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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

87–433 PDF 2014

DISASTER MITIGATION: REDUCING COSTS AND 

SAVING LIVES 

(113–64) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 3, 2014 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, 

Vice Chair 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

DAVID W. JOLLY, Florida 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

JANICE HAHN, California 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas, Vice Chair 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex Officio) 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... iv 

TESTIMONY 

David Miller, Associate Administrator, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency ................................... 4 

Hon. Linda Langston, president, National Association of Counties, and supervisor, Linn County, Iowa ..................................................................................... 4 

Bryan Koon, vice president, National Emergency Management Association, 

and director, Florida Division of Emergency Management .............................. 4 

Chad Berginnis, CFM, executive director, Association of State Floodplain 

Managers .............................................................................................................. 4 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

David Miller ............................................................................................................. 34 

Hon. Linda Langston ............................................................................................... 45 

Bryan Koon .............................................................................................................. 55 

Chad Berginnis, CFM .............................................................................................. 62 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Hon. Linda Langston, president, National Association of Counties, and supervisor, Linn County, Iowa: 

Response to request for information from Hon. Mark Meadows, a Representative in Congress from the State of North Carolina ........................ 21 

Answer to question for the record from Hon. Lou Barletta, a Representative in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania ....................................... 53 

Bryan Koon, vice president, National Emergency Management Association, 

and director, Florida Division of Emergency Management: 

Response to request for information from Hon. Mark Meadows, a Representative in Congress from the State of North Carolina ........................ 22 

Answers to questions for the record from Hon. Lou Barletta, a Representative in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania ..................................... 60 

iv 


Insert offset folio 1 here 87433.001
v 


Insert offset folio 2 here 87433.002
vi 


Insert offset folio 3 here 87433.003
vii 


Insert offset folio 4 here 87433.004
(1) 

DISASTER MITIGATION: REDUCING COSTS 

AND SAVING LIVES 

THURSDAY, APRIL 3, 2014 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lou Barletta (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. BARLETTA. The committee will come to order. Today’s hearing will focus on disaster mitigation and what communities across 

the Nation can do to protect their homes and families and reduce 

their costs, particularly as it relates to floods. 

So, why are we having this hearing today, and why focus on 

floods? Flooding is the number-one natural disaster in the United 

States, costing the taxpayer, States, local communities, and individual homeowners, and businesses billions of dollars every year. 

For example, in 2012 alone, the National Flood Insurance Program, NFIP, paid more than $7.7 billion in flood insurance claims. 

In 2012 and 2013 the Disaster Relief Fund spent nearly $800 million just on flood-only disasters, and spent more than $7 billion on 

disasters that involved heavy flooding from hurricanes and tropical 

storms. And the Federal costs are only a portion of the total costs, 

including the costs to communities, individual homeowners and 

businesses. 

Floods cost lives, property and communities. To give some perspective, in the past 5 years, all 50 States have experienced floods 

or flash floods. In 2013, out of the 62 major disaster declarations 

across the Nation, more than 41 of them involved flooding. 

In Pennsylvania, floods are the most prevalent type of natural 

disaster. In 2011, Tropical Storm Lee hit Pennsylvania just a week 

and a half after Hurricane Irene, causing flooding that resulted in 

loss of life, homes destroyed, and an estimated $1 billion in damages in Pennsylvania alone. 

While the committee does not have jurisdiction over the insurance policies and premiums, there are real and practical steps communities and individuals can take to protect their homes and their 

families from floods, and at the same time reduce their costs and 

insurance premiums. And that is what we are focusing on today. 

Disaster mitigation has been proven to reduce the risks in disasters, including floods. At the Federal level, there are programs that 

can help States and communities mitigate against disasters. For 

2 

example, the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, the Pre-Disaster 

Mitigation program, as well as the Hazard Mitigation Assistance 

Program help offset the costs of mitigation across the Nation. That 

is why I am concerned the administration’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2015 removes the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program funding out of FEMA’s base budget. Recently, I, along with Ranking 

Member Carson and other Members of Congress, wrote a letter to 

the appropriators making clear continued funding for this program 

is critical. 

Why do we invest in these programs, and why are they so important? Studies have shown that for every dollar we invest in mitigation, the taxpayer saves $3 to $4 in disaster assistance. 

But, in addition to these programs, communities can take practical steps to reduce their flood risk through programs like the 

Community Rating System or ‘‘CRS.’’ CRS specifically is designed 

to engage communities in mitigating against flooding. Communities 

that participate in the CRS program can see their insurance premiums reduced anywhere from 5 to 45 percent, and at the same 

time actually reduce their risk from flooding, protecting their families and property from devastation. 

CRS works on a rating system based on the mitigation activities 

completed by participating communities. As communities take 

steps to improve their ratings, their costs decrease, including their 

insurance premiums. For example, in the program, communities 

are rated 9 to 1, 1 being the highest. With a rating of 9, a community can see a 5-percent reduction in their insurance rates under 

NFIP. A rating of 1 can result in a reduction of 45 percent. These 

are real and tangible savings to individual property owners. 

Today I hope to hear how these programs are being used and can 

be used by communities in Pennsylvania and across the Nation to 

help alleviate some of the burden and costs of disasters and insurance premiums. 

Mitigation is critical. It is critical to saving lives, critical to reducing overall costs of disasters, and critical to homeowners and 

businesses. 

After Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee, I remember 

standing in front of one family’s home, which had river water flowing more than a foot deep on its second floor. Most of this family’s 

possessions were piled onto the sidewalk. Some were still dripping 

wet. The mother looked at her children’s toys, ruined by the flood. 

She pointed to one little toy and said to me, ‘‘How can the Government put a price on that? My son played with that. Those are 

memories. How can you put a price on that?’’ 

She is right. We cannot put a price tag on memories. But we can 

mitigate against floods so that when the next big storm, the next 

big flood comes, these communities are as prepared as possible, so 

that their homes are built better, and families do not have to watch 

irreplaceable photographs and heirlooms get washed away. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, and I thank 

you all for being here. 

I now call on ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Carson, 

for a brief opening statement. 

Mr. CARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, good morning, welcome, to our witnesses. Chairman Barletta, thank you for working 

3 

with me to schedule today’s hearing on how disaster mitigation can 

save lives and reduce costs. I also want to acknowledge our ranking 

member emeritus, certainly an American icon, the honorable Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton. 

Now, before we begin, I want to extend my thoughts and condolences to those who have lost loved ones in the mudslide in Oso, 

Washington. Now, while nothing we do here can end your grief, I 

want everyone to know that we stand ready to help however we 

can. And I think we should also recognize the rescue workers, including the National Guard and Urban Search and Rescue teams 

who have dutifully and admirably performed this difficult task, despite those terrible conditions. 

So, Mr. Chairman, if you don’t object, very quickly I would like 

for us to take a quick moment of silence to recognize the losses in 

Washington. 

[A moment of silence was observed.] 

Mr. CARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today our Nation is at 

a critical junction. In recent years we have seen strong storms with 

greater frequency. This results in increased vulnerability for our 

citizens and property. For years we have seen areas damaged by 

disaster rebuilt, only to be damaged later again. There is no doubt 

that, across the country, our constituents will continue to face 

floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, and other disasters. Unless something is done now, this cycle of build, damage, and rebuild will continue. The result will be large bills for taxpayers that might have 

been avoided with proper preparation. 

Members of our committee know that we must support mitigation programs to break this cycle. This is why I also introduced 

H.R. 3282, to reauthorize the pre-disaster mitigation programs for 

5 years at its last authorized level of $200 million. And we want 

to encourage our other colleagues to join us in supporting this critical bill. 

I also want to thank the 54 bipartisan Members who joined 

Chairman Barletta and me in sending a letter to the Appropriations Committee this week. We urged them to fund pre-disaster 

mitigation programs sufficiently to actually implement mitigation 

programs. 

Independent studies have shown that mitigation saves taxpayers 

money. This year, the President’s Budget requested approximately 

$7 billion for the Disaster Relief Fund, which will be used to assist 

with disaster response and recovery. The more we invest in pre-disaster mitigation, the less will be needed in the future for disaster 

response and recovery. Because of the Sandy Relief Implementation 

Act, States now have up to 25 percent of their hazard mitigation 

grants available soon after a disaster. Now, I hope that this encourages communities to incorporate mitigation strategies into their rebuilding process. 

In this hearing it is very important for us to remember that a 

major part of mitigation is community buy-in. Community support 

and participation is absolutely critical to ensuring effective mitigation strategies are undertaken. One of the challenges we face is 

how to encourage those who will be affected the most to take the 

necessary steps to prepare for future disasters. This is a difficult 

choice, because it costs more money upfront than many case afford. 

4 

And, finally, we are interested in learning more about any strategies that may be available to really educate developers, in particular, and others about the importance of safe building practices 

and other strategies. 

So, we welcome today’s testimony as we consider this important 

topic. And thank you to the witnesses for your testimony. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you, Ranking Member Carson. On our 

panel today we have Mr. David Miller, Associate Administrator for 

the Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency; the Honorable Linda Langston, 

president of the National Association of Counties, and supervisor of 

Linn County, Iowa; Mr. Bryan Koon, director of Florida Division of 

Emergency Management, testifying on behalf of the National 

Emergency Management Association; and Mr. Chad Berginnis, executive director, Association of State Floodplain Managers. 

I ask unanimous consent that our witnesses’ full statements be 

included in the record. 

[No response.] 

Mr. BARLETTA. Without objection, so ordered. Since your written 

testimony has been made a part of the record, the subcommittee 

would request that you limit your oral testimony to 5 minutes. 

Mr. Miller, you may proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF DAVID MILLER, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, 

FEDERAL INSURANCE AND MITIGATION ADMINISTRATION, 

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY; HON. LINDA 

LANGSTON, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES, AND SUPERVISOR, LINN COUNTY, IOWA; BRYAN KOON, 

VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 

ASSOCIATION, AND DIRECTOR, FLORIDA DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT; AND CHAD BERGINNIS, CFM, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ASSOCIATION OF STATE FLOODPLAIN MANAGERS 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Barletta, 

Ranking Member Carson, and members of the subcommittee, thank 

you for having us here today. I am David Miller, the Associate Administrator for the Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration at the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency 

Management Agency. I am here to discuss FEMA’s mitigation programs and how we educate, incentive, and fund State, local, tribal, 

and territorial efforts to build stronger communities that, collectively, create a Nation more resilient to an increasing number and 

intensity of hazards. 

The benefits of effective mitigation are well established. Mitigation supports a more rapid recovery from disasters and lessens the 

financial impact of these events on the Nation. Mitigation saves 

money; one study by the Multihazard Mitigation Council cites a return of $4 for every dollar invested. Collectively, it has been estimated that mitigation programs annually save the American public 

$3.4 billion in losses avoided. 

Investments in mitigation also serve to buy down risk, meaning 

that making positive changes lowers the probability of risk, and 

makes communities safer and more resilient. Buying down risk is 

5 

critically important, as a higher percentage of our population is living in vulnerable areas than ever before. 

FEMA has made significant strides in the last 3 years in the 

area of mitigation, bringing the larger mitigation community together around shared doctrine; partnering with governments at all 

levels; and giving communities the funding, tools, and information 

they need to make informed, data-driven decisions that minimize 

the risks they have identified. This work was bolstered in 2011 

with the release of Presidential Policy Directive 8 on National Preparedness. 

This directive defined the mitigation mission area, and required 

the development of the National Mitigation Framework. In turn, 

the framework established the Mitigation Framework Leadership 

Group. The MitFLG, as we call it, is a senior-level group that 

works to coordinate national-level mitigation activities and implement policies in consultation with Federal agencies and State, 

local, tribal, and territorial governments. 

Among other important work, the MitFLG is currently developing a consistent Federal flood risk management standard for 

Federal funds in recovery that are being used for rebuilding, and 

that may be applied to future disasters. 

As the committee is aware, FEMA oversees and manages a number of grant programs to support mitigation efforts. You have already talked about the hazard mitigation grant program, pre-disaster mitigation grants, and the flood mitigation assistance programs. These programs have assisted governments in rebuilding 

and building stronger and more resilient communities. In Indiana, FEMA recently awarded more than $1.6 million in 

HMGP funding to acquire 33 homes, as well as to bolster warning 

systems and update mitigation plans for several communities. In 

Pennsylvania, FEMA recently approved more than $9 million on 

HMGP funding to acquire 89 homes, all of which were substantially damaged, and were in special flood hazard areas. 

Through effective mitigation, families in these homes chose to relocate out of harm’s way, making way for open space that benefits 

their local communities, and stopping the damage-rebuild-damage 

cycle. 

The President’s fiscal year 2015 budget request includes $400 

million for pre-disaster mitigation efforts through the Opportunity, 

Growth, and Security Initiative. These grants are designed to assist communities in the implementation of a sustained pre-disaster 

natural hazard mitigation grant program. These funds will buy 

down future risks by augmenting adaptation planning, and helping 

communities prepare for events such as wildfire, floods, and other 

disasters that could be exacerbated by an ever-changing climate. 

In support of the President’s Executive order and climate change 

action plan, FEMA has a leading role in helping prepare the Nation for the future impacts of climate change, including considering 

rising sea levels, the increasing frequency, intensity, and duration 

of storms, and the increasing unpredictability of drought and wet 

conditions and cycles. As we work to reduce risk nationally, and 

address both hazards and threats, we must incorporate climate 

change into our data collection, knowledge transfer, and mitigation 

planning, so we are working towards that goal. 

6 

Specifically, FEMA is working to integrate adaptation into its approach, and also the approaches of the larger Federal Government. 

To do this, the Agency is expanding its knowledge base and support for those who take on the challenge of climate adaptation. 

You also mentioned the Community Rating System. Currently 

we have almost 1,300 communities participating in the CRS program, which represents 67 percent of the National Flood Insurance 

policyholders. 

In conclusion, successful mitigation efforts are a shared responsibility, requiring an engagement with all levels of society and the 

Government. Moving forward, we will continue to focus on 

strengthening our data analytics, while setting priorities that will 

help us mitigate and buy down our future risk. FEMA’s commitment to ensuring the success of these efforts rests in the fact that, 

ultimately—they ultimately result in more resilient communities 

and collectively make us stronger and more prepared, as a Nation. 

Thank you for providing me this opportunity to discuss these important issues. I look forward to your questions. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Miller. And, 

Ms. Langston, I know you have a lot of experience in flooding in 

your community, so I look forward to your testimony. You may proceed. 

Ms. LANGSTON. Thank you, Chairman Barletta, Ranking Member 

Carson, and members of the subcommittee, for the opportunity to 

testify today. I am Linda Langston, and a county supervisor in 

Linn County, Iowa. I serve also as the president of the National 

Association of Counties, which represents over 3,000 county governments in the U.S. 

Counties play a key role in our Nation’s intergovernmental system, and we are a major owner of facilities and infrastructure, including 45 percent of America’s roads, and nearly 40 percent of 

bridges. Counties play a critical role in justice, public safety, maintaining county police and sheriff departments, and investing over 

$70 billion in justice and public safety services. Nationwide, counties invest nearly $500 billion each year to pursue community policies that enable economic and community development, safeguard 

citizens, and provide a variety of community investments, public 

health, and well-being. 

As president of NACo, I have implemented a resilient counties 

initiative to help bolster their ability to thrive in the ever-shifting 

physical, social, and economic conditions. This includes preparation 

for and recovery from natural and man-made disasters. 

As you noted, having personally survived a flood, both personally 

and leading my county’s response to the 2008 floods, which had 

about 10 square miles under water, I recognize that there are three 

key mitigation efforts that must take place in counties across 

America. 

Proactive county planning is the cornerstone of flood mitigation 

efforts. Counties with land use authority are using it to encourage 

safe new development. McKenzie County, North Dakota, with 6,300 

residents, does not allow construction in the special flood hazard 

area, and requires additional standards-related anchoring, construction materials, and elevation. 

7 

Structural protections, like levees or dams, restore natural systems such as wetlands. Places such as Fairfax, Virginia, have a 

levee and pumping station project that is scheduled to be completed in the spring of 2019. Lee County, Florida, and Jefferson 

Parish, Louisiana, are engaged in wetland restoration projects. In 

contrast to building structure protections, Black Hawk County, in 

my own home State, is engaged in buying out repetitive loss properties. It has accumulated $5.34 million in avoided damages, at a 

cost at this point of $4.3 million. 

Counties are participating in the National Flood Insurance Program’s Community Rating System. King County, Washington, with 

over 2 million residents, is one of only two counties in the country 

with a CRS rating of two, which, as you noted, results in a 40-percent discount to those in the special flood hazard area. It was the 

first county in the Nation to achieve this rating. CRS communities 

like King County are able to educate residents on flood risk and 

mitigate flood impacts, while lowering insurance premiums. 

The key to building and preparing and managing a disaster begins, I believe, by building relationships beforehand. So when a disaster happens, resources can be deployed quickly and efficiently 

through established networks, and pre-assigned roles and responsibilities. My own county board meets as a hazard mitigation committee. And, through this, we are more aware of the challenges facing us. Counties play a key role in facilitating these critical relationships, not just within our local jurisdictions, but between our 

State and Federal partners. 

Federal programs like HMGP program, or the pre-disaster mitigation grants, are invaluable to counties that are recovering from 

and proactively planning for disaster. We are pleased the Sandy 

Recovery Act recognized the value of HMGP by streamlining procedures, and allowing the advancement of funds. 

Counties play an important role in communication, both pre and 

post-disaster, including educational—educating people about risk of 

exposure. While in this room, probably everyone understands the 

term ‘‘100-year flood.’’ When I mention this term to people at home 

and elsewhere, if they have experienced a flood event, they believe 

they will not need flood insurance because they don’t expect to live 

another 100 years. I would actually be 3,000 years old, based on 

the number of floods that I have occurred in my personal and professional life. I am either looking really good, or there is a problem. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. LANGSTON. So, I explain to people that a 100-year flood 

means that during the life of their mortgage, there is a 25-percent 

chance that they are going to flood, and that changes the equation. 

It will take time and good education that must be continuous, to 

help people recognize and appreciate their risk. People’s memories 

are short. As a county supervisor, it is imperative that we educate 

people about risk, because it is the first step to disaster mitigation. 

And it is in appreciating that risk that they can make good decisions. Education is key. 

And on behalf of the Nation’s counties, I want to thank you, 

Chairman Barletta, Ranking Member Carson, and the members of 

the committee for holding this hearing on disaster mitigation, and 

will look forward to questions. Thank you. 

8 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Mr. 

Koon, you may now proceed. 

Mr. KOON. Thank you and good morning, Chairman Barletta, 

Ranking Member Carson, and distinguished members of the panel. 

My name is Bryan Koon, and I am director of the Florida Division 

of Emergency Management, and vice president of the National 

Emergency Management Association. 

Over the years, Congress has authorized and appropriated significant financial and technical assistance to State and local governments to preempt damages and distress that result from natural disasters. Mitigation has done a good job at reducing the need 

for disaster response, and the overall cost of disasters. Done right, 

it prevents benefits throughout the life cycle, stimulating the local 

economy long past the construction phase of the project. It produces resilient and vibrant communities, attracting businesses, 

jobs, people, schools, and investment. 

I have witnessed the countless benefits of a strong mitigation 

program. While there are many good mitigation success stories, 

continual improvement is critical to building a stronger program 

that will lessen the impact of disasters, lower their cost, and protect more citizens. To truly reduce the cost to Americans, both in 

dollars and life safety, we need to accelerate the programs that 

exist today and find ways to make them more successful. 

The framework and structures are there. We need to dedicate the 

appropriate resources, eliminate those friction points that discourage participation, and demonstrate the return on investment and 

move it closer to the expenditure of the effort. I will use, as an example, the nexus between mitigation, the National Flood Insurance 

Program, and the Community Rating System in Florida. 

Thirty-seven percent of the Nation’s flood policies are in Florida, 

and nearly half of the State’s NFIP communities go above and beyond the program’s requirements, earning their policyholders additional discounts between 5 and 25 percent, by taking mitigative actions credited by the higher standards of the CRS. This saves Floridians $191 million in flood insurance premiums every year and 

develops well-prepared and disaster-resistant communities. However, 53 percent of Florida’s communities do not participate in 

CRS; nationwide, only a dismal 6 percent of NFIP communities 

participate. 

Why is this? Here is what our members say, as well as some recommendations to improve. 

First, it is the smaller communities that are left out. Applying 

for and maintaining standing in the CRS programs requires significant staff time. And the smaller the community, the further down 

the priority list it becomes for that employee for whom this is a collateral duty. In addition to reviewing the administrative requirements for entry, FEMA should follow the success it has had with 

the program administration by States and apply it to CRS, allowing States to verify compliance and get communities enrolled 

through the 5- and 10-percent discount categories. 

Secondly, there is a lack of awareness by individuals about the 

CRS program; consequently, a lack of awareness by elected officials. Without the appropriate level of support and oversight by 

local officials, the effort needed to enroll and maintain CRS standVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:10 Nov 21, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\ED\4-3-14~1\87433.TXT JEAN
9 

ing is not adequate to make significant gains. We need to do a better job educating Americans about the impact of disasters and 

proven ways to help defray those costs. In addition to CRS, the establishment of tax-exempt disaster savings account to pay the expenses of home owners for disaster mitigation and recovery expenses, as proposed by Congressman Dennis Ross and Senator 

Inhofe, would incentivize homeowners to take additional actions to 

protect their home and property, further reducing the cost of disasters. 

Third, administrative hurdles and roadblocks prevent advancement in the CRS program. For example, in order to move from a 

Class 5 25-percent discount to a Class 4 30-percent discount, a 

community has to produce a stormwater management plan. While 

this is a worthy goal, it is a complex, timely, and expensive effort. 

As a result, only 12 of the 22,000 NFIP communities are CRS Class 

4 or better. Many hit this wall and progressed no further, causing 

them to take no further mitigation efforts. FEMA should identify 

and remove or modify such restrictions to improvement. 

And finally, the program is too slow. The CRS FAQ states that 

it may take 18 months to enter the program once a community submits a letter of interest. This is unacceptable, and additional resources should be applied to accelerate entry into progression in 

the program. 

Helping communities develop comprehensive flood plain management programs through participation in the CRS will reduce flood 

loss. Florida’s goal is to enroll every community in the CRS program, and we are dedicating State resources in order to do so. 

FEMA should have the same goal across the country, because it 

will reduce flood loss expenditures, improve resilience, and add to 

the culture of mitigation it helped create. This will require a thorough analysis of how to make our current programs work better, 

and the application of additional resources, where necessary. The 

results will be well worth the effort. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Koon. Mr. 

Berginnis, you may proceed. 

Mr. BERGINNIS. Good morning. I am Chad Berginnis, executive 

director of the Association of State Floodplain Managers, and we 

are pleased to offer our thoughts related to the value of hazard 

mitigation to the Nation, and how we can improve our collective 

national mitigation effort. 

Thank you, Chairman Barletta, Ranking Member Carson, and 

this subcommittee, for its longstanding and continuing affirmation 

that hazard mitigation is an effective pathway to reducing disaster 

losses. Time and again, this subcommittee has introduced, evaluated, and refined Federal mitigation strategies, resulting in the 

solid framework that exists today that gives State and local officials many tools to deal with the ever-increasing problems of natural disasters and, specifically, flooding. ASFPM’s 15,000 members 

and 35 chapters are the country’s practitioners who work with flood 

hazard mitigation programs on a daily basis. 

According to NOAA’s National Climate Data Center, the U.S. has 

experienced 151 weather and climate disasters since 1980, where 

the overall damages exceeded $1 billion. The total cost of these 

10 

events exceeded $1 trillion. Of that total, we have had 32 such 

events in the past 3 years. With today’s advanced modeling capabilities, for example, we know that we can see disasters on the 

magnitude of Katrina or beyond. The ARkStorm scenario for the 

Sacramento area is based on a flood event similar to which occurred in California in 1861, would result in three-quarters of a 

trillion dollars in damage if that event happened today. 

Population trends and climate change are increasing the Nation’s 

vulnerability. And as cost of disasters continue to rise, governments and citizens must find ways to reduce risks from all hazards, but especially natural hazards. 

‘‘Floods are an act of God, but flood losses are largely an act of 

man,’’ was a statement made by the late Dr. Gilbert White, who 

is also known as the Father of Flood Plain Management. Whether 

it be floods or other hazards, the only way we can reduce these disaster losses in the near and long term is through hazard mitigation. We have the ability to reduce these losses. 

Hazard mitigation must be a joint effort among all level of governments, individuals, and the private sector. Everybody must do 

their part, and it is important that you know the Federal Government’s investment in hazard mitigation is being supplemented by 

many State and local investments, as well. The Village of South 

Holland, Illinois, is one such community. They have established a 

unique mitigation rebate program available to all property owners 

residing in the village who wish to complete flood control projects 

within their home. 

We have seen communities pass sales tax and income tax increases to fund mitigation outright, or match Federal funds. And, 

at the State level, many communities, including California, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ohio, New Jersey, and South Carolina, have 

their own unique hazard mitigation programs, or a tradition of 

matching Federal mitigation funds. Such programs should be encouraged, incentivized, and increased. States and communities 

should not depend entirely on the Federal Government to address 

their natural hazard risk. 

I do want to talk about a couple of key mitigation activities that 

would be within this committee’s jurisdiction to address, as it relates to Federal mitigation programs. Our written testimony has a 

lengthy list of recommendations that are both within and outside 

of the committee’s jurisdiction. But I want to focus on two areas: 

pre-disaster mitigation and speeding up mitigation assistance 

under the Stafford Act. 

Like the committee leadership, ASFPM also shares the concern 

over the elimination of PDM. And we are very disappointed that 

over the last several years, time and again, FEMA has chosen to 

zero-out this important program in light of mitigation demand 

being unprecedented, and a new driver of that demand, which is 

NFIP reform, is now present. We have invested significant resources in hazard mitigation planning, so that now over 19,000 

communities have adopted those plans, and they depend upon 

PDM as one source of funding to update those plans. And it is especially critical in States that do not receive large or frequent disaster declarations where they can use the HMGP program. 

11 

And when PDM is the proposed delivery vehicle for the $400 million in competitive grants to State, local, and tribal governments 

through the President’s Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative, we are puzzled why the program continues to be slated for 

elimination. 

State mitigation leaders in several States have told us that, even 

with disaster declarations, the small amount can be used for mitigation planning. They will be hard-pressed to help communities to 

maintain those plans. 

The committee has done much work in helping speed up Federal 

mitigation assistance, but I would submit that what we need to 

look at it speeding up the initiation of mitigation projects, as opposed to limiting the overall timeframe for funding to be spent. 

What outcome are we striving for? Wouldn’t it be nice if you, as 

Members of Congress, didn’t have to pass supplemental disaster 

appropriation bills after a major hurricane or flood strikes? Or at 

least deal with a much smaller bill. Hazard mitigation can take us 

to the point that, when the next disaster occurs, damage is minimized, cleanup is quick, and people get back to their lives quickly, 

and with minimal disruption. 

As one of my colleagues says, ‘‘We should be starting mitigation 

when the fish is still flopping on the couch.’’ Thank you. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you, Mr. Berginnis. I will now begin the 

first round of questions, limited to 5 minutes for each Member. If 

there are additional questions following the first round, we will 

have additional rounds of questions, as needed. 

Mr. Miller, we are focusing today on practical steps communities 

can take to lower their costs and premiums. The FEMA’s Community Rating System that we talked about, CRS program, is a voluntary program that allows communities to engage in certain mitigation activities that will lower their flood risk and, in essence, buy 

down their insurance premiums. Can you talk generally about the 

specifics of the program, and why it is beneficial for communities 

to participate? 

Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir. As you spoke, probably the most evident 

beneficial piece of the CRS, is to buy down flood premiums, community-wide. We would like to think that the bigger effort, though, is 

to reduce the risk in the community. And it starts with education 

processes. 

One of the first things that happens in the CRS program is we 

go do a community assistance visit to establish, in effect, the baseline that they are starting from. In many cases, they meet that 

first standard just by doing the public education pieces that buy 

down some risk. 

But after that, as everybody has pointed out, the effort becomes 

more stringent, and requires investment, and sometimes considerable investment for the community. We talk about effective flood 

plain regulation, and those that go beyond the pale. We have restrictions currently in the NFIP about how we build, where we 

build, and the permitting processes. This builds that up a piece. It 

also recognizes more stringent building codes, and those efforts. 

But those become permitting processes that agencies go through. 

They take other effective measures to protect their communities, 

12 

whether it is building structural or nonstructural projects that 

mitigate loss. Those count in the CRS program. 

Recently, we went through in the last year and re-evaluated all 

the things that counted for CRS. One of the parts is now that we 

have a history of what has been most effective. At the same time, 

in doing the realignment, we didn’t penalize communities that had 

already reached a level—we are giving a transition period because 

the point system changed. So it wasn’t to penalize, but it was to 

update and move to a more effective mitigation, based on our history and experience. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Now, currently, Mr. Miller, 1,273 communities, 

representing 67 percent of all NFIP flood insurance policies are 

participating in CRS. How does a community not currently in the 

program apply, and what are some of the basic requirements for 

entering? 

Mr. MILLER. I would need to get back to you on some of the basic 

requirements. The application process basically is telling us you 

are interested in it. 

I think one of the ones that shy communities away is this community assistance visit, and the statement of where they are in 

their mitigation efforts, and the risks that are there in the community. It is an evaluative process. For instance, in New York, we had 

a discussion of participating in the CRS by New York City. The 

other question was could they come in borough-by-borough. Well, 

right now our rules are about cities. But I know one of the things 

that weighed on their minds was this establishment, this visit that 

says, ‘‘How do we get through this? Look at the documentation 

where we are, so we know starting points.’’ 

But then it is about the investment that is considered as they 

went through. And in some cases, it represents thousands of dollars in small communities. But in other communities, it can represent millions of dollars to be involved in the program. 

It requires some design. When we met with officials in Oregon, 

they found it was very, very much to their benefit to move in certain areas, and the benefit of their community. But to get to a level 

one was going to be cost prohibitive for them, and they weren’t seeing the return on that investment. It does cause us to relook the 

CRS, it does cause us to look at those mitigated benefits. But the 

community investment, the community discussion, the expression 

in interest, where their baseline is, and that investment is an important part to the equation. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Ms. Langston, out of the more than 1,200 communities in the CRS program, only one has the highest rating, with 

the 45-percent discount on their insurance premiums. In Pennsylvania we have 25 communities in the program, and the highest discount is 20 percent. 

Now, Mr. Koon, you talked about what some of the hurdles were. 

Ms. Langston, can you talk about what some of the hurdles are, 

and how can—what can communities do to improve their rating? 

And how do they overcome them? 

Ms. LANGSTON. Well, first, I think, as Mr. Koon noted, especially 

in smaller communities it can be a challenge, just in terms of time, 

and the reality, as Mr. Miller has noted, thinking about a visit. 

13 

I know my county is a participant in CRS. We are, sadly, one of 

the only counties in Iowa that is doing that. And we are encouraging some of our fellow counties to come on. It does take the work 

of really looking at your stormwater management plan, your engagement plan. And I think, in the land of local government, we 

are stressed to do more with less right now, and that oftentimes 

makes these arenas difficult. 

So, it really does become about an education effort. And when the 

discount is relatively small—5, 10, even 15 percent—it may not be 

seen as enough of a motivation. If you can do the work that actually gets you to the 30, the 40 percent, then you actually have people in your community who say, ‘‘Sign me up.’’ So I think that is 

the balance that we face in this, is trying to make it accessible 

enough. 

I also think there are opportunities for, whether city or county, 

to do more. It is really that education effort that makes a difference. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Berginnis, can you add anything that you see 

as a hurdle, or what they can do to improve their ratings? 

Mr. BERGINNIS. Yes, certainly. In terms of strategies on improving—and I will actually turn to my good friend, Mr. Koon, in Florida, and emphasize something that was really groundbreaking that 

the State of Florida did at the State level, is hiring a CRS coordinator at the State level. That is something that States could do. 

They do have capacity through their State flood plain management 

offices. They build capability through assistance, through a community assistance program. 

But what those States here, as coordinators, can do is they can 

also look and obtain credit, what are called uniform State credits, 

that then help any community in that State, when they join the 

CRS, to have better scoring changes. And we think that is a good 

possibility. 

If your small or rural communities—I have been in the flood 

plain management—State flood plain management office where I 

have done those community visits, and I have worked with rural 

communities that way, as well—and communities might want to 

think about banding together regionally, and perhaps securing a 

CRS coordinator resource that way. 

Another idea might be a new use for the pre-disaster mitigation 

program. And a new and unique use, and maybe a gap here, is to 

allow, from an eligibility standpoint, projects that would help build 

CRS capability at a local level, at least to get that—provide that 

seed money to get communities through the application process. 

So, those might be a few strategies. Thank you. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Koon, do you have anything to add to what 

you have already testified to? 

Mr. KOON. Yes, sir. I think one of the things that we are trying 

to accomplish in Florida—and perhaps other States could do as 

well—is, as Mr. Berginnis said, get enough points at the State level 

to apply to that uniform minimum standard, so that those smaller 

communities could take advantage of all of those points available 

at the State level to get them enrolled in the program. And that 

will spur further interest to drive them to do additional work at the 

local level. 

14 

So, if the State can get above, say, the 500 points necessary to 

achieve the Class 9 5-percent discount, automatically enroll, or 

allow the State to automatically enroll those communities, that 

gets the conversation started. That gets them aware of the program, into the program, and then they will start thinking about 

how to reach that 10 percent, 15 percent, and additional discounts. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. I would like to now recognize Ranking Member Carson for 5 minutes of questions. 

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

Mr. Miller, as part of the fiscal year 2015 budget, the President 

is proposing a pre-disaster mitigation fund. During the budget 

briefings with staff, FEMA personnel indicated that this is being 

called a pre-disaster mitigation fund, but it is completely different 

from the existing mitigation program, which funds mitigation 

projects before a disaster even occurs. 

Please explain for us, sir, the differences between the existing 

program and the proposed program, as well as provide some examples of the type of projects that are currently eligible for the existing PDM program that would no longer be eligible. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. I think one of the big differences is the 

focus. In the President making the announcement, the focus really 

focuses on climate change and climate adaptation strategies. 

One of the criticisms of FEMA, even in our mitigation program, 

although it is about mitigating against future losses, is the data 

and the analytic that we often use is historical in its view. We are 

always mitigating against yesterday’s event. 

What I think the new effort is to do is to mitigate against future 

events, and give a better look to the science that projects into the 

future. Now, a lot of that science, a lot of that data, is less precise 

than what we would normally allow in the program. One of the 

issues that would come up under the new PDM is how do we get 

to a different benefit cost analysis that allows a more future look. 

There is a lot of work in that area. But I think the key difference 

is it is focused more on the climate, climate adaptation strategies, 

even though they have an overall mitigated value. 

One of the other things that has always concerned us as we walk 

through projects is a lot of times what we do, especially when 

things aren’t cost beneficial, we actually penalize communities by 

taking advance measures, because we won’t fund them. Under the 

public assistance program, if you wanted an alternative product 

or—alternative project or an advanced project, it might not be eligible. This changes that equation. It is a greater partnership between 

us and public assistance. It is a way to do pre-disaster mitigation 

with a completely future look. So, while the mechanism would be 

the PDM grant mechanisms, I think the look of PDM would 

change, and it would have that deeper analytic for a future projection. 

Mr. CARSON. Thank you. Madam Langston, for years the committee has held hearings on the benefits of mitigation. And all of 

us here today recognize the need of benefits of mitigation. Yet, it 

seems that some communities are still resistant to undertaking 

mitigation activities, even if incentives are provided. 

So, as a local community representative, what do you think—why 

do you think other communities are so resistant to mitigation acVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:10 Nov 21, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\ED\4-3-14~1\87433.TXT JEAN
15 

tivities, even when the evidence overwhelmingly shows that lives 

and money are being saved? 

Ms. LANGSTON. I would say that this hails back to the issue of 

education. At the local level, we have many counties—I would say 

even within cities—whose property tax levels are constrained. And 

within that constrained environment, taking mitigation efforts 

where you spend minimal dollars—and you have to get community 

buy-in—can be something of a challenge at the local level. 

So, as I noted before, I think a lot of it is within the realm of 

education, and being very specific about what the risks are. So, to 

Mr. Miller’s comments, in my own home community we have 

looked at the flood risk. We are trying to not only advance buyouts, but we are also trying to do flood walls. 

The response that we got from the community for two rounds of 

using a sales tax to build flood walls was to turn it down, albeit 

by a very small amount. The community said they didn’t think it 

would ever happen again. Now, partially, that could be our fault, 

that we were not clear enough in doing the future forecasting that 

Mr. Miller spoke about. It hasn’t happened that much in the past, 

so why would it happen in the future? Why should we spent all of 

this money and time? 

The secondary part, I would say—and we worked very hard to 

build our partnerships with, for instance, the home builders. And 

developers put a lot of pressure on local officials in their zoning 

laws. So when you seek to not only do mitigation itself, but you 

seek to put the zoning in place that requires people to build out 

of or further away from flood hazards, it is seen as an attractive 

place, and home builders want to do that. So that takes a long-time 

effort in local communities, building the kinds of partnerships that 

people see this as a value. Having open space next to rivers is a 

valuable thing. Parks are good. And that is where our community 

is going, is turning that entire area next to the river to greenways. 

That takes a lot of relationship-building. 

So, I think it is really—it is a time issue, and it is about having 

your local officials, who are committed to building those kinds of 

relationships that really have the longer view in a community. 

Thank you. 

Mr. CARSON. Thank you, ma’am. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. The Chair would now like to recognize Ms. Norton, who is the former ranking member of this committee, and currently the ranking member of the Subcommittee on 

Highways and Transit. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, first, let me thank you, Chairman Barletta 

and Ranking Member Carson, for this hearing. This is a very important and, I think, timely hearing. And may I ask the ranking 

member if I might be added to his bill? I commend him for it. 

Mr. CARSON. It would be more than an honor, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, this is one of my favorite programs that the Congress has. It is—but it is a very rare example of the Congress being able to fund before the fact. We just 

don’t do that. Congress, of course, has an annual appropriation 

process; that may be one of the reasons. But it almost never funds 

to save. It insists on funding with a great deal more required after 

something has happened. It need not even be a disaster. Whatever 

16 

it is, it has to have happened. Its effect, though, on communities 

now, we have to begin to take account of. If for $500 million invested you can get $1.6 billion in return, if you were a private investor, you couldn’t resist that. Only the Federal Government could 

resist that, and it continues to do so, and it is very bothersome. 

Indeed, I have to ask you, Mr. Miller. Apparently, this program 

is being revamped. I commend you in the way you are looking at 

the new kinds of disasters, climate-change disasters we are having. 

But how could you revamp the program for the era of climate 

change with the same amount of money, no increases in funds? 

How do you justify that? 

Mr. MILLER. The fact is, ma’am, we are in those tight budget 

times. And you are right, they ask for mitigation, the investment 

of mitigation. The requirement that we hear from our communities 

far exceeds the funding that we have. A lot of the answer that we 

are looking for is how do we streamline our efforts, remove some 

of the road blocks of use of funds, and where is the best place for 

investment. 

Ms. NORTON. Remove some of the what? I am sorry. 

Mr. MILLER. The road blocks to funding. We have looked at the 

Administration processes, and streamlining through our grants 

process. So whether it is the hazard mitigation grant program that 

comes after a disaster, whether it is the flood mitigation assistance 

programs that come with severe repetitive and repetitive loss 

under the flood insurance fund, whatever those programs are, we 

are working to streamline them, make the application processes 

easier, and get the money out faster. 

Ms. NORTON. Are you saying that all of that is going to produce 

savings in some way? I am trying to figure out how you are going 

to do what you clearly understand has to be done with the same 

funding at—that we have had before, when there was less understanding. 

So you talk about savings. Are those savings going to be applied 

to this program? 

Mr. MILLER. Yes. 

Ms. NORTON. So it is going to be more than $400 million when 

it is all over. 

Mr. MILLER. Well, the $400 million proposed, ma’am, is yet to 

come. It is in the President’s Budget. 

Ms. NORTON. Yes. 

Mr. MILLER. The plan is what are we going to do with it if we 

get it. And if we get it, it will come through the PDM—— 

Ms. NORTON. What is the present funding? 

Mr. MILLER. The present fund, under PDM, as the vice chair has 

pointed out, is zeroed in the President’s Budget. Congress, last 

year, put in $25 million nationwide in that budget. It has been as 

high as, I think, $100 million or a little over $150 million in previous years. 

I think one of the questions that always came up was the ability 

to execute funds. We talked about it, Mr. Berginnis talked about 

using the funds for planning. And yet, when we analyze the use of 

the PDM, only about 18 percent of it was used for planning. Part 

of it is because planning dollars are available in other programs. 

They come in the Emergency Management Performance Grant. You 

17 

can fund them under the post-disaster HMGP, although it is a limited amount of money. You can fund them under flood mitigation 

assistance. There are other mechanisms for the planning part. 

I think the larger question there is what is available for projects. 

And when we get to projects, a lot of the projects are multiyear in 

their purpose. So, one of the questions that always came—and this 

gets into the streamlining—is how quickly can we execute the 

money that we are given, and—rather than rolling it over. And we 

have to execute those monies. And yearly in the PDM, and in any 

of those programs, we tend to roll money over for projects. That becomes bothersome. 

So, it is a streamlining, it is a looking at where funds are otherwise available, it is moving projects faster through the system, 

whether it is getting through construction seasons, doing more preplanning upfront, it is working with the communities to make 

those things happen quicker. 

Ms. NORTON. If you—if climate change—and I commend you for 

factoring climate change into your work; I am very interested in 

how you do that. 

We are having unprecedented climate. There was a recent report 

released just—I think it was this week or last week, in which scientists, the scientists who have all the knowledge, and we understand it now more than—almost 100 percent of scientists say that 

climate change is in operation. But this report says we are already 

in it. This is no longer we are—‘‘This is what is going to happen.’’ 

It is happening. And you talk to the people who experienced Sandy 

or the mud slide, and they will tell you that for those who want 

to be deniers, they have experienced it. 

The problem is that these were unprecedented disasters. Sandy, 

for example, has had—we have had hurricanes going all up and 

down the east coast, but nothing like that. The President—I am 

sorry—the Governor of New York is talking about doing away with 

part of the shoreline, and no longer having what is there there. Are 

you engaged in that kind of really foresighted advice to—as part 

of mitigation that apparently the whole vision of what you did before is no longer viable, in light of these unprecedented storms and 

other climate events that we are experiencing? 

Mr. MILLER. Yes, Congresswoman, we are. And let me use an example. When we did Superstorm Sandy, we knew that we were already—in different places within the community we were all looking at mapping actions that reflected current risk. And you know 

for our flood insurance program, the mapping actions, whether you 

are in the special flood hazard area or not is a big part of what 

drives the program. 

We also knew, because of Biggert-Waters legislation, that if we 

did the rebuild wrong, and people built below base flood elevation, 

they used old data and old maps, they would build wrong and they 

would get penalized under the NFIP. So, the effort was to give 

them best available data, even though the maps weren’t refined, 

weren’t completely vetted, didn’t go through the process. We 

worked very hard in doing that, worked with the State of New 

York, worked with the State of New Jersey to put those maps out. 

But here was the difficulty, and I think it exemplifies what happens in the community. We could put out best available data, and 

18 

the thing we got pressed on is were we going to account for one 

of the areas relative to climate change and adaptation, sea level 

rise. There is a number of studies about sea level rise, that they 

happen on this continuum, with this variable of this many feet over 

this many years. 

How much of that were we going to incorporate in our maps? 

And, probably more importantly to the communities, what were we 

going to use to regulate, and what were we going to use to inform? 

But as we were looking at sea level rise data, just sea level rise 

data, given the preciseness of our maps, and getting the information out quickly, because we were thought to be conservative, in 

some cases they thought we over-projected what sea level rise 

would do. Instead of promoting building, we stopped it, because 

people were waiting on more preciseness to know whether they had 

to build to this standard or this standard, whether they were in the 

special flood hazard area, or they weren’t. It is about that monetary investment, and it lives in that fine line of data and data analytics and, more importantly, the preciseness of that analytic. 

So, while we want to move in those directions, communities have 

real decisions to make about the level of dollars invested, and the 

permitting they are going to do. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you, Ms. Norton. We will have a second 

round of questions. Very important hearing, and a lot of information. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, 

Mr. Meadows. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Mr. Berginnis, I 

will start with you on this end. This question applies down the 

road. 

As we look at the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act, and the 

mitigation implementation as it relates to that, two things that 

work really well—I want you to give me two things that worked 

really well, and two things that didn’t work well, if you can do that, 

so that we can hopefully address that in future legislation. Mr. 

Berginnis? 

Mr. BERGINNIS. Sure, and I apologize to Mr. Miller; I may take 

some thunder from FEMA. But I do want to compliment them on 

a couple actions they took after the Sandy Recovery Act. And one 

of those was the advanced assistance program, in terms of authorizing that, and allowing States to use those funds, for example, to 

do things that they couldn’t previously do. 

When I was a State mitigation officer in Ohio, for example, we 

needed to do flood studies to prove benefit cost analysis. And under 

HMGP we couldn’t do that. The advanced assistance specifically 

authorizes activities like that so you build good, credible mitigation 

projects. 

And it also—I think the spirit of SRIA then also allowed FEMA 

to prioritize the program delegation—or program administration by 

States. That, again, allows States to have more stake and more 

control over the whole application process. 

I only have—I have one, I think, critique and perhaps unintended consequence. And that is the legislation basically shortening 

the period of obligation and the time that funds are available for 

mitigation. And this is—this goes to my earlier point, that maybe 

19 

we should look at when mitigation projects actually start, because 

there is a lot of work to be done between the time a disaster happens and actually getting a full, eligible mitigation project that 

communities buy into. There is a lot of time. And many States, that 

takes over a year of process. 

Sometimes States can be very quick and do things in, like, 6 

months or those types of things. We need to look at that part of 

the process. FEMA has been doing a good job of improving some 

of the tools, benefit cost analysis and things, but we have the next 

bottleneck, which is when States actually get those projects turned 

in, and then reviewed, and then funded. And by shortening a deadline, that doesn’t have much of an impact, in terms of improving 

that process. Thank you. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So let me follow up on that. 

Mr. BERGINNIS. Sure. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So you are saying for a longer deadline is going 

to get the States—it is going to encourage them to move quicker? 

Mr. BERGINNIS. Not necessarily. What I am saying is that—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Because, normally, deadlines make—if the funds 

go away at a particular time—and maybe it is different in some of 

the States you deal with, but they normally work towards a deadline. And if you give them 18 months, a whole lot of work gets done 

in the last 2 months, prior to the end of the 18 months. 

And so, I don’t know how that would help speed up, or make it 

any more efficient. 

Mr. BERGINNIS. What—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. I think Mr. Miller wants to comment on that, and 

I am running out of time. 

Mr. BERGINNIS. Oh, OK, sure. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So let me jump to you, Mr. Miller. 

Mr. MILLER. Yes, I would like to add on to Chad’s comments. 

There is a couple things that we notice, relative to timelines and 

implementation. And for purposes of disclosure, I used to be the 

State director of emergency management in Iowa, and worked with 

Linda in the 2008 floods. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So you had the other shoe on the other foot. OK. 

Mr. MILLER. Yes. The challenge about working at FEMA is all 

the questions I had I now have to answer. 

But I think a part of it, and what we discuss often, as much as 

we have worked in FEMA in trying to streamline our processes, it 

is how communities are positioned to take advantage of them. One 

of the things we have all struggled with is that community capacity 

to engage mitigation when it becomes available. And too often, especially if you don’t have a large number of disasters, you haven’t 

built that capacity, or there is no State or local investment in that 

capacity, all the things necessary to move a mitigation project come 

after the disaster, when time is of the essence. 

So, it is delayed, you are trying to rebuild, you are doing all the 

public assistance stuff, mitigation gets set aside. And yet it should 

complement the rebuild. It is about that capacity and capability 

building, as Linda has echoed. It is about positioning your community to take advantage of that prior to the disaster. And too often, 

we don’t see that happen. 

20 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. And I can see I am running out of time, 

so I would ask each of you, for the record, if you would just respond—two good things, two bad things—and get it back to the 

committee. 

And I thank the chairman for his indulgence. I yield back. 

[Hon. Linda Langston, president, National Association of Counties, and supervisor, Linn County, Iowa, responds below to Hon. 

Meadows’ request for information:] 

21 


Insert offset folio 5 here 87433.005
22 

[Bryan Koon, vice president, National Emergency Management 

Association, and director, Florida Division of Emergency Management, responds below to Hon. Meadows’ request for information:] 


Insert offset folio 6 here 87433.006
23 


Insert offset folio 7 here 87433.007
24 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you, Mr. Meadows. The Chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from Maryland, Ms. Edwards. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you. And thank you to the chairman and 

the ranking member. For somebody like me, who is not particularly 

an expert or know anything about disaster management and those 

things, I just have a kind of question that I get a lot of times from 

some of my constituents, and it has to do with areas where there 

are repeat losses and reimbursements and relief efforts. Times 

when there are areas of the country that are in the flood plain 

where, you know, there are numerous disasters, and disaster relief 

kicks in, and it feels like the relief is just over and over again. 

And I wonder how, in the use of community rating, other than 

a community sort of stepping up and saying, ‘‘I want to participate, 

I want to do these things so that we can reduce our cost and liabilities,’’ but also so that communities have the ability to kind of better manage a disaster—but it seems to me that there are more incentives in various parts of our statutes that are disincentives for 

participating in the Community Rating System. And I wonder if 

you could speak to that. 

So I am thinking, for example, under—in our agriculture support 

statutes, the kinds of reimbursements that are made, and when. 

And for, you know, general kind of disaster relief, that there are 

more incentives for not participating than there are for participating. And so that might actually account for not as many communities as we need doing the things that they need to do to mitigate 

disaster, and then enable taxpayers to save a little bit of money. 

And so, I just wonder if you could speak to that. Anyone? Mr. 

Miller, start with you. 

Mr. MILLER. All right. I think there are a number of pieces that 

are there. And you talk about the disincentives. I think, as Ms. 

Langston has pointed out, a lot of that is an education process. One 

of the problems that we have in disasters always, in FEMA trying 

to put its good foot forward, was we are here to assist, we want 

to be very active, and we get very much disaster survivor-centric. 

But what that does—and it sends a message, inadvertently—is 

no matter what your disaster, regardless of your level of loss, we 

are going to be here to help you recover. But the truth is the money 

is to help you get back on your feet. You don’t come close to recovering all of your losses. So the message is mixed, is if I don’t do 

anything I get this, but if I do something I may get some of this, 

but I will get it in a different avenue. 

Again, an experience in New York for me, personally, was we 

went up and went to a disaster assistance center. And I am standing there, and I am watching people walk in and apply for individual assistance status. And they think they are going to get a 

max grant, which is a little over $33,000. But the average grant 

is only $5,000. So, they are disappointed. 

Then we go to the other side, and I have somebody who comes 

in who has flood insurance. And what they saw was people were 

getting their individual assistance check in days. But, because of 

the insurance process, I have to go out, verify loss, and do these 

things. The person who bought their insurance was waiting weeks 

to get it. Now, we worked to streamline that process and get them 

their assistance quicker. But in their mind, ‘‘I paid for my insurVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:10 Nov 21, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\ED\4-3-14~1\87433.TXT JEAN
25 

ance, I did the right thing, and you just penalized me by delaying 

my payment for weeks, while people on the other side were getting 

theirs in days.’’ 

Those are the misperceptions and the issues that we have to 

solve to change this risk dynamic and how we pay for disasters and 

how people recover. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Do you think we can do that by statute, or is it 

really by education? And go ahead, Ms. Langston. 

Ms. LANGSTON. I would humbly suggest, Congresswoman, that 

some of this really has to happen in the local community, and it 

has to be driven by community engagement. I am not entirely sure 

you can legislate that. 

I would give you the example of something that is very personal. 

In 2002 my house flooded. It was the day of a primary. The headline read, ‘‘Wins Primary, Loses House.’’ So that was back in 2002. 

I just sold my house on Tuesday at something of a discount, I 

might add, but after the city had made the decision—this is 12 

years since that flood happened—to use some money that they had 

gotten through local option tax for flood recovery to put in a berm 

in this neighborhood. 

I would humbly suggest that, were I not an elected official, and 

I did not bother my city officials, that may never have happened. 

I made sure that the Watershed Management Commission stayed 

alive. I kept doing that so that all of the community said, ‘‘We cannot afford to lose this tax base. This would be a poor idea.’’ But 

that is to the future, something that the Army Corps of Engineers 

does not take into effect. That was a community responsibility. 

Sadly, that money was in place because the wider community had 

a flood in 2008. And, while that got close to my house, it didn’t 

take it down again. 

So, it is about that engagement process. As I said, most commonly, people do not understand risk in their community. I would 

humbly suggest if you look to Japan from the 1600s, they have little markers up in the hills that say, ‘‘Do not build below here,’’ and 

the tsunami came, and the building—it happened at the shoreline. 

We have to put rules in place. 

I would note again in Black Hawk County and in the city of 

Cedar Falls, their city council took very proactive, very stringent 

flood requirements about where and how homes could be built. And 

it was a political risk. But it will make a difference to the future 

of that community. It will prevent people from flooding. I am not 

sure that those things can be legislated, truly, from either here or 

from the State level. It has to be a community having a conversation about their risk. And whatever incentives we can get, I would 

appreciate. But it has to be that partnership. Thank you. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thanks, and I think my time has expired. I know 

Mr. Berginnis wanted to respond, but my time has expired. 

Mr. BERGINNIS. Thank you, Congresswoman. There—and these 

are all some very good points. I want to go back to a few points 

that were made earlier in terms of the value of mitigation planning. And one of the requirements that exists right now is that if 

a State fails to maintain its mitigation plan, there is no public assistance available after a disaster. We still don’t have within the 

Federal Government the right ties, I think, between incentives and 

26 

disincentives. And we have to, I think, talk frankly about disincentives or penalties for also not doing the right thing. 

So, what would happen if you brought that requirement down to 

the community level, that if a community doesn’t update and maintain its mitigation plan, they no longer receive public assistance, 

which is really the largest category of disaster assistance? There 

can be more disincentives built in to existing programs. 

I would also look at the U.S. tax code. Currently, the casualty 

loss deduction is maximized to—for people that do nothing to mitigate, because you deduct things like insurance settlements, mitigation, and those kinds of things. Can we make some reforms in the 

tax code in the casualty loss deduction or even tax credits—Mr. 

Koon, I think, mentioned, and I know there is a legislative proposal 

for tax-favored disaster savings accounts—those are the kinds of 

things, I think, that can also be changed to incent the right behavior and reverse these perverse disincentives that we have. Thank 

you. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. I am going to recognize 

each Member for an additional 5 minutes. This is a lot of good information. 

Mr. Berginnis, you mentioned that the lack of technical assistance is one of the hurdles for communities in the CRS program. 

Can you talk more about this, and what could help address this 

problem? 

Mr. BERGINNIS. Certainly. I think there is—there are two things 

that could be helpful. One of those—and, again, it is an existing 

FEMA program called the CAP–SSSE program—that provides 

some funding and resources to States to build and maintain a State 

flood plain management capability, and that has been very successful over the last several years. And so, the CAP–SSSE program 

could be resourced adequately to help communities and also help 

apply for those uniform State credits for the CRS program. 

What doesn’t exist right now is in the State mitigation program 

side of the world. There is no equivalent program to CAP–SSSE. 

And a lot of States, especially those that don’t receive many disaster declarations, they—typically, their capability ebbs and flows, 

depending on disasters. And, as Mr. Miller pointed out, we need 

continuous State capability to handle the big event when it comes. 

So, to build a similar program that could be funded under PDM or 

another mechanism would be helpful. Thank you. 

Mr. BARLETTA. This question is for all the witnesses here. Between the hazard mitigation grants, the pre-disaster grants, and 

the flood mitigation assistance grants, we spend hundreds of millions of dollars on mitigation. How can we better target these 

grants to reduce flood risks and enable communities to lower their 

flood insurance premiums, either through the CRS program or otherwise? And, Mr. Miller, you can begin. 

Mr. MILLER. I think part of it is—and it is a discussion we have 

had for a long time—is where do we focus. You mentioned, sir, that 

the main area of focus is on flooding and flood mitigation as the 

number-one cause of damages. A lot of our efforts, I think, if I remember right—and I can get you the true figure for the record, but 

I think 60 or 70 percent of our funds go through—for flood mitigation kind of activities out of—in 2012 I think the total mitigation 

27 

assistance was a little over $800 million. It is clearly not enough 

to do everything we need to do in those areas. 

But more importantly, what we try to do is get States and local 

governments some variability. And we have seen areas where they 

have tried to direct assistance to focus on a particular hazard, because that was the event that occurred. We have seen others where 

they have seen a large variability in what they want to do. For instance, in my State, if we had a disaster, the cause may be flood, 

but the disaster assistance available through the mitigation program is for any hazard in any county, whether they were affected 

or not. Other States changed that focus. 

If communities aren’t well-positioned to do that, you see them 

reach for low-hanging fruit. They may do property acquisitions. In 

some States they may do elevations. But they may not do the more 

effective or harder projects that need to get through cost benefit 

that may have a broader community benefit. Those are some of the 

challenges we all have. Are they ready for project? Have they 

planned for projects? Do they know where they are going to go and 

how they are going to get there? Are they going to pick low-hanging fruit that has a mitigative value, but probably not the bigger 

bang for the buck that we are all looking for? 

Mr. BARLETTA. Ms. Langston? 

Ms. LANGSTON. I would note that certainly flexibility is good, and 

the comment has been made earlier that regional opportunities 

exist. From my perspective, disasters rarely know political or geographical boundaries. They happen—and certainly, Chairman, in 

your home State of Pennsylvania, being familiar with a number of 

your Members there—because it takes in a good deal of land, I 

think the critical piece is giving the flexibility and incenting local 

governments to work together. 

So, flood plain management, thinking of watershed, regional watershed, authorities that cover thousands of acres so that your mitigation is not always looking at building a flood wall, which may be 

partial to the solution, but the larger solution may be a 15-county 

response to watershed management. And that kind of flexibility is 

not something we have been as good at incenting, although there 

are dollars now available to that. 

So I think, especially when it comes to that kind of response for 

flooding and disasters, the requirement to look more broadly, 

incenting communities to work together. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Koon? 

Mr. KOON. Mr. Chairman, I believe we can make progress in this 

by helping to incentivize the communities to participate in the 

Community Rating System, by streamlining the processes involved 

with applying for and continuing to improve your standing within 

the program, helping to raise awareness of citizens and the elected 

officials as to the potential return on investment on time and 

money spent on that program, and providing the assistance to 

those 94 percent of the communities not currently enrolled in the 

Community Rating System. Get them into the program, help them 

understand how it can save their policyholders money, and how it 

can improve the resilience of that community. Once they understand that it exists, once they understand how the monies that are 

out there can be spent and utilized, I think you will see a conVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:10 Nov 21, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\ED\4-3-14~1\87433.TXT JEAN
28 

tinuing evolution, and people participating in this program, and a 

continued benefit to the country from their participation. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Berginnis? 

Mr. BERGINNIS. I think one way that this can be done is having— 

as mitigation plans get updated and get better, is to focus mitigation plans on the action piece of those. You know, we spent over 

a decade building that local capability, and communities have allhazard mitigation plans. But a deficiency that I have tended to see 

in those, in having reviewed many of them, is that the action element of that plan tends to not be as specific and as action-oriented 

as it could. 

And to the extent that those plans can be specific and very 

proactive, and even perhaps to the extent that the plans achieve 

what I think folks initially thought mitigation planning should do, 

which is to almost have fairly ready projects that could be funded 

once disasters happen, or when other opportunities occur, then I 

think, as a Nation, we will be able to take advantage of those mitigation opportunities and target resources that are available more 

towards this flood problem. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Ranking 

Member Carson. 

Mr. CARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Langston, you 

mentioned that you are pleased with the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act advance of hazard mitigation funds. Do you feel that 

counties are sufficiently aware of this provision, and have the capacity to really utilize it, or should FEMA even be doing more to 

educate counties on this provision? 

Ms. LANGSTON. Thank you. I believe there is always more opportunity. I spend a lot of time going around the country right now, 

talking to people about whether or not they have read their hazard 

mitigation plan, and if they have been to an emergency drill. I will 

sadly tell you that probably no more than 50 percent of any room 

that I ever talk to has fully read their hazard mitigation plan. 

But, in response to my being there, I hear from a lot of people 

who have gone back and read their hazard mitigation plan because 

I challenged them about it. So I think Mr. Miller and I have an 

opportunity to serve on the National Advisory Council together, 

and I think there are always those discussions that we have about 

how do we advance that. And within NACo, the whole focus on a 

resilient, thriving county is really focused on helping counties understand that. 

So the flexibility is good, the opportunity for education is never 

ending. Because, in general, I would say that within my State I 

know that in any given election year the turnover of county elected 

officials is somewhere between 25 and 30 percent. So that means 

you are in a constant education process. So we always have work 

to do. 

Mr. CARSON. Mr. Miller, in your written testimony you mentioned that there is a community input phase, and that individuals 

and communities are able to provide their own data for FEMA’s 

consideration. I have two questions related to this, effectively. 

First, what is the average cost for individuals and communities 

to provide this data? And, secondly, if individuals and communities 

bring information to FEMA’s attention before the maps are final, 

29 

does FEMA pursue this information to determine if their maps are 

incorrect? Or does FEMA just publish the maps, knowing that they 

could possibly be incorrect? 

Mr. MILLER. Well, there is a lot in there. Number one, the cost 

of challenging the maps, I think, can be significant. And it will 

vary, given the science or the engineering that needs to be brought 

forward to do that. But I can give you an average cost figure, and 

we will have the staff work that up. 

I think the other part, though, as we go through it—and there 

have been some changes in the recent law about how we pay for 

challenges to the maps that I think are important. 

More importantly, we always get into the discussion about 

whether the maps are wrong, or what data is right. Often it has 

to do with the level of preciseness. FEMA maps to a standard. And 

the standards that we set, both in the methodology we use, but, 

more importantly, the level that we map to, are vetted through a 

number of panels. Now you have the Technical Mapping Advisory 

Committee that will weigh in on those standards that came out of 

Biggert-Waters. 

There is a number of things that will happen to look at the 

standards of mapping. But our investment only maps to a level of 

preciseness. And what communities often have is greater data and 

more precise data than we have. And when they bring that to the 

table, we will consider it. 

Now, that said, if there is questions of methodology, like there 

recently was in Massachusetts, we will look at the methodology 

and sometimes, like in many places in science, there is disputes 

over if it is applicable. I think, at the end, we can always say we 

have looked at the science, we are going to apply it this way, we 

have to draw a point in time. But, more importantly, when we look 

at it, we want to look—does it change the outcome? And if it significantly changes the outcome, we really do want to take it into 

consideration. And is it a one-time event, or something that we 

bake into our science and methodology? 

Mr. CARSON. All right, thank you. Yield back. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you, Ranking Member Carson. The Chair 

recognizes Ms. Edwards. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. And here, I 

thought I wasn’t going to be totally interested. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. EDWARDS. I just have a question. I recall—I visited the areas 

that were devastated by Katrina down in New Orleans and Mississippi, and then again we also, as a committee, visited the areas 

that were devastated by Sandy. And my recollection is that one of 

the things that was discussed, in addition to the kind of hardening 

structural activity that needed to take place, was also a discussion 

about the kind of green wetlands replacement and those sort of 

things that could go a long way to help mitigate. 

And so, I wonder if you could tell me how the sort of green infrastructure elements factor into improving community ratings and 

into the considerations for mitigation all together, and whether 

there might be things that we could do that would actually encourage some of those activities that tend to be less costly than some 

of the physical hardening structures. 

30 

Mr. MILLER. No, you are right, ma’am. Too often, our efforts, 

where we get the most focus and then discussion in community, is 

about structural mitigation, the hardening of a structure, the floodproofing of a structure, or building levees or flood walls, or doing 

those things, and we lose the benefit and analysis of the benefit for 

nonstructural efforts that mitigate against loss. We do take those 

into consideration, and we want to continue to consider those. 

Matter of fact, I was recently at a briefing from a colleague from 

North Carolina, University of North Carolina, who also was with 

a colleague from Texas A&M. They have done a study and it actually says the more beneficial benefit are the nonstructural ecological and changes that can be made. 

On our side, one of the things that we look at for benefit cost is 

how we do the calculation. Recently, what we did was build in 

some of the benefit costs for environmental considerations. The 

harder part of that, because we don’t always have the body of 

science to evaluate, was to go look for the studies that put a value 

on that, so I could really get a dollars and cents benefit cost analysis. But we have done that, and updated our benefit cost accordingly to make more projects reach that, especially where they take 

those kinds of measures. It is not widespread. It tends to be more 

in coastal areas than in other areas. But it is something we want 

to look at. 

I think, more importantly, where we are going to gain advantage 

in these others, it is something you mentioned earlier about how 

I would regard Agriculture or the other agencies. Under that Mitigation Framework Leadership Group, where we have a chance to 

bring people together, these are some of the issues we discuss, everything from unified review for environmental historical preservation pieces that came out of the Sandy Recovery Act to the kind 

of standards that we would set and policy would set. But at the 

bottom end of this it becomes about dollars and cents and can I 

find the monetary value that gives me benefit cost that allows 

these projects to move forward. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you. I would just call attention to—I have 

a bill that deals with using green infrastructure around stormwater 

management. But I think it would be important for us to begin to 

consider ways that we can provide more substantial kinds of incentives for incorporating those activities in county and locality plans. 

In the stimulus package that passed a couple years ago, they were 

some of the most sought-after funds, but they were quite limited. 

And I think it would prove very cost-effective for some of our communities. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. Again, this is very good information, 

a very important hearing. So maybe if—we will do a third round, 

maybe limit it to one question, if we can. 

Ms. Langston, I was a mayor for 11 years, so I will be interested 

in your opinion. It takes public money to participate in CRS. But 

the savings go to the policyholders. Does that make it difficult for 

the local government to make that a priority? 

Ms. LANGSTON. Well, I would say it was not for our individual 

county, but I do understand it could be for some, particularly when 

you look at what is required to get to the higher levels of rating 

that get a larger response. 

31 

I think, to me, over and over again, it is about the engagement 

of the community. As a former mayor, you clearly understand this, 

that getting your constituents to understand that you are spending 

part of the money to actually help them put money back in their 

own pockets, but it doesn’t always rise to top of mind. 

I know I have had conversations with flood plain managers due 

to some work with FEMA, and trying to help people understand 

how do these various levels of government communicate. So how do 

I, as an elected official, know what is going on with the flood plain 

manager, and how do I know that that is really important, now 

that they have figured out what the risk is? And then, how do I 

turn around and use my leverage and my convening power to get 

back to my constituents to say, ‘‘It is really important that we do 

this’’? 

So, to my mind, the barriers are primarily one of communication 

between elected officials such as us, and the Administrators who 

have to put information in front of us that empowers us to take action. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Koon? 

Mr. KOON. Chairman Barletta, the—for every 500 points in Florida, if I could generate—if I could move every community up by one 

level on the Community Rating System, based on the premiums 

that the policyholders in Florida were paying a couple of years ago, 

before any increases, about $1.2 billion a year, that would be $60 

million in savings across the State of Florida. That $60 million goes 

back into those policyholders’ pockets. That is money they are 

going to spend in the local economy. That is money that is going 

to generate jobs, generate additional revenue in those communities. 

That is additional tax revenues going back to the locals and the 

States. That is going to reduce their flood insurance premiums, 

which could increase their property value, which could increase 

property taxes within the State, as well. So this is not solely a savings for the policyholder. That money goes back into the local economy and has a reverberating effect as it progresses through. 

And oftentimes, achieving that 500 points is going to cost far, far 

less. You know, we have gone through and identified all the different things we can do in the Community Rating System to save 

those points. And many of them are low- to no-cost, particularly 

some of the outreach efforts that you can get credit for within a 

Community Rating System, simply by having the public aware of 

the hazards, or working with the Realtors to develop brochures. 

Those kinds of things, again, have little to no cost, and can generate tremendous savings. 

So, we have gone through a prioritized, from zero to expensive, 

where should we put our dollars. And, again, many of them, it is 

going to cost us a very small amount of money to generate tens of 

millions of dollars of savings for Floridians. 

Mr. BARLETTA. I agree. I know the roads in Florida are very 

good, but the roads in Pennsylvania, there are a lot of potholes. 

And sometimes elected officials hear it every day from their neighbors and people in the community, ‘‘When are you going to fix 

these, the potholes?’’ So it is a tough decision for elected officials 

to realize that this money has to go into saving the taxpayers in 

32 

that community. So, it is, I believe, one of the factors maybe why 

communities aren’t investing in mitigation. 

Ranking Member Carson? 

Mr. CARSON. Well stated. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Very insightful, Mr. Koon. Thank you for that. 

Mr. Berginnis, even if local communities are aware of the—for 

the need of mitigating, they may not have the capacity to do so in 

many instances. Do you have any suggestions as to how Congress 

can help local communities obtain the capacity necessary to even 

implement effective mitigation strategies for participating in CRS? 

Mr. BERGINNIS. It is an excellent question, and I think it largely 

has to do with making sure the assistance mechanisms for communities to join and to continue to participate are robust enough to 

handle the demand that is there. 

You know, in Ohio, the CRS program, when I was working there 

at the State, was not a particularly large program. We had over 

700 communities in the State, and I think we had less than 20 participating in the CRS. But, among those, we had communities the 

size of small villages—5,000 people—that participate in the CRS 

and did it successfully. And I think sometimes—and maybe it goes 

back to the communication—the experience that people tend to 

think they hear, in terms of applying and things like that, is a lot 

different than the reality. 

In fact, the way FEMA administers the CRS, there is assistance 

in doing applications and those kinds of things. And so, probably, 

a couple things Congress could do, again, would be, one, to increase 

the State capability to provide the technical assistance. Secondly, 

perhaps to allow CRS application assistance to be an eligible item 

under mitigation programs that communities could participate in. 

And then the third is making sure that the CRS program itself has 

enough resources to address any of these delays that were talked 

about in terms of once a community is excited, they want to participate, by golly, let’s get them in the program as soon as possible. 

Mr. CARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. I would like to thank all of you for 

your testimony today. It was incredibly insightful. And, again, it 

shines a light on how important education is, that we go back to 

many of these communities. If anyone has experienced as you all 

have, the sorrow and devastation after a flood, I think at that point 

in time we would do anything within our power to prevent it from 

happening. But it is times like right now, when we are not experiencing those in our communities, that we really need to get to work 

to try to stop those times from happening. So, again, I want to 

thank all of you. 

I would ask unanimous consent that the record of today’s hearing 

remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided answers to any questions that may be submitted to them in writing, 

and unanimous consent that the record remain open for 15 days for 

any additional comments and information submitted by Members 

or witnesses to be included in the record of today’s hearing. 

[No response.] 

Mr. BARLETTA. Without objection, so ordered. I would like to 

thank our witnesses again for your testimony. If no other Members 

have anything to add, this subcommittee stands adjourned. 

33 

[Whereupon, at 11:36 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

34 


Insert offset folio 8 here 87433.008
35 


Insert offset folio 9 here 87433.009
36 


Insert offset folio 10 here 87433.010
37 


Insert offset folio 11 here 87433.011
38 


Insert offset folio 12 here 87433.012
39 


Insert offset folio 13 here 87433.013
40 


Insert offset folio 14 here 87433.014
41 


Insert offset folio 15 here 87433.015
42 


Insert offset folio 16 here 87433.016
43 


Insert offset folio 17 here 87433.017
44 


Insert offset folio 18 here 87433.018
45 


Insert offset folio 19 here 87433.019
46 


Insert offset folio 20 here 87433.020
47 


Insert offset folio 21 here 87433.021
48 


Insert offset folio 22 here 87433.022
49 


Insert offset folio 23 here 87433.023
50 


Insert offset folio 24 here 87433.024
51 


Insert offset folio 25 here 87433.025
52 


Insert offset folio 26 here 87433.026
53 


Insert offset folio 27 here 87433.027
54 


Insert offset folio 28 here 87433.028
55 


Insert offset folio 29 here 87433.029
56 


Insert offset folio 30 here 87433.030
57 


Insert offset folio 31 here 87433.031
58 


Insert offset folio 32 here 87433.032
59 


Insert offset folio 33 here 87433.033
60 


Insert offset folio 34 here 87433.034
61 


Insert offset folio 35 here 87433.035
62 


Insert offset folio 36 here 87433.036
63 


Insert offset folio 37 here 87433.037
64 


Insert offset folio 38 here 87433.038
65 


Insert offset folio 39 here 87433.039
66 


Insert offset folio 40 here 87433.040
67 


Insert offset folio 41 here 87433.041
68 


Insert offset folio 42 here 87433.042
69 


Insert offset folio 43 here 87433.043
70 


Insert offset folio 44 here 87433.044
71 


Insert offset folio 45 here 87433.045
72 


Insert offset folio 46 here 87433.046
73 


Insert offset folio 47 here 87433.047
74 


Insert offset folio 48 here 87433.048
75 


Insert offset folio 49 here 87433.049
76 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 50 here 87433.050