and other similar municipalities. We are a river community. Plainly put, a vast majority of residents do not want to leave. Thirty 

percent of the borough’s tax base would be lost with acquisition 

projects. Removing 30 percent of the tax base would have a devastating effect on the financial wellbeing of our community. Even 

when Yardley residents have expressed interest in acquisition programs, their homes do not meet the benefit cost analysis that 

FEMA requires. That is because this formula does not accurately 

account for the high cost of real estate in the northeast and Philadelphia regions. 

Elevations are less expensive than acquisitions. The main cost of 

flood damage in the borough is first floor damage. Elevating a 

home is, on average, one-third of the cost of acquiring and demolishing the home, yet provides a comparable savings by placing the 

first floor above the flood plain. Not only are elevations less expensive than acquisitions, they would save FEMA and NFIP a subVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:42 Mar 14, 2007 Jkt 031544 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\31544.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
11

stantial amount of money. Anyone who has lived through a flood 

event can tell you there is much more impact than the financial 

factor; the loss of one’s home, irreplaceable family heirlooms, peace 

of mind, and life as it was known, is devastating. 

FEMA does offer some assistance with elevation through the increased cost of compliance grants available directly to homeowners 

from the NFIP. These monies are available to homes that have 

been substantially damaged, meaning the cost to repair the home 

was 50 percent more than the total cost of the structure. The ICC 

grants provide up to $30,000 to assist in home elevations. Though 

the ICC can be a valuable resource, only a small percentage of affected residents have the financial means to elevate their homes on 

their own. This $30,000 is but a small percentage of the entire cost 

of a home elevation and is not adequate to enable most residents 

to take on elevation of their homes. 

I am here today to make one point. Home elevations are the best, 

most feasible, and most cost-effective solution for Yardley Borough 

and its residents, as well as many other communities in the county. 

I hope we can count on your support as we pursue funding and policy options to assist residents. Specifically, we urge you to set aside 

25 percent of hazard mitigation program funds for elevation 

projects, increase the amount that the NFIP pays for increased cost 

of compliance grants from the current $30,000 to 2 times the NFIP 

flood payment for the most recent flood event, reevaluate the benefit cost analysis to adjust the means guide funding factor to better 

reflect the large difference in home prices in different areas of the 

State. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to testify, and when appropriate I am happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mohn can be found on page 73 

of the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Mohn. Mayor Keller. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LAURENCE D. KELLER, MAYOR, NEW 

HOPE BOROUGH 

Mr. KELLER. I wish to thank Chairman Oxley and Representative Fitzpatrick for inviting me to testify today. The title of this 

hearing, ‘‘A Look at the National Flood Insurance Program and 

Flood Mitigation Efforts: Is Bucks County, Pennsylvania, Ready for 

Another Flood?’’, is a topic of vital interest in the New Hope community that I represent. The short answer to this committee’s 

question is no. 

My name is Laurence Keller, and I am the Mayor of New Hope 

Borough. New Hope, which encompasses an area or about 1.2 

square miles is located in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, approximately 40 miles north of Philadelphia, and across the river from 

the City of Lambertville, New Jersey. The Delaware River and the 

canal are the dominant physical features defining the town’s eastern border and providing unique scenic, historic, cultural, and recreational amenities for our residents and the many visitors who arrive each year. 

Pursuant to the Borough Code of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, I am responsible for protecting and preserving public safety 

and for participating with the Council in the declarations of local 

12

disaster emergencies. Gentlemen, I have signed three disaster 

emergency proclamations since September 2004, and all resulted 

from severe flood conditions along the Delaware River. 

According to data supplied by the National Weather Service, 

three of the most severe floods in the history of the Delaware River 

in New Hope occurred in the period of September 2004 through 

June 2006, a period of less than 3 years. In terms of the historical 

crests of the Delaware River dating back to 1841, the three recent 

floods ranked third, fourth, and eighth. Without a doubt, the frequency and severity of floods along the Delaware River are increasing, as are the corresponding damage to property and the threat 

to human life. 

The committee has expressed an interest in evaluating the response of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Flood Insurance Program to the recent floods in New Hope. 

First, FEMA has not played a role in providing or supplementing 

emergency response efforts either in preparation for or during a 

flood event. Local emergency services personnel, consisting mostly 

of dedicated volunteers demonstrated both competence and professionalism in managing these key aspects of the local emergency operation plan. 

Second, with respect to FEMA’s role in the recovery process, I received very few complaints from property owners, tenants, and the 

business community. It appears that FEMA has performed its job 

admirably with respect to providing financial assistance to those in 

need. 

Third, and most important for New Hope, FEMA is tasked with 

the responsibility to administer Federal grant programs related to 

the mitigation of hazards in our communities. The programs include the Hazard Mitigation Grants and Flood Mitigation Assistance Grants. These funds may be used by local communities for 

hazard mitigation retrofitting projects, including elevating structures, acquiring badly damaged flood-prone properties, and certain 

structural improvements such as levees and dams. 

Gentlemen, this is where we need your help. The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program is limited to an expenditure of only 7.5 percent 

of the funds expended on public and individual assistance as the 

result of a declared emergency. Until recently, the amount set 

aside by the Federal Government totaled 15 percent. The Federal 

contribution is matched by 25 percent in State and/or local funds. 

Unfortunately, the dollar amount of grant funds available under 

this program is sorely inadequate and fails to provide significant 

relief to flood damaged communities. In addition, the paltry funds 

that are available are restricted by Federal and State program 

preferences to acquisition of flood damaged properties. No significant funds are available for elevation, which is the preference of 

the great majority of New Hope property owners who live in flood 

damaged areas. 

My comments on the Flood Mitigation Assistance Grant Program 

will be limited, just as the funding for this program is limited. The 

second part of the committee’s inquiry deals with the effectiveness 

of the National Flood Insurance Program. I can offer little useful 

information on this program. However, I can inform you that the 

Borough of New Hope participates in this program and that the 

13

borough’s flood plain management ordinance complies with all program requirements of the NFIP and the Commonwealth. 

In terms of identifying issues with the NFIP, there is an apparent discrepancy between the model FEMA flood plain management 

ordinance that serves as a guide to municipalities throughout the 

Nation and NFIP regulations. The model FEMA ordinance defines 

substantial damage as damage amounting to 50 percent or more of 

the market value of a structure as the result of a flood. On the 

other hand, NFIP regulations allow a determination of substantial 

damage to result from one or more floods over an extended period 

of time. 

The significance of this apparent discrepancy is that a property 

owner, who sustains substantial damage, may qualify for an increased cost of compliance benefit, which is currently set at 

$30,000, to retrofit, including elevation, a structure to protect 

against future flood damage. The model FEMA ordinance should be 

amended to be consistent with this NFIP standard. 

Another problem with the NFIP is the standard used to assess 

substantial damage. The regulation states that the structure must 

receive damage amounting to 50 percent or more of its market 

value. First of all, it is difficult to determine the market value of 

a structure divorced from the value of the underlying land, especially in New Hope. Second, in an inflated real estate market, it 

is often difficult to reach this 50 percent threshold. Consideration 

should be given to changing this standard to one based on construction cost rather than market value. 

The committee’s last question asked what is being accomplished 

by Federal, State, and county governments to mitigate future flood 

damage. Based on my testimony to this point, the answer to the 

question is little or nothing. However, I would like to clarify this 

dour assessment by stating that there is very little that the Commonwealth and Bucks County governments can accomplish, given 

the regional scope of this problem. Flooding along the Delaware 

River affects four States, consequently, the problem is one that requires Federal leadership and resources to solve. 

For what they are worth, here are my recommendations to the 

committee. One, the national government must adopt an active 

leadership position in assessing and mitigating flood conditions 

along the Delaware. Two, the Federal Government, in cooperation 

with the four States that comprise the Delaware River basin area, 

should commission a comprehensive study of the Delaware River, 

for example, the Mid-Delaware River Basin Study, to determine the 

causes of flooding and develop options to reduce or eliminate flood 

conditions. Three, FEMA should give high priority to updating 

flood plain maps along the Delaware. These maps are based on pre1985 studies, are hopelessly outdated, and may be contributing to 

the flood condition. 

Four, the Federal Government should significantly increase the 

funds available to States and municipalities for flood mitigation 

projects, especially elevation projects. Property owners in New 

Hope do not want buy-outs. We desire to elevate our homes and 

businesses to get out of harm’s way. Five, all parties should work 

closely with, and provide needed funding for, the Delaware River 

Basin Commission to carefully assess the use of water supply resVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:42 Mar 14, 2007 Jkt 031544 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\31544.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
14

ervoir capacity for flood storage. The coordination of reservoir operations may contribute significantly in the short-term towards reducing the severity and frequency of flood events along the Delaware River. The DRBC is a multi-State and Federal agency and offers an existing framework for flood mitigation efforts. I appreciate 

the opportunity to testify today and will be happy to answer any 

questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mayor Keller can be found on page 

59 of the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mayor, and thank you to all of our 

witnesses. I think it was concise testimony and excellent recommendations from all parties. Let me begin, obviously the hit of 

the day was Mr. Mohn’s testimony according to the audience reaction, and I would be interested in the other panel’s take on this. 

That is the, I guess, age old issue between elevation mitigation 

versus acquisition and buy-out. In a general sense, we already 

know your position, I think, Mr. Mayor; you made it pretty clear 

as well. 

Mr. Cawley and Mr. Maurstad, I wish you would both comment 

on both of their testimony and what your reaction is to that. 

Mr. CAWLEY. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I can tell you that it is a 

comment that I have heard many, many times since June and before that, April. And one of the things I mentioned earlier, kind of 

parenthetically, that we are all one family. One of the things that 

I think the results of September 2004, or April 2005, or June 2006, 

have cemented in a lot of Bucks Countians’ minds is that from 

Regalsville down to Morrisville we are one riverfront community, 

and as much as we share that commonality, one of the things too 

that has become very clear is that there is not a one size fits all 

approach that is going to serve each one of the communities. 

Mitigation projects that may work in Regalsville would not be 

successful in Morrisville. Things that would work in New Hope 

may not be successful in Tinicum or somewhere else along the waterfront. I think, though, one thing is becoming clear, one thing is 

emerging even as I say that, and that is that there needs to be a 

very serious look at the reprioritization and a move toward elevation specifically along this watershed. As I mentioned in my comments earlier about the Neshaminy Creek watershed, that was a 

multi-dimensional, if you will, approach with an eye toward the 

current structure of buy-outs first, elevations later. But I think in 

this case due to the distinct nature of the communities along the 

Delaware River that perhaps a reevaluation and a look at, as both 

the Mayor and the Councilman said, people don’t want to move. 

They want to stay where they are, but they want to be taken out 

of harm’s way, and if it is cost effective to do so, so we ought to 

be doing it. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Maurstad. 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it is very important—let me back up for a minute. I want to thank the witnesses for the generous comments they made on FEMA’s response 

and recovery efforts here. And Mr. Tom Davies, the Federal coordinating officer appointed by the President is here today, and certainly leads that effort, and we want to look forward to working 

with the State and all the local communities and continuing the 

15

mitigation planning and mitigation projects that need to occur to 

help reduce future vulnerabilities, but we appreciate all of your 

kind comments. 

I think it is very important that we make clear the priority circumstance relative to elevations and buy-out, a question that has 

been raised. And the most important aspect of that is that the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program is a State-administered program. 

FEMA does not set the priorities for the States. FEMA does not set 

the priorities for the local communities. As a part of the Disaster 

Mitigation Act of 2000, there is a requirement that all communities, to be eligible for emergency disaster assistance, develop local 

mitigation plans. 

Part of that Act also requires all States to develop State mitigation plans. I referred to it in my testimony. All 50 States met that 

requirement. About half of the communities in Bucks County have 

local mitigation plans. The local mitigation plans and the State 

mitigation plans drive the priorities. The State administers HMGP. 

They develop the projects. If those projects are eligible projects that 

meet the criteria set forth in the regulations, if they have a costbenefit of at least one or greater, then FEMA approves those but 

FEMA does not dictate the priorities. The State sets those priorities working, I assume, with the communities in doing so. 

So that issue is one that I want if I accomplish anything, Mr. 

Mohn, when I leave today is to make sure that FEMA does not set 

the priorities for the State of Pennsylvania or its communities for 

the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, and emphasize that a key 

component of that is looking at the State plan, what is the priority 

in the State plan, and then looking at the local plans and what are 

the priorities in the local plans. 

The CHAIRMAN. I assume that the issue is based on ultimately 

the choice of the homeowner, is that correct? That is, if in fact 

under the State provision a homeowner has a choice between mitigation elevation versus a buy-out, is that just kind of assumed, Mr. 

Mohn? 

Mr. MOHN. The way the process works is that individual homeowners cannot apply for this mitigation. It is all community based. 

And it is a choice of the homeowner. We have local meetings. We 

discuss all of the options. And then we will put a grant application 

together, and if you came to us and said, ‘‘I would like to elevate 

my home,’’ we would say, ‘‘Sorry, those aren’t funded priorities.’’ 

We probably are not going to send a grant in for you but if you 

came and said that you wanted your house to be acquired we would 

then fill out the grant application, and forward it on to PEMA. And 

I know the gentleman over here knows probably more than I do 

about how priorities are set, but I am just a little confused because 

I think that is not what I have in heard in talking to PEMA. 

FEMA is telling me that there is some FEMA level involvement, 

and I am not clear what that is on prioritization. 

And the second issue is that there is not enough money to go 

around. I understand conceptually that acquisitions may save more 

money if you can get them done but, you know, we are competing 

against $150,000 homes in central Pennsylvania, and the same 

home here is $400,000. We are never going to get any acquisition 

16

funds unless every single home in central Pennsylvania is bought 

out. 

The CHAIRMAN. So right now, though, the preference would be, 

or the easier road would be acquisition as you described it as opposed to mitigation? 

Mr. MOHN. Well, if you are talking about Yardley Borough, the 

answer is, no, that is not the easier road because what happens is, 

first of all, a very small percentage of people want acquisitions. Of 

those who do, we have submitted 16 homes to the acquisition program and all but one of those homes has not met the benefit cost 

analysis that FEMA does primarily because the homes are 

$400,000 homes. 

The CHAIRMAN. What about the issue of elevation in terms of 

business arrangement or business, that doesn’t work, does it, for a 

retail business, for example? 

Mr. CAWLEY. Well, again, because of the prioritizations that are 

placed and the minimum amount of money that is involved here, 

it is very seldom that we get to a business elevation because there 

is so much residential need. So here locally we haven’t had that experience. 

The CHAIRMAN. Where would a business elevation make any 

sense? I guess if you have a business on the main drag 

Mr. KELLER. I can answer that, Mr. Chairman. We have a restaurant-night club-cabaret called Odettes on the south end of town 

in New Hope, and they have suffered severely in all three floods. 

And at this point I don’t know that they are going to reopen. They 

are still going back and forth, and they certainly are cleaning up 

the place, but that would probably be the key establishment that 

I can think of, the most important one along with the Yardley Inn 

that was right on the river as well but Odettes, if you saw it, they 

had probably I would say about 6 to 7 feet of water in the entire 

restaurant and the cabaret, and it just decimated them, but that 

would be a perfect example, and I know they would be in a long 

line waiting to get any funding. And the only thing that is available to them, to my understanding, is some low interest loans but 

after three— 

The CHAIRMAN. In terms of elevation. They would do elevation in 

a heart beat, is that what you are saying, if they had the wherewithal to do it? 

Mr. KELLER. If they had the funding to do it, they would start 

tomorrow. 

The CHAIRMAN. I will yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. 

Mr. MAURSTAD. If I could make a comment along that same line, 

Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, I am sorry. 

Mr. MAURSTAD. I think we are talking a lot about post-disaster 

mitigation activity, and when again the Hazard Mitigation Grant 

Program was changed to 71⁄2 percent of the disaster eligibility at 

the same time a new program was approved by Congress, the PreDisaster Mitigation Grant Program, that quite frankly has helped 

fund many of the planning—local plans across the country to help 

communities look at and assess what steps they need to take predisaster to be able to avoid future losses from natural hazards. 

17

Part of the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program, last year we had about $175 million worth of projects in addition to planning so 

there is a project portion of that where communities again can 

make application through their States for pre-disaster mitigation 

grant funding, so I want to make sure that that is kept in this 

equation that we don’t just focus on the post-disaster activities. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Fitzpatrick. 

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On the Hazard 

Mitigation Grant Program it seems to me that if the program is 

underfunded, and I would like to hear, Mr. Maurstad, your position 

on what the correct number is, but if it is underfunded wouldn’t 

it make more sense to reach more people and help more flood victims both past and potentially future to put more dollars into the 

elevation program as opposed to the buy-out program, the acquisition program. You would be able to help more people. It wouldn’t 

provide a permanent solution because the structure would still be 

within the flood plain but the living area above the 100-year flood 

plain. 

I am confused by the colloquy between Mr. Mohn and yourself. 

Mr. Mohn has issued a challenge, which seems to make sense of 

a minimum of 25 percent set aside for elevation, I think you indicated. Mr. Maurstad indicated that it is not actually FEMA’s role 

to set those guidelines but it is the State’s. If you could address 

that issue. 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Sure. Thank you, sir. First, I think it is important if you look at this in the scope of these are issues that come 

up, quite frankly, after every presidentially declared disaster in virtually every State. Flooding is the number one cause of natural disaster losses year-in and year-out, and so what we are wrestling 

with here is not just being wrestled with here. Secondly, the eligibility component, as I said before from the program’s point of view, 

if a State determines that a project is one that they want to move 

forward with, and it is an eligible project in our regulations—both 

elevation and relocation are eligible projects that the State can put 

forward. 

So again we don’t say that one is better than the other. They are 

eligible projects and the State determines their priorities. The 

State also has the latitude, if they wanted, to indicate that the 

HMGP funding from a particular disaster were going to have a particular percentage set aside for certain types of projects. The State 

would have the ability to do that. The overall funding level is a 

hard one to address on a specific-to-specific disaster because in 

some disasters, clearly the amount of individual assistance and the 

public assistance vary a lot. And 71⁄2 percent of that, it certainly 

doesn’t get stretched very far when you are looking at the number 

of counties that are being addressed, for example, here recently. 

But in some disasters such as we have been dealing with in the 

National Flood Insurance Program, there are some parallel things, 

as I have been listening here today. Since September of 2004 we 

have had a fairly active period of time also with the largest flood 

claims in the program’s history in 2004 and the Florida hurricane, 

75,000 claims, over $2 billion, and then of course last year with another record of 220,000 claims approaching $20 billion. We have 

been running with parallel concerns that you have here but in 

18

those disasters 71⁄2 percent is going to mean a $11⁄2 billion estimate 

for a Hazard Mitigation Grant projects in Louisiana, $500 million 

for Hazard Mitigation Grant projects in Mississippi, Florida the 

year before obviously 71⁄2 percent of those totals—are significant 

sums of money. So it is difficult to say 71⁄2 percent in some cases 

is adequate. In some cases it is not. 

Mr. FITZPATRICK. That is the national number. Now say Louisiana or Alabama or Mississippi don’t use the full allocation of 

their Hazard Mitigation Grant Program as a result of Hurricanes 

Rita and Katrina, could those dollars be flexed to a community like 

Bucks County that has used their full amount but still have homes 

or businesses that qualify for elevation? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. No. The requirements now are that the 71⁄2 percent is for that disaster in the area that has been declared so the 

dollars are for that area. And again in those disasters in the past 

that had substantial amounts, there have been times where the 

State has not accessed all of the Hazard Mitigation Grant dollars 

available to them because of capability and capacity and the limit 

of time that you have to spend those dollars. 

Mr. FITZPATRICK. I just want to make sure I understand this because I think Mr. Mohn testified that after the September 2004 to 

April 2005 flood, the Yardley Borough put together an application 

under the HMGP program, and you put it for acquisitions only because you believed that that was what was going to qualify, not for 

any elevations. Now elevations did occur in the watershed. Some 

folks elevated their homes and the truth is that those who invested 

their own dollars not waiting for the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program probably saved the National Flood Insurance Program a lot 

of money. 

And it seems to me, you know, that if Yardley was told you are 

going to qualify for elevation dollars under this FEMA program not 

only would it have been a good investment, we would have saved 

a lot of families and potentially businesses a lot of heartache. But 

your testimony is that that is a State-driven formula and requirement? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. It is a State-administered program. Seven and 

one-half percent obviously is set by Federal statute, but the State 

is the entity that determines the priorities for that particular disaster, again in many cases working with the local communities 

that are affected, but there is not a FEMA mandate that one type 

of eligible activity has a greater priority than another type of eligible activity. 

The CHAIRMAN. If I could just interject. I don’t know the answer 

to this. How did the 71⁄2 percent figure get ascertained ultimately? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Right. It is in the Act and— 

The CHAIRMAN. How was that— 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Well, the change from 15 percent to 71⁄2 percent 

was done prior to my assuming this role. It is my understanding 

that that was a negotiated change at the time that the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program was developed. The funding for the 

PDM program offset in an average year the amount that HMGP 

funding was being reduced, and then PDM was reduced a little bit 

from there. 

19

The CHAIRMAN. We appreciate the testimony of the gentleman. 

We may have some written questions that we may both want to 

present to the witnesses, but again we thank you for your participation. And this panel is dismissed. Thank you. We would like to 

invite our second panel up to the podium. Ms. Carol R. Collier, executive director of the Delaware River Basin Commission; Mr. 

George Komelasky, vice president, Paiste & Noe, testifying on behalf of the Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America; 

Mr. Sam Smith, resident of Middletown Township of Bucks County; 

and Mr. C. William Winslade, Yardley Borough, Bucks County, 

Pennsylvania. Thank you all for participating, and, Ms. Collier, we 

will begin with you. 

STATEMENT OF CAROL R. COLLIER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION 

Ms. COLLIER. Thank you, sir. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and 

Congressman Fitzpatrick. I am Carol R. Collier, director of the 

Delaware River Basin Commission, or DRBC, as it is known. We 

appreciate the opportunity to speak to you this morning, and I do 

request that my written testimony with the attachments be entered— 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, all of the written testimony 

will be made a part of the record. 

Ms. COLLIER. Thank you. I hope to concisely present DRBC’s role 

in ongoing flood loss reduction efforts, highlight some needs, and 

offer a few recommendations, and then I will be glad to take questions. First, let me just start with a background. We need to really 

look at the basin perspective when we are looking at flood mitigation. The basis is over 13,500 square miles, 330-mile long river, and 

it is the longest un-dammed river east of the Mississippi. And what 

makes it complicated is that we have four States, 25 Congressional 

districts, two Federal Emergency Management Agency regions, two 

EPA regions, five USGS offices, two National Weather Service local 

forecast offices, 42 counties, and 838 municipalities. And as I will 

discuss later, coordination of effort is a critical need for flood loss 

reduction. There are nearly 15 million people who depend on the 

waters of the Delaware Basin. 

I do want to thank Congressman Fitzpatrick for forming the 

Delaware River Basin Congressional Task Force. That is an entity 

that really helps pull together the issues that are involved with the 

basin. DRBC is an interstate/Federal agency with a mission to 

manage water resources without regard to political boundaries 

looking across at the boundaries of the watershed itself. There are 

five commissioners, the governors of the four States, and a two-star 

general in the Corps of Engineers who represents the president 

and all Federal agencies. 

We have regulatory as well as management planning and resource opportunities. One thing I must say is that unfortunately 

the Federal Government has decided not to pay their Federal fair 

share to the commission for a number of years now. They should 

be paying a 20 percent share, so we cannot do all of the water management that people want us to do, including some of the flood 

mitigation efforts. We can talk about that more in the recommendations. As has been stated, and as known by thousands of 

20

property owners and emergency responders, the Delaware River 

Basin has experienced three major floods over less than a 2-year 

period, and I do have an exhibit that shows that we have not had 

such a flood in almost 50 years since 1955, so things are changing 

and we need to look differently at our flood management. 

Flood vulnerability remains a chronic problem in Bucks County 

due in part to the sporadic nature of flooding, but also due to the 

insufficient funding of Federal mitigation program and the costshare formulas that are difficult for many local municipalities to 

meet. DRBC did do an analysis of Bucks County and the repetitive 

loss numbers. These are in the packet. It shows that Bucks County 

has the highest number of repetitive loss properties in the whole 

basin, not the Commonwealth, the whole basin, and that Yardley 

Borough is the second highest ranking municipality, so I ask you 

to look at Exhibit B. 

The analysis shows that there are 561 repetitive loss properties 

in Bucks County that have received insurance claims totaling over 

$60 million through the National Flood Insurance Program for 

losses that occurred during the period of 1978 through 2005. This 

analysis does not include claims from the last flood, the June 2006 

flood, nor uninsured flood damage. So the question is what can we 

do? There is no silver bullet for flood control. It is going to take a 

combination of a number of efforts from the Federal level down to 

the municipal level down to the homeowner. 

We have put together in my written testimony a list of recommendations that have come to us both from public and professionals alike, and they are organized in three levels: one, measures 

to lower existing flood levels; two, measures to reduce damage to 

existing structures; and three, to prevent flood damage from getting worse, and what can we do to make the future better. 

Of those, I would like to highlight some that are priorities by 

DRBC. One of the strengths of DRBC is an ability to bring together 

governmental and non-governmental stakeholders, and we do have 

a flood advisory committee that is comprised of Federal, State, and 

local organizations with flood loss reduction responsibilities. They, 

with DRBC staff, have put together these priorities. Number one, 

encourage and support completion and local adoption of the FEMAapprovable flood and/or hazard mitigation plans for all municipalities as required by the Act of 2000, and then once the plan is completed increase the funding needed to implement the mitigation options. 

The next few deal with flood plains, and I know this is not a popular statement but flood plains flood, and they are a natural extension of the river and an integral part of river systems. If you take 

a flood plain area away either by filling it in or by putting levees 

and separating it from the river, the river will continue to try and 

re-establish that flood plain. So what can we do to get people out 

of harm’s way? One is, as was mentioned by the first panel, appropriate Federal and State funding for building elevations and acquisitions in the flood-prone areas. This is really critical. 

Second, and as mentioned by Mayor Keller, we really need to 

look at map modernization. As people become more aware of flood 

plain issues they are going to go to the right agencies and look for 

the flood plain line and right now it is not correct, and it is not 

21

correct because of development upstream, and also the frequency of 

floods, so the map modernization should be prioritized for the municipalities where flood conditions have changed due to development. 

Next, we really need to look at strengthening flood plain regulations. One, encourage regulations to be consistent with the no adverse impact recommendations by the Association of State Flood 

Plain Managers. Also, looking around the basin at what other 

States are doing and also around the country. Just across the river 

New Jersey has a Governor’s Flood Task Force that was put together after the last flood event of April 2005, and they are looking 

at a number of recommendations, and they also have a different 

definition, a more restrictive definition of floodway that we might 

want to look at on this side of the river. 

Next, really look at storm water controls and implement best 

management practices so that we reduce the storm waters during 

floods that enter the waters. Expand flood plain awareness and 

flood safety education programs, and strengthen flood warning systems, which has already been done. This is a main effort of our 

flood advisory committee but there is certainly more that needs to 

be done. And next I know there has been a lot of discussion about 

the impact of the upstream reservoirs, although they did not cause 

damage during this flood by opening the gates as some have said. 

That was not true but there is a plan that could make it better. 

There could be a reservoir operating plan that looks both at 

drought management as well as flood management, and we are 

willing to lead that effort. One of the things that is needed is a 

technical model so we can really look at different storm scenarios 

and different operation modes of the reservoirs, and that would 

take some Federal funding to do that. There is an attachment to 

my testimony that provides information on that. 

We definitely support Congressman Fitzpatrick’s effort to have 

the Corps of Engineers update and expand their 1984 Delaware 

River Basin survey. That would be a very good approach to looking 

at mitigation options and the cost effectiveness of different options. 

And, finally, ensure funding for adequate maintenance of existing 

flood control structures. I would just like to end with two things. 

It is important to look at the success story that already occurs in 

Bucks County, and that is on the Neshaminy Creek. And it is an 

excellent example of the effective work done by Federal, State, and 

local government coming together to do a plan and get people out 

of harm’s way. 

So finally, there is no silver bullet; there are many things we 

have to do. DRBC is here to help in that effort, and I look forward 

to taking questions at the appropriate time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Collier can be found on page 40 

of the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Collier. Mr. Komelasky. 

STATEMENT OF GEORGE F. KOMELASKY, VICE PRESIDENT, 

PAISTE & NOE, INC. ON BEHALF OF THE INDEPENDENT INSURANCE AGENTS & BROKERS OF AMERICA 

Mr. KOMELASKY. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Oxley, 

Congressman Fitzpatrick, and members of the committee. My 

22

name is George Komelasky, and I am pleased to be here today on 

behalf of the Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America 

to provide my association’s perspective on efforts to reform the National Flood Insurance Program. I am also vice president of Paiste 

& Noe, an independent insurance agency based in Richboro, Bucks 

County. I am currently chairman of the Insurance and Agents and 

Brokers of Pennsylvania, which is the State affiliate of the IIABA. 

I am a local township official, being a supervisor in Northampton 

Township for more than 20 years, and I have been a resident of 

Bucks County for over 30 years. 

The IIABA is the Nation’s oldest and largest trade association of 

insurance agents, and we represent a nationwide network of more 

than 300,000 agents, brokers, and employees. Under the NFIP program, independent agents play a vital role in the delivery of the 

product through the Write Your Own system. Independent agents 

serve as the sales force of the NFIP and the conduits between the 

NFIP, the Write Your Own companies, and the consumers. This relationship provides independent agents with a unique perspective 

on the issues surrounding flood insurance. Yet it also means that 

the role of the insurance agent and the delivery process of flood insurance is considerably more complex than that of traditional property/casualty lines. Agents must possess a higher degree of knowledge and expertise than their non-NFIP participating counterparts. 

This is done through attending flood conferences and seminars. 

This is done regularly and involves traveling to different regions 

throughout the Commonwealth to attend these seminars costing 

personal time and money. 

Every agent assumes these responsibilities voluntarily and does 

so as part of being a professional representative of the NFIP. In an 

effort to bring the education process to as many agents as possible, 

our State association has begun to provide Internet-based seminars 

conducted by nationally recognized flood insurance expert, Rita 

Holladay. This training has been extremely popular and a tremendous tool. We believe in the effectiveness of the program and would 

like to see it continue and offer consumers even greater protections 

in the years ahead. 

However, no program is perfect, which was made all the more 

clear by last year’s devastating hurricane season and the unpredictable weather patterns here in Bucks County. This increased 

flooding activity in such a short period of time has highlighted 

some of the deficiencies in the program and has strained government resources. While the IIABA is confident that the NFIP will 

recover, it is important that Congress shore up the NFIP’s financial 

resources and use this opportunity to enact needed reforms to ensure that the long term sustainability of the program. 

For this reason, the IIABA has been strongly supportive of your 

committee’s legislation, H.R. 4973, the Flood Insurance Reform 

Modernization Act of 2006. In November of 2005, the IIABA released a 23 point plan for reform to restore the NFIP to sound actuarial footing, and we are extremely pleased to see a number of 

the IIABA recommended provisions in your legislation. In particular, the increase of the NFIP’s borrowing authority has been a 

top issue for independent insurance agents and brokers. The Federal Emergency Management Agency distributed a memo to Write 

23

Your Own companies last November informing them that lines of 

credit were suspended until further Congressional action regarding 

an extension of borrowing authority. With claims expected to exceed $23 billion, extending borrowing 

authority was necessary in order to meet consumer needs. The initial borrowing limit of $1.5 billion from the U.S. Treasury was extended by Congress in the immediate wake of Hurricanes Katrina 

and Rita, but even this extension was inadequate to meet the anticipated claims. Chairman Oxley and Congressman Fitzpatrick, 

your efforts to increase the borrowing authority of the NFIP are 

vital to ensure the continued payout of promised monies to consumers, and the IIABA applauds you both for your efforts to ensure 

that the U.S. Government delivers on that promise. 

The inclusion of optional business interruption coverage is also 

crucial to Big I members and their commercial customers. Many of 

these have lost their businesses in the area affected by the hurricanes last year. Business interruption coverage and the security 

and peace of mind it provides is crucial to our members and to 

small business people across America. Also chief among our recommendations, and present in your bill, are provisions that would 

increase the maximum coverage limits, and include additional living expenses for residential policies. 

The IIABA is very pleased that the House has moved forward on 

comprehensive flood insurance reform and passed your committee’s 

legislation. The Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 

2006 is critical towards ensuring the long-term stability of the vital 

National Flood Insurance Program. The NFIP is essential to Americans and to the U.S. economy and we strongly support your efforts 

to update it to reflect today’s risks. We are also strongly supportive 

of your efforts to include the optional coverage of business interruption insurance, additional living expenses, and increasing the maximum coverage limits. 

I would like to thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to express the views of the IIABA on this important program. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Komelasky can be found on page 

63 of the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Komelasky. Next is Mr. Sam 

Smith, resident of Middletown Township. 

STATEMENT OF SAM SMITH, LANGHORNE, PA 

Mr. SMITH. I was asked to comment on a little bit different side 

of it as a flood victim, a person who has had his house elevated, 

so my testimony is a little bit different than what we have heard. 

First, Mr. Oxley, thank you for allowing me to testify on the current flooding issues and concerns. My name is Sam Smith, and I 

live in Middletown Township, Bucks County, PA. My home is situated in the Neshaminy Watershed adjacent to, and a part of, the 

Delaware River Watershed. I was not affected by the recent flooding, though there was flooding in our area. My home was elevated 

out of harms way in 2003 as a part of the Neshaminy Watershed 

Supplemental Plan of Work, PL–83–566. 

Prior to Hurricane Floyd, that was September 16, 1999, residents 

from all of the various communities along the lower Neshaminy, 

24

banded together and formed an association to convince our county 

commissioners of the need to reduce flood damages and reexamine 

at an existing, but dormant flood control project. A new, updated 

study was commissioned at the end of 1996 by Bucks County and 

the Department of Agriculture, NRCS. I was selected as a steering 

committee member to search for alternatives to reduce flood damages. After the completion of the study in 2002, I was on the advisory board to help with the mechanics of the plan as well as work 

with the lead engineering firm to make enhancements to some of 

the details that needed more resolution. 

Our home was flooded during Hurricane Floyd. A second building 

on the property, the cottage, was flooded again on Father’s Day, 

June 2001, by tropical storm Allison. The night before I had just 

put the last piece of trim up in the kitchen to finish the repairs 

from Floyd. My family and I were out of our home for over 5 

months. The cottage was unusable for 3 years. I can’t begin to tell 

you the stress and burden we endured during that period. To this 

day we still seem to be putting pieces of our lives back together. 

The Red Cross, God bless them, put us up in a hotel for 4 weeks, 

and gave us vouchers for a local diner. 

I signed a waiver with the NFIP adjuster after the flood, that 

being Floyd, to have all the work done by a contractor for a 10 percent increased return on my claim. Unfortunately, you couldn’t find 

a qualified contractor anywhere because of the circumstances. 

There were so many homes that were devastated such as in 

Yardley now. My wife and kid and I did all the muck out and demolition necessary to begin the sanitizing and drying process. It took 

8 weeks to dry to the proper level of moisture by core testing. 

FEMA gave us $1,000 for living expenses and estimated the repairs 

could be completed within 4 weeks. I spent 31⁄2 hours on hold trying to get through on a FEMA hotline so I could return the money, 

but the girl stationed in Texas somewhere couldn’t tell me where 

to send it. We used the money to extend our stay in the hotel by 

2 weeks. 

Soon, the hotel and diner costs were exhausting our financial resources. My wife and I improvised a plan to get back in the house. 

We set up a table in the basement with a microwave and a coffee 

pot. I temporarily installed a washbasin in the kitchen for dishes 

and rigged the flooded boiler back into service for heat and hot 

water. The kids and pets couldn’t come home because of unsafe 

conditions but by Christmas the contractor we finally hired had the 

outside of the walls back together and insulation was in, so we 

managed climbing a ladder to the upstairs bed and bathroom. By 

the end of February there was enough of the house pieced back together that we brought the kids home and the pets a month or so 

later. 

There was a FEMA hazard mitigation period after Floyd for buyouts. Our house did not meet the 50 percent damage requirement 

and was not eligible. Damages sustained during Floyd were estimated at $108,000 on the house and the cottage was an additional 

$60,000. There was no payout on the cottage even though the premiums were being paid. The insurance writer failed to write two 

separate policies and the NFIP declined payment. I asked them to 

return the premiums and their comment was to take them to FedVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:42 Mar 14, 2007 Jkt 031544 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\31544.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
25

eral Court in Philadelphia. Likewise was our option to appeal the 

payout figure of less than $60,000 in our home, which was approximately 60 cents on the dollar. 

The house elevation took place in April of 2003. We were again 

out of our home for 8 weeks, though under far better circumstances. Now that we are elevated, I still watch the Weather 

Channel as intensely as I used to prior to a large rain event, the 

same emotions always come rushing back but the fear of losing everything is slowly dissipating. The negative impacts of being elevated are far outweighed by the positive ones. I have claimed back 

a certain peace of mind. If we wanted to sell our home we could 

do so with a clear conscience. After 10 years and hundreds of meetings, seminars and the like, I am able to look forward to living my 

life again. 

There are two issues that I would like to comment on at the 

hearing, and they may be redundant because they were commented 

on previously but at a steering committee meeting that occurred in 

2000, Jeff Mahood, environmental specialist, of the NRCS, he is 

here with us today by the way, made mention of the fact that it 

would take FEMA up to 5 years to adopt new flood plain values 

established by the ongoing study and incorporate them into the 

NFIP rate maps. I didn’t put too much thought into it at the time, 

however, it is clearly a fundamental problem that is costing huge 

amounts of money and grief. 

I am not sure exactly when the information became available to 

FEMA but it was calculated within a month after Floyd that it was 

not a 100-year event by Walter Boles, hydrologist of the NRCS. 

That means he had the information available back to him in 1999. 

He perhaps hadn’t completed all the details but it was certainly 

ready in 2000. To this day the new values have not been adopted. 

Since we are spending or investing $14 million on a non-structural 

reduction of flood damages in the watershed, it is critical that all 

municipalities in the watershed adopt and comply with the storm 

water management act so that no increase of flooding occur in the 

future, otherwise, all those values are just out the window. It is absolutely ludicrous to allow building in the same flood plain that we 

are still in the process of trying to correct. 

The average difference in the flood plain elevations from the 

FEMA maps to the new values is approximately 30 inches in the 

lower Neshaminy. My home was flooded by 24 inches and it caused 

such havoc. My neighbor just put a 700 square foot addition on his 

house, right in the flood plain because the township is required to 

use FEMA values even though they know better. They are aware 

of the new values. The same township is approving development 

plans near flood plains and I witnessed a retention/detention basin 

adjacent to the 100-year flood plain by mere feet. Add 30 inches of 

water and the entire storm water plan has no value. In one instance, in a borough where houses are being lifted, the zoning officer told me he wouldn’t issue the permits to elevate because the 

homes were being elevated higher than the FEMA values. I had to 

go to the borough council for relief. 

I have no idea how often this has occurred throughout the watershed over the last 6 years but we are throwing good money at bad. 

There must be a change in the priority of FEMA to remedy this 

26

situation. If not, let the agencies that actually define flood plains 

regulate the maps so the people who need them have good information. Planning commissions can’t possibly make good recommendations without the proper information. Good people are unknowingly 

being put in harms way by the agency that is supposed to protect 

them. Flooding and flood damage is being increased by the agency 

that is there to enforce the opposite. 

One last example on this is from today, August 8th. In talking 

to Paul Lenher from Pennoni Engineering, he told me that the 

FEMA rate map values at Stockton, New Jersey, alongside the 

Delaware River, are 5 feet below what the New Jersey Department 

of Environmental Protection has calculated. I don’t know if or when 

those values may have been sent to FEMA. Consider that homes 

and businesses in Yardley and elsewhere recently along the Pennsylvania side of the Delaware River have already been lifted. Can 

you imagine spending $150,000 of your own money for peace of 

mind and then find out you are still in the 100-year flood plain. If 

the New Jersey side of the river is 5 feet over the rate maps, then 

so is Pennsylvania. 

The second issue that I would like to comment on is the ICC 

money as well, and we have heard this already. I would like to 

offer my point of view, if I can. It would seem advantageous to all 

concerned to consider a substantial increase. Given the right parameters and qualifying criteria it would make sense and would be 

a win-win situation. The cost benefit ratio, 1 to 1.4, from the 

Neshaminy Watershed Plan of Work shows that Federal dollars 

would be funded if there was a similar plan along the Delaware 

River in place. Then consider that the NFIP payouts in a flood 

plain are just a matter of when. This becomes a pay me now or pay 

me later scenario. 

Currently, the NFIP requires that you elevate from the flood 

plain within, I believe, a 2-year period from having been flooded. 

I don’t understand this stipulation but it is worthwhile to be 

proactive and make it available any time if there is a history of 

flooding on the property. If a homeowner was interested in lifting 

his home in Yardley back in 2001 for a cost of half the value of the 

home, the NFIP paid out, say, $100,000 or half the value of the 

home, wouldn’t the NFIP have saved 2 times that amount by 2006 

considering the payout values of today and of course the multiple 

flood events? Even if the flood events didn’t occur, it is just a matter of time before one does and the money is recouped. 

Many homes sit in the 50-year flood plain or less. A house where 

the first floor is flooded by 6 inches of water will have the same 

claim as if it took 4 feet. Giving more incentive and ability to these 

types of homeowners to pay for an elevation will save taxpayers 

greatly in the long run and provide quick relief for the homeowners. Elevation costs on average are running over $100,000 

today; most homeowners can’t afford to do it on their own. Is the 

NFIP going to pay out for elevations one time or floods forever? 

It is obvious that the Delaware River watershed is in need of updated flood plain values along with ensuring that all municipalities 

in the watershed are adhering to strict storm water guidelines. A 

study to search for alternatives to correct the issues at hand in 

such a large scale area could take a very long time. Perhaps adoptVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:42 Mar 14, 2007 Jkt 031544 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\31544.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
27

ing the New Jersey DEP values and an aggressive plan to enforce 

storm water management in the region for the short term, as well 

as increased ICC funds, can offer property owners a way out quickly. Should a plan develop down the road that includes elevations, 

it could include reimbursement funds to those who have already 

helped themselves. The next flood event will have significantly less 

impact with each and every home that is removed from the flood 

plain. Thank you very kindly for this opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith can be found on page 88 

of the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Mr. Winslade. 

STATEMENT OF C. WILLIAM WINSLADE, MANAGER, YARDLEY 

BOROUGH 

Mr. WINSLADE. Good morning. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Oxley and Congressman Fitzpatrick for 

the opportunity to speak to the Committee on Financial Services 

regarding how the National Flood Insurance Program has responded to these floods and to floods throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and how the Federal Emergency Management Agency cooperated with State and local governments under 

NFIP during recent floods. Have we experienced problems in the 

administration and implementation of NFIP, and what could be 

done to correct these problems? What steps are being taken to mitigate future flood damage to the Yardley area? Lastly, what efforts 

are being made to modernize the flood maps in Pennsylvania, specifically, Bucks County? 

As introduced, my name is C. William Winslade. Presently I am 

the Yardley Borough manager and have been for almost 2 years. 

This gives me four disasters in dealing with FEMA. I have also 

been the emergency management coordinator for approximately 25 

years. That gives me nine Federal disasters. I have had tremendous experience in dealing with various elected and appointed officials at the local, county, State, and Federal levels. May I introduce 

two support individuals presently, I have John Dougherty, who is 

the Bucks County emergency management director, as well as Mr. 

Bill Clark, a resident of Yardley Borough whom you will get to 

know quite well in the coming minutes. 

First, I would like to mention that with all the advertisements 

of the hearing, is Bucks County ready for another flood, I must say, 

yes, we are ready, but does the severity of the flood need to be as 

much as Mother Nature intends. There are things we can do. It is 

probably more appropriate for the constituents to ask is FEMA 

ready for another flood in Bucks County. Again, during the advertisement, we are told we have experienced flooding 3 times in the 

last 21 months. Let me correct the record. Bucks County has been 

declared a major disaster area by FEMA 4 times in the last 21 

months. 

There was a rain event of June 30th, recently, disaster number 

1649, the rain event of April 14th, disaster number 1587, tropical 

depression Ivan in September of 2004, 1557, and also the rain 

event associated with tropical depression Francis, also in September of 2004, disaster number 1555. It was at FEMA’s direction 

that we grouped those two together and were calling it one. It is 

28

not fair to residents of this borough to say, oh, you only had one 

flood. They had to move things. They have to put their lives back 

in order twice during that period. 

For the record, two serious other flood events in January of 1996, 

disaster 1093, and again in July of 1996, disaster 1130. Major disasters are not new in Bucks County and unfortunately fastly approaching the frequency of routine. My distinguished colleague, 

Councilman Mohn, has spoken on mitigation efforts in our small 

borough, which is certainly mirrored by all the river communities. 

I would like to address the committee on some issues with regard 

to FEMA’s increased cost of compliance. Again, is FEMA ready for 

another flood? 

How much coverage is available? If a disaster stricken person is 

applying for ICC help to bring their house and/or business into our 

community’s flood plain ordinance, they can receive up to $30,000 

in assistance for complying. Can or will the committee investigate 

raising the ceiling level of $30,000 to a today dollar value. When 

ICC was adopted in 1994 the maximum was $20,000, moved to 

$30,000 in 1995. It needs to be reevaluated. ICC provides four options for funding, and these aren’t in the particular order of FEMA 

but in our order. Elevation, this raises your home or business to 

or above the flood elevation levels adopted by our community. Our 

present ordinances require 18 feet above the 100-year plain. With 

12 homes underway with an elevation project, all have exceeded 

$100,000 in cost to comply to our local ordinances. Only one resident at the present time has received ICC funds. With our rain 

event of June 2006, we have already accepted 14 additional applications. 

Number two, relocation. This moves your home or business out 

of harm’s way. With most residents in the confines of Yardley Borough, this is not an option. Open lots prevailing rates are in excess 

of $150,000 in lower Bucks County. Number three, demolition. This 

tears down and removes flood-damaged buildings. Again, not much 

of an option. I am sure you will concur no one wants to see their 

home demolished. Number four, flood proofing. This option is available primarily for non-residential buildings. It involves making a 

building watertight through a combination of adjustments or additions of features to the building that reduced the potential for flood 

damage. If we made this available for residential buildings, we 

could also reduce the cost to the Federal Government while supplying aid to the residents. 

As previous testimony has stated, the item of choice for mitigation is elevation. With regard to NFIP and the underwriters, it is 

not quite as easy as written in all the publications or manuals. 

Listed below is a typical timeline of a family’s ordeal. 

In April, we had the floods of course. During April and May, the 

Clarks start to research what they need to do with background 

checks on house movers and other such contractors. At the end of 

May, the Clarks sign a contract with Wolfe Movers. May to August 

consists of a long process of meeting contractors, trying to find the 

right architect, taking bids, etc. The Clarks decide on an architect 

and he does all the drawings that that necessary. They are finally 

ready to go up. In the meantime, they get their application for subVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:42 Mar 14, 2007 Jkt 031544 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\31544.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
29

stantial review from Borough Hall and attempt to gather all the information and fill it out. 

On August 30, 2005, the Clarks raise their house. In September 

2005, the Clarks sign Phase 1 with City Builders and they immediately begin the building of the foundation and everything that 

goes with it, such as relocation of electrical lines, plumbing lines, 

etc. On October 28, 2005, the Clarks hand in the application for 

substantial damage review to the borough for necessary signatures. 

They get the application back soon after in the mail. They believe 

that all is done. No one told them otherwise, so they start a 

lengthy process of calling Traveler’s Insurance Company trying to 

find the right department to help them. They are sent around to 

several different claims offices and no one knows anything about 

an application for substantial damage. 

On January 4, 2006, the Clarks fax and mail again several pages 

from the application for substantial review. This time they are finally told by Traveler’s Insurance Company that this is not what 

they need, but instead a letter from the borough on borough stationery that says the house is substantially damaged. And for the 

record every insurance carrier requires a different item from the 

borough when passing judgment on whether a house is substantially damaged. On January 17th, a letter is written confirming 

substantial damage and the Clarks send it in immediately. This is 

the official date for the ICC claim. The Clarks can’t remember why 

there is such a long lag here, but they believe it was more general 

confusion about who was handling the claim. They eventually 

reach a woman where named Stacey Olsen, who was amazing. 

On March 6th, Stacey is now the Clarks’ angel. She hears their 

plea and tells them to send the flood policy and letter of substantial 

damage to Colonial for another claim avenue. They will handle the 

claim for Traveler’s. They are now in communication with another 

individual from Colonial. They are also amazed at how on top of 

things this person is. On March 10th, Colonial Claims send to the 

Clarks a letter listing the 11 documents necessary to pursue an 

ICC claim. They gather what they can and send it in. One thing 

they need is a copy of the Borough’s flood mitigation ordinance. It 

is not rocket science what the flood mitigation ordinance is. 

On March 17th, the Clarks provide photographs along with everything else to the insurance carrier. On March 20th, the Clarks 

send even more photographs of the cement foundation going up but 

they have nowhere to go. The remainder of the documents they 

need they cannot get since it was in the house that was devastated. 

On March 30th, the Clarks get a copy of the mitigation permit from 

Colonial. It is asking for their letter along with flood ordinance 

plan to Colonial Claims. Now they are told all they need are permits involved. The building inspector gives the Clarks copies of all 

permits for the elevation. Colonial takes issue with the permit 

numbers being handwritten in the upper right-hand corner, so they 

are given a hard time, and we have to date stamp and punch the 

permit, a ridiculous request. 

In early July 2006, the Clarks stay in touch with Colonial who 

doesn’t forget about them since they don’t have their CO yet. She 

tells them that they do not need to have a CO but they need a letter stating that the elevation is complete and that they are in comVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:42 Mar 14, 2007 Jkt 031544 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\31544.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
30

pliance with borough ordinance so they can get their money. The 

Clarks also order another survey to prove that the house is indeed 

above the 100-year flood plain as recommended or required by Colonial. 

The CHAIRMAN. I know you have several more pages on this, and 

we have about 6 more minutes. 

Mr. WINSLADE. All right. Let me go to my conclusion. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. This is all obviously part of the record. 

Mr. WINSLADE. On August 9th, the Clarks receive Proof of Loss 

from Colonial. They sign it and have it notarized. They fax it back. 

The Clarks are now waiting anxiously to hear if Traveler’s Insurance will accept their claim. It is now today, 16 months later, 

$100,000, but they raised their house without help from FEMA. 

This is just one story of many from our small borough. Can the 

government standardize reporting, streamline government bureaucracy and assist a homeowner in time of need? In summary, has the 

National Flood Insurance Program responded to those in need after 

a flood? You can just ask the Clarks. 

Answering the question of how the Federal Emergency Management Agency cooperated with State and local governments under 

the NFIP during the recent floods, there was minimal involvement 

during the floor proper. During the few weeks immediately following the flood, there was good representation of underwriters 

and adjusters. Unfortunately, 4 weeks after a disaster in a household, a tragedy begins in trying to secure Federal monies in putting 

lives of families back in order. We are being asked what corrective 

action could be done to the problems we are experiencing with 

NFIP, the residents had telephones and written hundreds of letters 

to our local elected officials to reevaluate older and possibly outdated statutes. Our next step of course is our plea today to have 

you review, revise, update flood mitigation opportunities. 

With respect to the flood maps in Pennsylvania, specifically 

Bucks County, I must request the updating of old maps so our local 

planning and zoning entities can further assure safeguards in the 

flood zone. Again, I take this opportunity to thank you and Congressman Fitzpatrick for the opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Winslade can be found on page 

92 of the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Winslade. I just had a couple—

actually one question, and I will yield the rest of the time to Mr. 

Fitzpatrick. Mr. Smith, you mentioned the positive aspects outweighed the negative aspects for elevation. What are the negative 

aspects to the elevation issue? 

Mr. SMITH. Steps, social impact. 

The CHAIRMAN. In a word. 

Mr. SMITH. Steps are certainly one. I kind of like the esthetics 

of my home but some people wouldn’t necessarily like that part of 

it. Some other negative impacts would be going to—I limited the 

market of people who would actually want to buy my home because 

of steps basically. But those are some of the things that are negative impacts but as I said they are far outweighed by the positive 

ones. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

31

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, in that particular case that decision was made actually by the homeowners. There was an acquisition program and an elevation program sort of going along on 

parallel tracks. Sam, would you—Mr. Smith, would you comment 

because I know you got experience beyond even elevating your own 

home in construction on the cost effectiveness of elevation as you 

know it as opposed to because we heard Mr. Mohn testify—Councilman Dan Mohn testify that when you are required by the Hazard 

Mitigation Program to make an application on behalf of Yardley 

Borough and you are told that only acquisitions are going to qualify 

and you do your best and you put your applications together and 

given the cost value of real estate here in Yardley as it ends up 

the cost benefit analysis results in only one home can be purchased 

and essentially you have helped nobody. The effectiveness, cost effectiveness of elevation in your view. 

Mr. SMITH. During the study, as I mentioned, the cost benefit 

was 1 to 1.4 but I think that the Neshaminy Watershed Project inside itself looks at the overall project. They addressed every home 

in the flood plain or in the 100-year flood plain, so you can look 

at buy-outs and look at elevations and flood proofing, but when you 

take out certain amounts of homes through the buy-outs it affords 

more for elevations so to speak. So it is an average in our plan of 

work looking at the entire picture. Cost effectiveness in terms of an 

individual trying to do it at home, there is an advantage to doing 

so because our contracts, we must pay prevailing wages, and I 

don’t think that is true with either ICC money or obviously if you 

just do it out of your own pocket. So you can save by finding contractors that aren’t paying the same rate as perhaps are required 

under a Federal contract. 

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, there is some good news actually tucked in all this testimony I heard today. Ms. Collier, you indicated that the Delaware River Basin Commission is willing to undertake a reservoir management plan to essentially manage not 

only water during time of drought but also water during time of 

flood. Can you tell me what it is I can do as a Federal official representing this community to assist DRBC to actually get that done 

because it seems that if there is an opportunity to use an existing 

reservoir to reduce future flooding on the Delaware River and those 

are structures currently in place that we have already made the investment in, we should do that. 

Ms. COLLIER. Thank you for the question. There are different 

types of reservoirs within the basin. Some are designed and operated by the Corps of Engineers specifically for flood control. The 

ones in question were really developed for water supply and those 

are three very large reservoirs owned and operated by New York 

City in the upper basin. There are also some power reservoirs in 

addition, which also don’t have the same outlet structures as a 

flood control dam. So the question is, is it possible to maintain 

voids in those drinking water and power reservoirs so that it could 

mitigate flooding. 

It is not a silver bullet. It will not prevent flooding in Yardley 

but it might reduce the level of flooding. And so what we would 

like to do is prepare a model that could look at if we held such 

voids or worked with New York City to hold such voids how would 

32

that improve the flooding, how might that impact the drought situation and look at the balance that is needed. In order to do that, 

we do need some dollars to support this model and we are estimating that it would cost about $500,000. There is a one-page exhibit in my written testimony that describes the tools that would 

be needed and how we would utilize that working with the National Weather Service and other agencies as well as the basin 

States in New York City. 

The CHAIRMAN. Would that be in the energy and appropriations 

that you are referring to, that money? 

Ms. COLLIER. That would be fine. 

The CHAIRMAN. I think that is what that is. 

Mr. FITZPATRICK. I will take a look at that, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, I think it is an appropriations issue specifically on energy model. 

Mr. FITZPATRICK. It is computer modeling, is that what you are 

talking about? 

Ms. COLLIER. That is right. 

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I know we are running very low 

on time and so I am just going to ask one additional question although I have a number of questions that I would have liked to 

have asked Mr. Maurstad. We spent all of our time on the previous 

panel talking about the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and 

really didn’t get into the fact that while homeowners in this community are waiting for word about the ICC program or elevation 

programs, buy-out programs, they are at the same time negotiating 

with their own insurance companies and many times having a very 

difficult time. I referenced Jeanne and Michael Doyle who are here 

today, and the fact that they haven’t settled their claim from September of 2004. 

And so I am going to submit a number of questions to Mr. 

Maurstad about the Write Your Own policy program and about the 

status of all the claims and the three floods in Bucks County and 

what FEMA and the National Flood Insurance Program can tell us 

about that. Mr. Winslade, you talked about the insurance agents 

that are here during the flooding or immediately after the flooding. 

I am sure you see claims agents coming in and visiting with their 

insureds. You did indicate in your testimony that some of the requirements were onerous or maybe even a little crazy what they 

were asking for while a homeowner is waiting to elevate. 

I would like you to elaborate on that a little bit, and I know that, 

Mr. Komelasky, you talked about the benefits of Internet based 

training for some of the Write Your Own claims adjusters. I would 

like to hear whether or not you think, Mr. Komelasky, the current 

status of training of claims adjusters is adequate in Pennsylvania 

and whether or not a Federal standard should be considered so 

that there is more equal training across the board. First, Mr. 

Winslade, if you could. 

Mr. WINSLADE. Just a few examples, Mr. Fitzpatrick, would be 

a request from an insurance adjuster to the homeowner as to the 

flood gates in the house after it has been raised, justification of 

those. As I see it, that is a building and zoning ordinance. It is not 

a reason for the insurance companies to prolong the opportunity to 

pay out to their insureds. Photographs of foundations, it is ridicuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:42 Mar 14, 2007 Jkt 031544 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\31544.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
33

lous to ask for that. We have in place a building department, a zoning department, and of course they are all brought to today’s codes 

with regard to rebuilding. It is not their job to— 

Mr. FITZPATRICK. So you are saying some of the information 

being requested is duplicative of what you are doing on the zoning 

and building code enforcement level in the borough. And I think I 

also heard you testify that different insurance companies had— 

Mr. WINSLADE. Different rules. 

Mr. FITZPATRICK. —much different rules on the same Federal 

program. 

Mr. WINSLADE. A substantial damage letter. It could be as little 

as two or three lines to satisfy the insurance company and then it 

went to as far as on borough letterhead with a copy of the justification. 

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Is that delaying the claims adjustment process? 

Mr. WINSLADE. I believe it is, yes. 

Mr. FITZPATRICK. What does it do to the staff of the borough? I 

mean, I am sure that you don’t have a huge staff here. 

Mr. WINSLADE. We don’t have a staff. I am a part-time employee 

and we have a full-time borough secretary. Our building department works 6 hours a week, so it does tax the borough’s wherewithal. 

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Mr. Komelasky, the training of the claims adjusters for the flood insurance program. 

Mr. KOMELASKY. The specific program that I was taking about 

has been designed by the State insurance agents and that dealt 

with agents and their familiarity with the actual NFIP program, 

not so much with the actual adjusters. One of the criticisms that 

had been mentioned was that many of the consumers don’t understand what they are being sold or how the policies actually work, 

so this is a program staying ahead of the curve of the requirements 

for continuing education for agents. 

A number of the actual adjusters, and there is a difference between the agents who aren’t really adjusting the claims for the carriers, the agents are working along with the consumers to try to 

be their advocate and be the conduit between the companies and 

the consumer. The adjusters themselves are in a position where 

they are receiving their training through the carriers. Most of the 

flood adjusters are generally independent adjusters, not necessarily 

a company employee, and I believe that is probably in part due to 

the overall low volume of flood policies that are actually being written by the particular carriers. 

They will go to somebody who is out there, and certainly I think 

part of the confusion that is taking place as Mr. Winslade has indicated comes from various companies’ interpretation of what the 

rules and regulations are. And does it in fact delay pay-outs to people? Absolutely. You can get one letter that moves up the line, 

somebody doesn’t think that it is sufficient, and it can not get back 

to the consumer to know something is different for several weeks. 

So certainly there could be something done on the adjusters level 

to make sure that they are familiar with the process that is necessary. And I think that within the insurance industry overall 

there is a strong sense of getting into disaster planning that you 

will see a number of steps moving forward not only for the commerVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:42 Mar 14, 2007 Jkt 031544 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\31544.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
34

cial clients but also for residential clients to advise them of what 

would be not necessarily the end all or everything that is necessary 

but here are items that you should be prepared for in the event of 

any kind of a disaster whether it is a fire for a flood. So I think 

there are efforts being taken in that regard but not necessarily 

looking at the actual adjusters as you have indicated, Congressman. 

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I don’t have any further questions. I do have questions that I will submit to the committee that 

hopefully can be addressed by Mr. Maurstad. I appreciate your convening this hearing in my Congressional district, and I think that 

the testimony that we have gotten from both panels as well as from 

other interested citizens who submitted testimony for the record 

will be extremely helpful as we work to reform and modernize the 

National Flood Insurance Program. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I agree completely. It has been an excellent hearing. And the Chair notes that Mr. Fitzpatrick may have additional 

questions for this panel which they may wish to submit in writing. 

Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 30 days 

for members to submit written questions to those witnesses and to 

place their responses in the record. The Chair would like to thank 

the witnesses, the people, obviously citizens of this area, for participating in this very important hearing. And this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:07 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(35)

A P P E N D I X

August 15, 2006

36


31544.001
37


31544.002
38


31544.003
39


31544.004
40


31544.005
41


31544.006
42


31544.007
43


31544.008
44


31544.009
45


31544.010
46


31544.011
47


31544.012
48


31544.013
49


31544.014
50


31544.015
51


31544.016
52


31544.017
53


31544.018
54


31544.019
55


31544.020
56


31544.021
57


31544.022
58


31544.023
59


31544.024
60


31544.025
61


31544.026
62


31544.027
63


31544.028
64


31544.029
65


31544.030
66


31544.031
67


31544.032
68


31544.033
69


31544.034
70


31544.035
71


31544.036
72


31544.037
73


31544.038
74


31544.039
75


31544.040
76


31544.041
77


31544.042
78


31544.043
79


31544.044
80


31544.045
81


31544.046
82


31544.047
83


31544.048
84


31544.049
85


31544.050
86


31544.051
87


31544.052
88


31544.053
89


31544.054
90


31544.055
91


31544.056
92


31544.057
93


31544.058
94


31544.059
95


31544.060
96


31544.061
97


31544.062
98


31544.063
99


31544.064
100


31544.065
101


31544.066
102


31544.067
103


31544.068
104


31544.069