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

89–685 PDF 2014

S. Hrg. 113–497 

THE ROLE OF MITIGATION IN REDUCING FEDERAL 

EXPENDITURES FOR DISASTER RESPONSE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY 

MANAGEMENT, INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS, 

AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 14, 2014 

Available via http://www.fdsys.gov 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

GABRIELLE A. BATKIN, Staff Director 

JOHN P. KILVINGTON, Deputy Staff Director 

KEITH B. ASHDOWN, Minority Staff Director 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk 

LAUREN CORCORAN, Hearing Clerk 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, INTERGOVERNMENTAL 

RELATIONS, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

JON TESTER, Montana 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

PAT MCQUILLAN, Staff Director 

BRANDON BOOKER, Minority Staff Director 

KELSEY STROUD, Chief Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statement: Page 

Senator Begich .................................................................................................. 1 

WITNESSES 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2014 

David Miller, Associate Administrator, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Department 

of Homeland Security .......................................................................................... 3 

Christopher Currie, Director, Emergency Management and National Preparedness Issues, Government Accountability Office ....................................... 5 

Chad Berginnis, Executive Director, Association for State Floodplain Managers ...................................................................................................................... 7 

Robert Detlefsen, Vice President of Public Policy, National Association of 

Mutual Insurance Companies ............................................................................. 9 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Berginnis, Chad: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 62 

Currie, Christopher: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 44 

Detlefsen, Robert: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 78 

Miller, David: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 33 

APPENDIX 

Statement for the Record submitted by the National Association of Home 

Builders ................................................................................................................. 86 

Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record: 

Mr. Miller .......................................................................................................... 92 

Mr. Currie ......................................................................................................... 101 

(1) 

THE ROLE OF MITIGATION IN 

REDUCING FEDERAL EXPENDITURES FOR 

DISASTER RESPONSE 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2014 

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT,

INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS,

AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:34 p.m., in room 

342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mark Begich, Chairman 

of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Begich, Landrieu and Pryor. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BEGICH 

Senator BEGICH. We will go ahead and call this meeting to order 

of the Subcommittee on Emergency Management, Intergovernmental Relations, and the District of Columbia. The hearing is 

‘‘The Role of Mitigation in Reducing Federal Expenditures for Disaster Response.’’ 

We thank the panel for being here. 

I have a few opening comments. We will be joined by one or two 

other Senators throughout, but I, again, appreciate everyone being 

here. 

We are here today to examine the relationship between investing 

in mitigation activities before a disaster and spending less to respond and to recover from floods, earthquakes, hurricanes and tornadoes. 

For the last year, the Subcommittee has examined a number of 

critical issues affecting the emergency management community. 

We have discussed grants to make sure that our State and local 

first responders are well trained and properly equipped, highlighted the ongoing challenges facing communities recovering from 

Superstorm Sandy and discussed the real threat erosion and extreme weather posed to communities throughout Alaska. 

Oversight on these challenges is important, but response and recovery is, by nature, reactive. So we must also make sure we are 

doing all we can to anticipate and bring down future costs. 

It makes sense to turn our attention to a very common-sense action that has the potential to make the communities safer and sig-
2 

nificantly reduce the amount we as a Nation spend on responding 

and rebuilding after disasters. 

Mitigation must be a national priority. While much of the investment in mitigation comes during the recovery process, as we are 

seeing following disasters like last year’s devastating flooding along 

the Yukon in Alaska, taking action before a disaster is still the 

most effective way to save lives and money. 

We have all heard the statistics often cited by supporters of mitigation. For a dollar spent on risk reduction before disaster strikes, 

we save four dollars in response and recovery costs. At a time when 

we are focused on balancing the budget and reducing our debt, we 

cannot pass up opportunities like this. 

According to the National Academies of Science, Federal expenditures post-disaster are borne by the entire country and have been 

growing steadily for the past 60 years. In 1953, for example, Federal spending on disasters totaled $21 

million. We would love to hear those numbers again. 

In 2009, with many more disaster declarations, the Federal Gov- ernment spent $1.4 billion. This does not even include in the account for billions spent by the private sector, individuals, cities, 

States and others impacted by such disasters. 

As we spend less and less on mitigation programs in our discretionary funding, we continue to see Federal, State and local expenditures on disaster relief climb to new heights. The time has 

come to ask ourselves, instead of doing the same thing over and 

over, and getting the same results, can we invest taxpayer dollars 

more strategically before a disaster happens to save more lives and 

better protect our economy? 

I have seen the results of inaction firsthand. I visited with residents of the villages along the Yukon River last year and heard 

their accounts of dangerous late-night evacuations out of Galena as 

flood waters swept their homes away. 

I was joined in Alaska by the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA) Administrator Craig Fugate just last month. We 

walked through the mud on a vacant property, stepping over the 

remains of a home that due to continued erosion had recently fallen into the Matanuska River. 

Last fall, I was joined up in Nome by Mr. Miller, who joins us 

here today, and other FEMA officials to see the devastating effects 

of coastal erosion. This slow-moving disaster is getting worse by 

the year, but smart investments could reverse the damage. 

The price of investment can be high, but inaction is far more expensive. We do not have to create entirely new programs, departments or agencies to promote mitigation. It makes sense to build 

on the strong structures that already exist at the Federal, State 

and local levels. 

The cost of disasters are a strain on all levels, from victims’ pocketbooks to the Federal budget. At the Federal level, the Disaster 

Relief Fund (DRF) and the National Flood Insurance Program 

(NFIP) continue to feel the pinch whenever a disaster strikes. As 

development has increased so has exposure to huge disaster costs. 

The DRF funds FEMA, supports State and local responders, as 

well as reimburses for damages to homes and infrastructure. We 

have seen time and again that Congress has to pass supplement 
3 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Miller appears in the Appendix on page 33. 

funding after a disaster to avoid running out of money in the middle of a recovery process. This $7 billion fund is constantly being 

stretched, especially as extreme weather increases. The NFIP is buried in debt, which now sits at $25 billion. Even 

though flooding is this Nation’s biggest threat, mitigation funds 

continue to be underutilized. The NFIP will continue to be a drain 

on our economy unless we can find a way to balance affordability 

with real awareness of risk and concrete action to reduce it. 

Mitigation is a common-sense solution, but it is not easy. Investment can be a tough sell in rough economic times, but we must 

stop focusing on recovery from the last disaster with no eyes to the 

future. We must look ahead and prepare our homes, schools, businesses and critical infrastructure for the threats of the future. 

I believe this issue is one of the greatest challenges facing the 

emergency management, development and insurance communities, 

and I look forward to discussing the best ways forward. 

We will start from this side, down. And, if a member comes in, 

I may pause you to allow them to make their opening comments 

and then we will continue with the testimony if that is OK. 

Again, Mr. Miller, thank you, and it was great to have you up 

north. 

The weather is better today. Alaska is experiencing extreme 

warm weather compared to our usual season. We have been averaging, 65-plus weather for the last several weeks which is not 

heard of until we get deeper into May. So we are very happy. 

But it also creates, as I just saw a warning, fire hazards now increasing before our season has even started to be mobilized. So we 

know we have some issues. 

But, again, Mr. Miller, thank you. 

He is the Associate Administrator of the Federal Insurance and 

Mitigation Administration (FIMA) at FEMA. 

We thank you for being here, and we appreciate your attendance. 

And, if I could say, all your written statements will be also entered into the record. 

TESTIMONY OF DAVID MILLER,1 ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, 

FEDERAL INSURANCE AND MITIGATION ADMINISTRATION, 

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am David Miller, the Associate Administrator for the Federal 

Insurance and Mitigation Administration at the Department of 

Homeland Security’s (DHS) Federal Emergency Management Agency. 

I am here to discuss FEMA’s mitigation programs and how we 

educate, incentivize 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. Mr. 

Chairman, as you just mentioned, we all look at the often quoted 

study that says the return on investment is four dollars for every 

dollar invested. Collectively, it is estimated that mitigation pro-
4 

grams 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 while contributing to 

the sustainability of the National Flood Insurance Program. Buying 

down risk is 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 in the larger mitigation community together, including the private sector, 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 risk they have identified. 

This work was bolstered in 2011 with the release of Presidential 

Policy Directive (PPD) 8 on National Preparedness. This directive 

defined the mitigation mission area and required the development 

of a National Mitigation Framework. 

In turn, the framework established the Mitigation Framework 

Leadership Group (MitFLG). 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 that are being used in Hurricane Sandy rebuilding, 

and that may be applied to future disasters. 

We established the MitFLG in part to assure that we collectively 

consider changes in our climate as we plan for the future. The emphasis is in keeping with our larger commitment and continued 

focus on moving forward to build to the future and to consider its 

potential risk rather than building back to pre-disaster conditions. 

Our responsibility to build to the future is informed by the President’s Executive Order (EO) and Climate Change Action Plan, as 

well as our role in helping prepare the Nation for future impacts 

of climate change, including considering rising sea levels, the increasing frequency and intensity and duration of storms, and the 

increasing unpredictability of drought and wet 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 toward that goal. 

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. 

As the Committee is aware, FEMA oversees and manages a number of grant programs to support mitigation efforts. We talk about 

the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Grants and the Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) 

Programs. These programs have assisted governments in rebuilding and building stronger and more resilient communities. 

In Alaska, FEMA has awarded approximately $2.7 million in 

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funding since 2013. It has been 
5 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Currie appears in the Appendix on page 44. 

used to acquire 11 homes in the city of Cordova, relocate 3 homes 

in Alakanuk—bolster warning systems in the city of Bethel, stabilize—— 

Senator BEGICH. As we say in Alaska, it is all covered. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, sir. 

Stabilize the embankment for the Alaskan Railroad and construction of a new bridge, perform an avalanche study for Mt. Juneau, install seismic shut-off values at all fire stations in Anchorage, bury power lines in Anchorage and relocate power lines in the 

Kenai Peninsula. 

In Kentucky, FEMA awarded more than $10 million in HMGP 

funding in 2014 to acquire 65 homes in 8 counties, as well as to 

build 12 safe rooms in Allen, Warren and Webster Counties. This 

funding has also helped improve draining systems in Hopkinsville, 

Cooper Park and the city of Richmond; reconstruct road bridges in 

Grayson, Grundy and Marion Counties; and update the mitigation 

plans for the State, Louisville/Jefferson County and the University 

of Louisville. 

Another way for a community to address their risk is participating in the Community Rating System which lowers NFIP rates 

for communities that make positive changes. 

Recently, we analyzed our growing body of current and historical 

data to determine which of these changes reduced risk by the 

greatest degree. Then we adjusted our credits to give communities 

that made these changes discounts that reflected these reduced 

risks. In total, nearly 1,300 communities participated in the Congressional Research Program (CRS), representing 67 percent of all 

National Flood Insurance Program flood insurance policies. 

In conclusion, successful mitigation efforts are a shared responsibility, requiring an engagement of 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 they ultimately result in more resilient communities and collectively make 

us stronger and more prepared as a Nation. 

Thank you for providing me with this important opportunity, and 

I look forward to your questions. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Miller. 

Next I have Mr. Christopher Currie, who is the Director of the 

Emergency Management and National Preparedness Issues at the 

Government Accountability Office (GAO). 

TESTIMONY OF CHRISTOPHER CURRIE,1 DIRECTOR, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AND NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS 

ISSUES, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. CURRIE. Yes, sir. Thank you, Chairman Begich, Senator 

Pryor. I appreciate you having me here today to talk about GAO’s 

past work on disaster mitigation. 

Mr. Chairman, as you mentioned in your opening statement, 

mitigation efforts help to build more resilient communities and the 

benefits are universally accepted. 
6 

As you pointed out, over the last decade, Federal disaster spending has skyrocketed. We spend more responding to single weather 

events, like Hurricane Sandy, than we used to spend on disasters 

over the course of a whole decade. 

The menu of solutions to address this trend is short, and mitigation is one of the few options we have to reduce future costs. To 

compound this, we currently face several challenges that make 

solving this problem even more complex. 

First, what were once considered extreme and rare weather 

events are now expected to become the norm. 

Second, the Federal Government does not fully budget for the 

huge costs of these more routine disasters. 

Third, key programs that help us limit the financial impact of 

disasters, namely, the National Flood Insurance Program, can no 

longer keep up. The program is now $24 billion in debt and faces 

a difficult uphill battle to remain sustainable. 

Taken together, these challenges create massive risks and fiscal 

exposure for the Federal Government. The solutions to these challenges are hard, and with another hurricane season approaching 

one cannot help but wonder what may be coming next. 

Over the last 30 years, we at GAO and many others have reported a consistent message about hazard mitigation. It is key to 

reducing disaster assistance costs for all levels of government. 

However, mitigation is not cheap, as you pointed out, and there 

are many challenges. Here are just a few examples that we have 

reported that make it difficult. 

First, as the Federal Government shoulder more and more of the 

burden for disaster costs, expectations for a similar response increase while incentives for mitigation may decrease. 

Second, mitigation efforts often conflict with desires to develop in 

hazardous areas such as along oceans and waterways. 

Third, it is difficult to convince individuals of the risks they face 

and why mitigation is important. 

Raising a house to withstand future flooding, retrofitting existing 

buildings to withstand earthquakes or relocating a native village 

because of erosion are complicated and expensive projects. 

As part of our ongoing work for this Committee, we are encouraged by efforts across the Federal Government to encourage mitigation and resilience, particularly since Hurricane Sandy. For example, the Sandy Supplemental provides about $350 million in funding for FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, the largest of 

FEMA’s mitigation grants. 

Also, FEMA is taking mitigation seriously, and encouraging resilience is becoming a prominent theme in its mission and planning. 

For example, last year FEMA issued a National Mitigation Framework, which we previously recommended they do. They also issued 

a National Strategy for Reducing Disaster Costs. 

While more funding for mitigation is great, FEMA is also taking 

steps to reduce paperwork, relieve administrative burden and 

speed up the hazard mitigation process. They are also taking steps 

to align mitigation grants with public assistance dollars after a disaster. 
7 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Berginnis appears in the Appendix on page 62. 

And it is not just FEMA. Other agencies, like the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development (HUD), are also emphasizing 

mitigation a part of their grant programs to States. 

We think these are steps in the right direction. However, to use 

FEMA’s term, building a mitigation-minded culture will not happen overnight and execution will be key. We will continue to evaluate these and other Federal mitigation efforts as part of our ongoing work for this Committee and plan to report to you later this 

year. 

Mr. Chairman, the last point I want to make is that Federal efforts to encourage mitigation are not enough. State, local and tribal 

governments, as well as the private sector, play the biggest role in 

encouraging mitigation. In my written statement, we provide several examples at the State and local levels of efforts to incentivize 

this mitigation. 

This completes my prepared marks. I would be happy to answer 

any questions you have. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much. 

Next we have Chad Berginnis? 

Thank you very much for being here—the Executive Director of 

the Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM). 

TESTIMONY OF CHAD BERGINNIS,1 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

ASSOCIATION OF STATE FLOODPLAIN MANAGERS 

Mr. BERGINNIS. Thank you very much, Chairman Begich. 

We are pleased to offer our thoughts related to the investment 

in hazard mitigation relative to the cost of disaster response. We 

thank you and this Subcommittee for focusing on the value proposition of a comprehensive national hazard mitigation effort. 

ASFPM’s 15,000 members and 35 chapters are the country’s 

practitioners who work with flood hazard mitigation programs on 

a daily basis. 

Let’s put the disaster costs into perspective based on the available data. 

The Center for American Progress reported that the Federal Government spent $136 billion from fiscal year (FY) 2011 to 2013 on 

disaster relief. This adds up to an average of nearly $400 per 

household per year. For the hazard of flooding, annual damages 

now exceed $10 billion a year, up from $5.6 billion a year in the 

1990s. 

But FEMA’s April report to Congress on the use of the Disaster 

Relief Fund shows the relative priority of mitigation as it relates 

to the larger disaster fund expenditures in general. In that report, 

the estimated totals through fiscal year 2014 are projected to be 

$349 million for hazard mitigation and $12.04 billion for all other 

categories, such as public assistance, individual assistance, operation and administrative costs. 

Even if the total investment in hazard mitigation for Hurricane 

Sandy eventually reached 15 or 20 percent of the total disaster 

cost, we have to ask, is that the right level for our mitigation investments; should we have a national goal that is higher, or are we 

simply going to keep pouring money into disaster response? 
8 

Population trends and climate change are increasing the Nation’s 

vulnerability. As the costs of disasters continue to rise, our Nation 

cannot afford the status quo. Hazard mitigation investments are 

the only element of disaster expenditures that will result in the reduction of long-term disaster costs. 

Over the past 25 years, there have been several hazard mitigation programs created across the Federal Government that can be 

applied to reduce disaster losses. These programs range from planning to grants to loans and other mechanisms. However, these programs need to be optimized to improve their effectiveness and efficiency. 

Our written testimony not only identifies these programs but 

contains 24 specific recommendations to optimize them. I would 

like to highlight two items, though. 

The first is that ASFPM strongly supports the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program and are again disappointed that the Administration’s proposed budget has zeroed the program out. 

The second is that all of these programs rely on sound flood risk 

data or hazard data. For the hazard of flooding, we must ensure 

that we have a robust funding and support for FEMA’s National 

Flood Mapping Program and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

National Streamflow Information Program. Both are funded at less 

than a quarter of their authorized amount. Accurate, up-to-date 

flood hazard data is essential so that communities and individuals 

can make resilient rebuilding decisions and maximize the effectiveness of all of the Federal Government’s hazard mitigation programs. 

But, in ASFPM’s view of a national hazard mitigation effort, everybody must do their part, and it is important that you know that 

the Federal Government’s investment in hazard mitigation is being 

supplemented by 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 who wish to complete flood control 

projects. South Holland, by the way, is a community of 23,000 people. 

In 2009, the city of Findlay, Ohio passed a quarter percent sales 

tax to fund flood mitigation activities and provide match for Federal projects after several large floods in that previous decade. 

At the State level, many States, including California, Minnesota, 

Wisconsin, Ohio, New Jersey and South Carolina, have their own 

mitigation programs or a tradition of matching Federal mitigation 

funds. 

In Colorado, homeowners in the Wildland Urban Interface may 

deduct half of up to $5,000 in cost for wildfire mitigation measures, 

with a maximum potential deduction of $2,500 from their Colorado 

taxable income. Wildfire mitigation measures include establishing 

defensible space around residences, thinning vegetation or other 

site work. 

Such State and local programs should be incentivized, encouraged and increased. 

So what is the outcome that we are striving for? 

Wouldn’t it be nice if you as Members of Congress did not have 

to pass supplemental disaster appropriations bills after a major 
9 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Detlefsen appears in the Appendix on page 78. 

hurricane or flood strikes, or at least deal with a much smaller bill 

such as maybe $21 million? 

Hazard mitigation can take us to the point that when our next 

disaster occurs damage is minimized, cleanup is quick and people 

get back to their lives quickly with minimal disruption, and State 

and local capability to handle the event is not exceeded. 

Hazard mitigation can result in resilient communities and 

States. That is the goal. 

Thank you. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much, and again, we appreciate 

your testimony. 

Is it Robert Detlefsen? 

Mr. DETLEFSEN. Perfect. 

Senator BEGICH. Oh, good. Thank you. 

He is the Vice President of Public Policy, National Association of 

Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC), and is testifying on behalf 

of the BuildStrong Coalition. 

But you do wear two hats, which is, important to note—the insurance, but you are here on behalf of the BuildStrong Coalition— 

and we thank you for doing that. 

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT DETLEFSEN,1 VICE PRESIDENT OF 

PUBLIC POLICY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANIES 

Mr. DETLEFSEN. Chairman Begich, Ranking Member Paul and 

Members of the Subcommittee, the BuildStrong Coalition thanks 

you for holding this hearing to examine the vital role that mitigation can play in reducing post-disaster recovery costs. 

My name is Bob Detlefsen, and I am Vice President of Public 

Policy for the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies. 

NAMIC is proud to be a founding member of the BuildStrong Coalition, a group of national business and consumer organizations, 

insurance companies, firefighters, emergency managers and building professionals dedicated to promoting better building standards 

and a more resilient America. 

The BuildStrong Coalition shares the Subcommittee’s goal of 

helping communities prepare for, and recover from, natural disasters while saving taxpayer money in the process. 

The insurance industry is on the front line of these disasters. We 

help individuals and businesses prepare for, and recover from, the 

potentially devastating effects of catastrophic hurricanes, storms 

and wildfires. 

Superstorm Sandy, one of the most damaging storms to hit the 

United States, caused 72 deaths and almost $19 billion in insured 

property losses in 15 States and the District of Columbia. Losses 

from this storm totaled nearly $50 billion, $19 billion of which 

came from lost economic activity. Our companies are still there, 

helping people finish the job of recovery. 

Insurance coverage for losses resulting from natural disasters is 

typically less than 20 percent of the total, however. The Federal 

Government covers the remainder of the cost through emergency 
10 

allocations which require spending that directly increases the national debt. For decades, Congress has provided insufficient funding for disaster relief and then added funds in the middle of fiscal 

years after disasters happen. Supplemental disaster funds were appropriated in 17 of the 22 budget years between fiscal year 1989 

and 2010, according to the Congressional Research Service. 

Since 1983, these disasters have cost nearly $1 trillion. That is 

roughly an average of $32 billion a year. 

Not enough is being done at the Federal level to incentivize 

States to promote more resilient building construction. There is 

overwhelming scientific evidence to support the conclusion that 

statewide building codes save lives and greatly reduce property 

damage and the subsequent need for Federal disaster aid. 

For example, the National Institute of Building Sciences found 

that for every one dollar spent to make buildings stronger the 

American taxpayer saves four dollars in Federal disaster assistance. 

The Louisiana State University Hurricane Center estimated that 

stronger building codes would have reduced wind damage from 

Hurricane Katrina by 80 percent, saving $8 billion. 

The Institute for Building and Home Safety (IBHS) conducted a 

study following Hurricane Charley in 2004 and found that modern 

building codes reduced the severity of property losses by 42 percent 

and frequency of losses by 60 percent. 

Standardizing building codes will save lives and taxpayer dollars. 

In some locations, they also favorably affect the availability and affordability of insurance. 

One effective step Congress should take to reduce the cost of natural disasters is to encourage investment by local communities and 

individuals in risk mitigation. To that end, the BuildStrong Coalition strongly endorses S. 924, the Safe Building Code Incentive Act, 

as a forward-thinking measure that will result not only in the construction of stronger, safer homes and businesses but will save 

lives and prevent losses, including losses borne by the Federal Government. 

A 2012 Milliman study found that S. 924 would have saved U.S. 

taxpayers $11 billion in hurricane relief payments alone between 

1988 and 2011 had it been in place. That is almost $500 million 

a year in savings for Federal taxpayers. 

Under the proposed law, States that adopt and enforce nationally 

recognized model building codes for residential and commercial 

structures would qualify for an additional 4 percent of funding 

available for post-disaster grants. 

Another proposal the BuildStrong Coalition has endorsed is S. 

1991, the Disaster Savings Account Act of 2014, which allows 

homeowners to create tax-free savings accounts to be used for mitigation investments. Small up-front costs to make a home more resilient not only save lives but can save countless dollars for homeowners and spare the pain of losing everything in a disaster. 

Just last month during a single week, over 75 million Americans, 

or one-third of the U.S. population, were under the threat of severe 

weather, indicating that no region in this country is immune from 

the perils of natural disasters. 
11 

In closing, I want to thank the Subcommittee again for holding 

this important hearing. The overwhelming evidence supporting the 

widespread adoption of statewide building codes proves that the 

Safe Building Code Incentive Act is a fiscally responsible way to 

make our country stronger, safer and better prepared for natural 

disasters. 

And I look forward to your questions. 

Senator BEGICH. Great. Thank you. Thank you very much for 

your testimony. 

Thank you all four for being here this afternoon. 

I do have some questions. And I do believe that Senator 

Landrieu may be here, and if so, if I finish my questions, I will 

wait for her. But, if not, we will continue on. 

Let me first ask Mr. Miller. 

Let me walk through a couple things, and this is on, obviously, 

the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund. 

I think it was the last few years, and you have heard a little bit 

of testimony on the defunding of it. In the 2015 budget, there is 

a proposed Opportunity, Growth and Security Initiative that includes $400 million for pre-disaster mitigation. 

So this is a two-part question. 

The first part, it almost contradicts itself. We have a fund, a 

mechanism that has been in place for some time, but the last 2 

years, no money or proposed funding. And then this next year 

there is a proposal to get it funded but then also fund something 

similar with a broader scope of issues and $400 million in there. 

If it is a priority, why not just fund it? 

Now maybe this is not a question you can answer because it 

maybe goes to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and 

the White House folks who decide what they want to spin out there 

in the marketing of their budgets. 

But it just seems like you have a mechanism. Why not just fund 

it, fund it robustly, so we can get on with doing more pre-disaster 

mitigation? 

Help me understand that. 

Do you see the contradiction there? Maybe I am missing something here. 

Mr. MILLER. I do, and I saw it in our appropriations and authorization discussions as well. 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 

Mr. MILLER. I think you have hit the nail on the head. The truth 

about Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program and the zeroing of the 

budget, is it came at a time when tough budget decisions were 

being made. Frankly, there was not a lot of money in PDM, but it 

was an important function. 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 

Mr. MILLER. A number of the areas that were funded in the PreDisaster Mitigation Program, though, when there was an evaluation of where we were going to make cuts in the overall FEMA 

budget, a lot of those activities could be absorbed into other grant 

areas. We talked about HMGP. 

Now the problem with HMGP is it happens after a disaster. 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 
12 

Mr. MILLER. We can talk about flood mitigation assistance and 

their planning dollars there. 

And we can talk about Emergency Management Performance 

Grants that go to States, and there is a pass-through to local governments. It is an eligible activity there, at least if we did the planning activity. 

I think the ones that really I have heard are ones that do not 

get disasters and, frankly, were looking for project dollars, looking 

for building dollars. 

Now I have some other areas, and we can pick that up, like 

HMGP, but again, it is after the fact. 

So we recognized the problem with PDM and what it did, but 

there were some opportunities to move that along. 

Senator BEGICH. But is it fair to say that without that PDM 

money you still are very short-changed in mitigation? 

Mr. MILLER. And always will be. 

Senator BEGICH. Always will be. 

Mr. MILLER. And I think part of that discussion—let me go back 

to the $400 million the President talks about in the Opportunity, 

Growth and Security Initiative (OGSI). 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 

Mr. MILLER. I think that the issue there is, No. 1—— 

Senator BEGICH. Just for people who watch this—my mother— 

the Opportunity, Growth and Security Initiative, that is what you 

mean by that. 

Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir. 

So the Opportunity, Growth and Security Initiative—that is a result of savings we may have in the budget. 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 

Mr. MILLER. As that gets re-obligated, what it says for the Administration is there is still an emphasis on a want to do mitigation activities, this one with a particular focus, and the focus will 

be more on climate and climate adaptation. It follows with the 

President’s directives there. 

Senator BEGICH. If I can pause you there, again, if you look at 

the pre-disaster mitigation funds, I could argue, for example, the 

work that is being done in Alaska—well, where we were up there 

with the administrator, right? 

Here we are in a riverbed. The river has consumed a house. They 

are 50 feet or so away from—maybe a little bit longer, but 50 feet 

away from a road infrastructure. Once that road is gone, there may 

not be a big volume of people who live there, and it has an impact 

a lot to the survival of that community. 

Wouldn’t you want pre-disaster mitigation funds to be able to 

deal with that rather than—here is what I am worried about. 

I know this is the politics of the world, that everyone wants to 

have a name on a program and say we did this. 

Why not just put that money into the PDM account and say that 

is what we are going to do, and we focus the PDM account on expanding on what it should do, and if that is not enough money we 

request more? 

Why don’t we just keep it simple because what you are potentially doing is creating another—there is enough paperwork and 
13 

mill to funnel through just to get a dollar for pre-mitigation. Why 

not—— 

Mr. MILLER. Well, the Opportunity, Growth and Security Initiative calls for that money to flow through the PDM program. The 

difference, I think, will be in the look and the focus of the program 

as we move PDM. 

One of the things you mentioned as we were leading into the testimony is we tend, even in our current mitigation funding, to mitigate against yesterday’s event instead of future events. 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 

Mr. MILLER. One of the challenges, though, in moving forward to 

future events is how we look at the data and the data that drive 

the analytics, that talk about the benefit-cost of doing it and over 

what period of time. You mentioned the OMB and the discount 

rates we get in making things cost-beneficial. 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 

Mr. MILLER. We are working all of those issues. 

But, going back to the Opportunity, Growth and Security Initiative, the President’s look was more future-looking—— 

Senator BEGICH. Gotcha. 

Mr. MILLER [continuing]. To take in climate adaptation, but it 

would run through a traditional channel of PDM. 

Senator BEGICH. OK. Let me ask; you opened up two other areas, 

I want to talk about. And it actually zips back a little bit to what 

Chad brought up in the mapping issues. 

If you have the data, that is great, but I can tell you; in MatSu, 40 percent of the area that was in a floodplain is no longer in 

a floodplain, but the maps still show it in a floodplain, and vice 

versa. So you have some challenges if you are going to think about 

the future. 

If you take this fund and think about the future, you have to 

plan. But if the data is wrong or inaccurate, it is hard to plan that. 

Now pause with that thought for a second. 

Here is, to me, one of my other concerns. I think Chad, you said 

you had 24 or so recommendations in here. If I remember the right 

number, a couple dozen. 

Once you said that and I remembered seeing it in your testimony, I got panicked, to be frank with you, not that they are not 

good ideas. Just how long will it take if we take one of those ideas. 

It is a regulatory issue to get it through your process. 

So let’s just say we see an opportunity. Let’s say that the Opportunity Fund is funded. That means more money, a little more direction, may require some more regulation. 

But as I look at how FEMA operates on regulation implementation, meaning the process, it takes forever. That is why I panicked 

when you said 24 suggestions—because I will be dead and gone if 

those were all accepted and implemented. 

And I do not mean that in a negative way. I am just frustrated. 

You are not the only agency. I do not want to tag FEMA as the 

problem here because, for example, OMB. 

If you say cost-benefit analysis, I can tell you every—Galena 

would never be included. It would never be included because the 

population base is too small, but yet, that disaster wiped out the 

whole city. 
14 

But, on the back end, the cost-benefit, if you took that same 

amount of money and put it into Senator Landrieu’s community, 

maybe New Orleans or New York, it would have a different kind 

of impact. 

So, as we look at this cost-benefit analysis, we have to look at 

the community cost, not just the money cost or the people volume 

cost. 

But I am putting that out there, and as I said, I just had several 

random thoughts here. 

I want to get to one specific area and then I am going to pause 

and turn to Senator Landrieu. 

How do we speed up this process? 

I have seen report after report. I mean, one regulation took 8 

years to get through the process. 

This is why—no disrespect to attorneys—I am not an attorney, 

never want to be an attorney, because when I was mayor, if I was 

an attorney, I would have never gotten anything done. 

We rebuilt the city. We did things that probably an attorney 

would look—well, I know I did. A municipal attorney would look 

at me and say, eh . . . 

And I would say, well, but it is the right thing. 

And we did it, and we did some things that made some stuff happen. 

So how do we speed up this process without attorneys starting 

with the first view, and that is no, we cannot do that versus here 

is the end goal; let’s get going, and I want it done in a short period 

of time? How do we do that? 

Who can pull the trigger to get some of these regulatory processes because I think some of these recommendations you have— 

and I looked at them—are good recommendations? 

Some may be regulatory, but I am afraid to suggest it, even 

though I think they would make a big difference and they are common sense. 

But how do we deal with this? 

And I know it is a global issue with the Federal Government, but 

I am talking about FEMA because your issues are so immediate. 

Mr. MILLER. We talk about it in a number of ways. 

Long story short, within FEMA, we have been doing regulatory 

review for the last few years to see what regulations we can actually vacate, and that takes time as well. 

But more importantly, as we—— 

Senator BEGICH. Well, let me pause you there. See, you just answered the question with the wrong answer; it has taken you a 

couple of years. 

I am betting on this. If I took these three people and augmented 

with a couple mayors and a couple State emergency management 

people and said, you have 6 months to review these regulations and 

tell me which ones are no longer necessary, I guarantee you they 

will do it because I did this when I was on the assembly and when 

I was mayor. We did it by department, and it was not hard. 

Once you got the stakeholders in, it is a piece of cake. 

Mr. MILLER. That is the process we are using—is to work with 

the stakeholders and say what is regulatory and what does not 

need to be regulatory. 
15 

The other part is how we vet policy and move it through. 

But I will give you a for instance. And you have identified the 

problem right on. Even a simple regulatory review—we recently did 

one on a regulation that changed the flood planning standard, and 

it is how States renew plans. 

Senator BEGICH. All right. 

Mr. MILLER. We moved it from a 3-year review cycle to a 5-year 

review cycle to make it more current with what locals do in their 

planning environment. It took 21⁄2 to 3 years to change that regulation, and it only changed a few words. 

Senator BEGICH. Why is that? 

Mr. MILLER. We have to go through concurrence, and examine 

the fiscal effects of a regulation. You adjudicate all the comments. 

And even on this one there are people that think the review cycle 

should be shorter and plans may be more robust. 

We go through all of that, vet it, publish it, do the things that 

we need to do, you are about 2 or 3 years down, and that is fast 

for regulatory review. 

If we are doing new regulation, now you are probably talking 4 

to 6 years in new regulation. 

Senator BEGICH. It just does not—I will hold this. I will pause 

here because I can get going here. 

But an example you guys did, which I thought was very good— 

under the Sandy Act that we did, you had some new opportunity 

for tribes and instead of waiting for regs you started moving, which 

I thought was great. 

And I am sure your lawyers probably had like heart attacks because they thought—— 

Mr. MILLER. No. 

Senator BEGICH. Oh, good, you are giving me hope. 

Mr. MILLER. It is trying to find the ways to yes, and we do it 

from a number of ways. 

One is if it does not require a regulation, let’s do the policy. And 

if it requires us to do a pilot to create the policies and we know 

what we are going to say, let’s move it forward in doing it. 

So you saw it in Hurricane Sandy recovery, where we are not 

doing regulation in a number of areas, or if we foresee regulation, 

we are at least moving forward with a pilot to tell us what the regulation will look for. And we are applying that. 

The harder part for some of those—and it does get to the regulatory piece—is if it does require it, how do we make it in and how 

do we go through the regulatory process? 

It is easy to do pilots and to move things, but at the end of the 

day, if we are not going to make it a one-time event, it may require 

regulatory action, and that does take a substantial part of time. 

Senator BEGICH. Let me pause there. I want to turn it to Senator 

Landrieu, but I have questions for the rest of you. 

Mr. Miller, thank you. 

And I know when you are sent over from an agency, you are 

probably thinking, oh, great, I have to go in front of a committee; 

what will they do? 

You can see I am being calm and collected here, but it is frustrating because it just does not make sense to me. 
16 

I will give you one example, and I am going to stop. It is not related to FEMA, but I remember there was a grant. I will not tell 

this Federal agency because I do not want to get them in trouble. 

A community received a grant to do indoor greenhouses to grow 

vegetables in a rural community in Alaska. Why is that important? 

Because a head of lettuce can cost you $5 to $7 by the time you 

get it. So, if they can get it down to $2.50, it is a huge savings. 

The money was for planning. He took the money, built the greenhouse and just did it. Now it is very successful. 

My point to him was that is exactly what you should do. 

As his Senator, I said, if you get in trouble, let me know because 

we got the result. 

Instead of planning the plan, he actually said, no, we can do this, 

and he did it. 

It saves money for the community and has a youth-oriented employment program, and is actually doing something very positive. 

That, to me, is what we need to be doing more in the Federal 

Government, to be more innovative and a little more entrepreneurial. 

And so I will pause there. 

Sorry, Senator Landrieu. 

Senator LANDRIEU. That is OK. 

Senator BEGICH. I got on a rant there because it just drives me 

crazy. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Well, thank you, Senator, for your leadership. 

I wanted to come and just focus for just a minute on the flood 

maps and the flood map planning that is going on, Mr. Miller, 

under your jurisdiction in FEMA and with the input from some of 

the other gentlemen that are at the table. I have just a couple 

questions. 

Thank you for coming to Louisiana to see the fact that thousands 

and thousands of our people have to live close to the water, have 

been doing so for hundreds of years, have no intention of moving 

and have to find a way to live there affordably. 

So, as I told you when you came, we were going to pass significant reforms to Biggert-Waters, which had many good intentions, 

but it had disastrous consequences for us in coastal Louisiana, central Louisiana, north Louisiana, and disastrous consequences 

around the country. And I intend to continue working on it, to fix 

it so middle-class people can afford to live where they work. 

Having said that, tell me how many people work for you that are 

in charge of coming up with these flood maps? How many currently 

are full-time employees of yours or full-time contractors working on 

these flood maps? 

Mr. MILLER. Senator, I will have to get you the numbers. 

Senator LANDRIEU. OK. I would like to know. 

Mr. MILLER. A lot of it, as you know, is contracted. 

Senator LANDRIEU. OK. I would like to know the numbers, and 

I would like to know how many full-time equivalents, employees 

and contractors, and what your budget is every year for updating 

flood maps in the United States. 

Mr. MILLER. Yes, ma’am. 
17 

Senator LANDRIEU. All right. How many floodplains do we have 

in the United States; Christopher, do you know? Are you the floodplain person? 

Mr. CURRIE. No, ma’am. 

Senator LANDRIEU. OK. Who is the floodplain manager? Chad. 

Mr. BERGINNIS. Yes. In an analysis that we put together, we 

have approximately 1.1 million miles of floodplain and we have 

about 3 million miles of rivers and streams and coastlines in the 

country. 

Senator LANDRIEU. OK. And individual floodplains, how many do 

we have, or is it 15,000? 

I read somewhere in my notes—let’s see. There are 15,000 State 

and local officials and other professionals engaged in floodplain 

management. 

So how do you describe a floodplain? The way you just did it— 

by miles? OK. 

So it is one million miles. Tell me again what that is. 

Mr. BERGINNIS. When you look at coastlines, streams, or rivers, 

in the country, we have about three million miles, lengthwise. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Of coastal? 

Mr. BERGINNIS. Of coastal and riverine. I do not have a breakdown of one versus the other, but that is the total. 

And then of that 3 million miles, about 1.1 million miles have 

identified floodplains associated with those. So only 1.1 million 

have floodplains, and the rest of them are along rivers and coast, 

but they are not—— 

Mr. BERGINNIS. They are not even identified. 

Senator LANDRIEU [continuing]. Designated as flood plains. 

Mr. BERGINNIS. Right, they are not identified as floodplains. 

Senator BEGICH. Could I just clarify? They could be floodplains, 

some of that. We just do not know. 

Mr. BERGINNIS. Correct, Senator. That is correct, and that is an 

important aspect of that. The floodplains have not been identified, 

but they most certainly exist in those areas. 

Senator LANDRIEU. And what does it take to identify them? 

Mr. BERGINNIS. Essentially, it takes identifying—there are two 

components that really go into flood mapping: knowing what your 

ground looks like—your ground elevations, the topography and 

those things—and knowing what the water does as it flows through 

the area. 

So you have hydrology; that is, really kind of the analysis of the 

water, and that it is usually an engineering type study. 

And then you have topography, and the current way we collect 

that is usually through LiDAR. It is laser-based collection. 

And those two components together go through an analysis, and 

you basically have a floodplain at the end of the day. 

Senator LANDRIEU. OK. How accurate are our floodplain maps? 

So, if people everywhere, in every county, wanted to ask you, 

David, when they go to build their house, how high should it be 

built, how accurate is the information that we are giving them— 

what the elevations are, where they should be, et cetera? 

Do we have 10 percent done? Fifteen percent done? Fifty percent 

done? A hundred percent? 
18 

Mr. MILLER. I do not think it is an issue necessarily, totally, of 

the percent done. 

I think, if I understand your question, you are talking about the 

preciseness of the map. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Well, I am talking about both. 

I am talking about if Senator Begich and I were trying to explain 

to his mother and my mother, OK, of the map of the United States, 

including Alaska and Hawaii, how many counties had accurate upto-date flood maps that would tell at least 90 percent of the people 

in those counties whether they were very likely to flood, not very 

likely to flood, or they would never flood at all. Try to help us understand in English, OK, what the answer to that is, broadly. 

Mr. MILLER. Chad. 

Mr. BERGINNIS. Well, I do know that with the FEMA flood mapping program there is a program metric—— 

Senator LANDRIEU. That is not English. You have already lost us. 

Mr. BERGINNIS. OK. There is a measurement. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Already lost us. 

How many counties are there in the United States of America? 

Does anybody know? 

Eight thousand? 

Anybody in the audience? 

Mr. BERGINNIS. About 3,300, I believe. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thirty-three hundred counties. So let’s just 

start with 3,300. 

Does anybody at the table have any idea how many counties in 

the United States of America today have accurate up-to-date flood 

maps that people could actually make decisions about? 

Do not tell me about metrics, Chad. 

Mr. BERGINNIS. OK. Actually, if I could answer with we, as a Nation—honestly, we do not know. 

Senator LANDRIEU. That is very sad. That is why I tried to repeal 

Biggert-Waters and will continue to do it—because you cannot have 

a flood insurance program without accurate mapping. 

And I am going to get a handle on how many counties have accurate maps and how many do not, and we are going to put it up either in this Committee or the Homeland Security Committee because we cannot make any decisions that make any sense without 

that kind of basic information. 

So I need to know how many people are working on this every 

day, how much is in the budget to pay them to do it, how many 

counties have been mapped, how many counties will be mapped 

next year and how many counties will be mapped in 2016. 

And just for your information (FYI), Senator, the reason that we 

are following this, of course, is because we had flood insurance 

rules of people in my State that were $2,000 for the last 20 years 

and they went up to $30,000 in one year. 

Now they are back to $9,000, but David, that is still too expensive, and the people of my State cannot live without this program 

working efficiently and effectively. 

So we had one battle we won with stepping Biggert-Waters back, 

but we have to take the next step, which is why I am here on behalf of the five parishes in my State who are Lafourche, 
19 

Terrebonne, Plaquemines, Saint Tammany and Saint Charles—just 

FYI, Senator—who were part of a pilot project in the county. 

Now we have parishes, not counties, and we have five in Louisiana that are part of a 25-county pilot. 

So who knows the most about this pilot program? 

OK, David, and talk to me for a minute—and then I am going 

to stop—about where this pilot is in these 25 counties, what is happening in these 5 in Louisiana and kind of what you expect to come 

out of this, with what information and when. 

An then I will turn it back to the Chairman. 

Mr. MILLER. First, in answer to a number of your questions, let 

me get the staff together and do a mapping brief. It will tell you 

the miles we map and what the budget looks like and how many 

people are involved—all those questions you asked. 

As far as the pilot goes, we did—and actually, sir, you talked 

about rulemaking. We did publish in the Federal Register over a 

year ago about the levee analysis and mapping project. 

When you talk about the preciseness of maps, one of the things 

that came into question is we always looked at levees, if they were 

not accredited in our program, as if by and large they did not exist. 

Senator LANDRIEU. But we changed that. 

Mr. MILLER. We changed it. 

Senator LANDRIEU. We changed the law to make you all recognize levees that are actually physically built, whether they are Federal or local. 

Mr. MILLER. And that Levee Assessment Mapping Program 

(LAMP), that pilot, is part of that. 

We have not passed the regulation yet, but we are doing pilots. 

We are going to pick up a number of pilots again next year, and 

I think the number beyond the 25 is about 80 or so. 

But it takes those levees into consideration about the flood protection value—— 

Senator LANDRIEU. Let me ask you something, though, and I am 

going to stop. 

But, Mr. Miller, between now and let’s say 2 years, until you all 

get around to the regulations and everything you have to do, what 

are the people in those parishes—what kind of rates are they paying? Are they paying rates that recognize levees, or are they still 

paying rates as if no levee was there? 

Mr. MILLER. Not all those areas are subject to a look at their levees. 

What we are trying to do is find out those areas where the levee 

structure are, and many of those are in the parishes that you identified in Louisiana. 

We are trying to identify the areas where the LAMP, that process of analysis, has the most effect. So you are looking at areas of 

the greatest population and the greatest property value. It has the 

biggest bang for the dollar. 

We will continue to look at those areas, but to say we would 

apply a levee analysis to all areas in our mapping inventory, that 

is not true. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Well, why wouldn’t you do that by just common sense? 
20 

Mr. MILLER. Because not everybody has a levee and not all of 

them are built to protect housing or businesses. 

Senator LANDRIEU. That is—OK. 

Well, let me say this; what kind of levee would be built if it was 

not to protect houses or—some levees are built to protect agricultural land. 

Mr. MILLER. That is right. 

Senator LANDRIEU. But they have the benefit of also protecting 

homes. 

I mean, they keep fields from flooding, but they also have the 

benefit of mitigating against flooding to the home that happens to 

be on the field or built on the field. 

Mr. MILLER. Right. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Cotton around it, house in the middle, protect 

the cotton, protect the house. But you do not count that as protection? 

Mr. MILLER. It is not that we would not count it. But, as we are 

going through and making those assessments, the assessments will 

come on those where we get the biggest impact. 

What it means is in that limited budget that we have in mapping, I am not going to do a lot of highly rural areas because I do 

not get the impact for the mapping effort. I want to look at those 

where most of the people will be impacted. 

Senator LANDRIEU. So the people that live in rural areas with not 

a lot of people will pay much higher premiums because you do not 

have the time to map them correctly. 

Mr. MILLER. We do not have the resources to map the entire Nation. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Yes, that is a shame, and that is not going 

to be OK with the Senators that represent rural areas. 

Mr. MILLER. And my State is one of those. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Yes. This is why I keep trying to talk about 

this flood program—because farmers have to live in rural areas to 

farm. They cannot live in the middle of the city to raise their crops. 

And so they are now being penalized even though they have spent 

their own money building levees because we have a Federal agency 

that does not recognize the local levees. This has to change. 

I am going to end with this. I want you to note to the flood managers how disappointed I was that your organization did not support our efforts on Biggert-Waters. You all were not helpful at all. 

You remained completely neutral. We had thousands of organizations that came to help us pass the Biggert-Waters reform, and you 

all did not support that effort. 

Is that correct in the record, or did you support it and we did 

not know about it? 

Mr. BERGINNIS. Senator, no, there were—— 

Senator LANDRIEU. Was it yes or no? Did the Association support 

our efforts or not? 

Mr. BERGINNIS. We did support elements of those efforts. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Elements? 

Mr. BERGINNIS. Yes. 

Senator LANDRIEU. OK. Could you give me what you did support 

and what you did not support in the bill? 

But you did not overall support the bill. 
21 

Mr. BERGINNIS. We supported, for example, the rescission of 

going to full-risk rates because those were the most impactful. 

Senator LANDRIEU. OK. All right. Thank you so much. 

Senator BEGICH. I am going to followup. 

Again, Senator Landrieu, if you have other questions and you 

can stay, feel free. But, if not, I know your timing, like all of ours 

is crazy with all kinds of issues. 

This mapping issue, to me is the most common. Every agency— 

USGS; the Department of Transportation (DOT); to some degree, 

military, depending on if they are domestic bases and so forth; 

FEMA. I can go through the list. Agriculture. They all have mapping processes. Not all are linked up, to say the least. 

When I was mayor, we had a GIS Division. Everyone wanted to 

do their own maps because they believed they had the better maps, 

whoever that agency was. But it almost was like the baselines that 

these maps had were missing. 

And I think the Building Department—I do not know how many 

different maps they used from different agencies, and then they 

had to overlay them and hope they had the right scale and hope 

they had the right baselines when they were talking about water 

and sewer lines, storm drain systems, storm systems, roads, whatever it might be. 

And if I remember my information right—there was a GIS technical task force at one point somewhere in the world of the Federal 

Government, and they had recommendations on how to take all 

these resources and figure out how to make sure. So, if you needed 

more maps, you could be talking to USGS, for example, because 

they had a baseline that you could work from. 

Vice versa, DOT, who is shooting maps all the time because they 

have to—all the road projects they do. 

WRDA—the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) are shooting 

maps all the time, because they have to when they are doing 

projects. 

Doesn’t it make sense that we just clean that mess up first because you cannot do your job? 

And I think of all these others. We are doing policy around how 

to do building codes and so forth and making sure we have the 

right incentives. And, if your incentives are based on an area that 

is, in theory, a floodplain area, then your incentives might be greater than those that are at less risk, in theory, might be. 

But, if the maps or the data are marginal—or in the case you 

mentioned, three-plus million miles and a million we know we have 

mapped to some degree, some accurate, some may not be because 

things change, but that other two million is not known. 

Wouldn’t it be best if we all hone in on this issue of mapping, 

get the resources and just do it and actually get agencies to agree 

to the baseline so we do not have everyone drawing up their own 

maps and then figure out why we do not have enough money for 

everything because when I talk to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on the coastal stuff they do, they 

never have enough money. 

At the rate they go, it will be 100 years before they get close. 

And I hate to break the news to them; the coast is going to 

change over the next 100 years. 
22 

So one storm devastates a coastline, and NOAA then is stuck. 

Who would like to—David? 

Mr. MILLER. I can do it. 

Senator BEGICH. I do not mean to leave Chris and Robert out of 

it, but they are probably like, thank God, we are not part of this. 

But I have some questions for you separately. 

Mr. MILLER. I think the first thing is to recognize some of what 

you have already done. And whether it was in the Biggert-Waters 

legislation or previous acts, you have actually required us to do 

that mapping coordination amongst agencies. So we do cooperate 

with USGS. 

Senator BEGICH. With just USGS? 

Mr. MILLER. No, USGS, the Corps of Engineers, the Department 

of Energy—— 

Senator BEGICH. What is the status? 

Mr. MILLER. It is that interactive sharing of data. 

Senator BEGICH. Please do not tell me there is a rulemaking. 

Mr. MILLER. No. 

Senator BEGICH. OK. 

Mr. MILLER. There is not. 

Senator BEGICH. But what is happening? 

Mr. MILLER. Well, for instance, with the U.S. Geographic Service, 

we share the data. 

But one of the more important things—and Chad talked about it. 

If you look at the flood risk map, what is necessary to make it, 

which is the topography, the elevation piece—— 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 

Mr. MILLER [continuing]. As well as the hydrology. 

Senator BEGICH. And hydrology, yes. 

Mr. MILLER. There is a standard for shooting LiDAR. To what 

degree is the—— 

Senator BEGICH. Let me pause you on that. Is that a standard, 

and every agency must follow that standard? 

Mr. MILLER. It is the one that we work in cooperation with 

USGS. 

Senator BEGICH. That is not the question I have. 

Mr. MILLER. If other agencies have adopted that standard—they 

may have—I am just not aware of it. 

Senator BEGICH. See, that is my point. I was at DOT, and I can 

tell you the amount of work they do. 

I know from when I was mayor we loved when public works were 

out doing work because, first, they had the money in their capital 

budget so we could push it a little bit further; then our planning 

and zoning folks could tap into it, which meant we could have our 

wetland maps updated. 

Because we had a baseline that everyone had to use. It was not 

an option. 

It was based on policy versus personalities or people who actually got together and worked it out. 

So you and USGS are working on these things. But is it standardized to require it, and that means the contractor who comes in, 

that is contracted, understands this in every agency or just those 

agencies you are working with? 

Mr. MILLER. I would—— 
23 

Senator BEGICH. Do you understand my question? 

Mr. MILLER. I would speculate if I said USGS—— 

Senator BEGICH. OK. Do not speculate. 

Mr. MILLER [continuing]. Contracted or agreed with other agencies. 

Senator BEGICH. OK. 

Mr. MILLER. Frankly, I do not know at that level. 

Senator BEGICH. Should it be? 

Mr. MILLER. Should it be? Yes. It goes back to what you talked 

about in how we share information. 

One of the opportunities for that—whether it is looking at the 

mapping standards. In Biggert-Waters, you set up a Technical 

Mapping Advisory Committee. We are in the process of establishing 

it. It will look at our standards for mapping, our methodologies, our 

modeling—those pieces. 

The good news is that gets discussed not only in the Technical 

Mapping Advisory Committee, but in the Mitigation Framework 

Leadership Group. 

Now you have the interagency effort to begin to look at those 

standards and can we adopt each other’s standards and move this 

forward, probably not as much adopting the standard as sharing 

the data and applying it, sensitive to the missions. 

For instance, you talked about working with the Corps of Engineers. We do that all the time. 

But they use theirs for design standard. We use the same data 

and apply it a little different analytic to it for the standards we 

need for floodplain mapping. So it is not that we do not share data, 

but the missions are a little bit different. 

Senator BEGICH. Right. But I can tell you like in BLM—working 

with them—they had these crazy standards in regards to land surveys in order to transfer lands to States; in our case, Alaska. 

They changed the methodology, and the next result is they sped 

up the process because they realized the technology has dramatically changed from the regulation. And they are kind of fearful of 

touching the regulation, but they have changed and done some 

modifications. 

So I guess let me ask Chad, and then I am going to go to Christopher and Robert, and then close off. I do not mean to keep you 

here this long, but let me—do you believe that there should be 

some baseline? 

I mean, I think at BLM. There are huge lands, touching lands 

and figuring out who gets what. 

The Department of Interior, when they are doing land in trust 

for native land allotments or other lands, they are doing surveys 

and other work. Topography is part of it. Dimensions, waterways, 

all this is part of it. 

Am I missing something here? 

Mr. BERGINNIS. No. I think you are onto an important issue and 

one where, quite frankly, we have seen a lot of progress over the 

last few years, more broadly, not just mapping but in flood management issues. 

Over the last couple of years you have two interagency groups— 

the MitFLG, as Mr. Miller mentioned, and then also the Federal 

Floodplain Management Interagency Task Force. 
24 

This Technical Mapping Advisory Council, which is in the process of being stood up, will go to exactly your point because some 

of the other Federal agencies, as well as stakeholders, are part of 

that new Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) committee. That 

is going to give them the opportunity to discuss this very thing. 

And so we hope, from ASFPM’s side, that the TMAC will be providing some good recommendations to the FEMA Administrator to 

make some of what you are saying a reality. 

Senator BEGICH. Will it include the U.S. Conference of Mayors, 

National Association of Counties (NACo) and National League of 

Cities? 

And the reason I ask you that is because, as you know and some 

of the testimony cited, a lot of local governments are doing stuff 

now. Why wouldn’t we want to have them at the table? 

So when, for example, I was mayor, the planning and zoning 

map that they are doing for our local wetlands development—they 

make sure that it is the exact same standard that FEMA needs. 

So, when it is all done and said, actually, you are now leveraging 

multiple layers and taking that minimal budget and actually expanding it far beyond. 

Are they part of the equation because they should be? 

Mr. BERGINNIS. Senator, I just do not recall the identified folks. 

Senator BEGICH. I am looking over here. They should be. 

Mr. MILLER. I wish I had it in front of me, but in the law, what 

Congress prescribed was 16 members of the TMAC that represent 

a variety of interests. So it is not just Federal interests; it is local 

government interests and other interests in the TMAC. 

Probably just as important, as we move it out, they will be able 

to subset that and bring others into the conversation. 

Senator BEGICH. OK. 

Mr. MILLER. Clearly, with 16 and you talk about those that have 

a role in mapping and even just floodplain mapping, it gets to be 

an expansive group. 

The good news is when we plan on doing the execution we need 

to bring others into the conversation that may not be official members, but they will be part of the conversation. 

Senator BEGICH. I would always say the guideline of the Committee is a guideline, in my personal opinion, but I know it is statutory; it says 16. But I anticipate you will be innovative, to ensure 

as many stakeholders are at the table to maximize the value of this 

mapping. 

Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir. 

Senator BEGICH. Wouldn’t it be nice to have all these local governments have the same standards because you will just leverage 

unbelievably for what you can do? 

Mr. MILLER. Yes. Well, frankly, sir, I remember doing it, as you 

do, at the State level and even standards there. 

I think there are two parts I want to mention, though, because 

I think it is important. 

One is as we do the Mitigation Framework Leadership Group— 

we just talked about expanding the membership and inviting people into the mapping piece. 

Senator BEGICH. Absolutely. 

Mr. MILLER. It is not just Federal interagency. 
25 

Senator BEGICH. That is right. 

Mr. MILLER. This is a chance to bring in private sector and private nonprofits and territories and local governments and Indian 

tribes, all into that discussion. And we are working in those areas. 

For the TMAC, we have to go through all the FACA pieces of 

that and all that vetting. So we are going through that with the 

TMAC. 

At the end of the day, it brings that together. 

But the other piece that Chad and I and others should hit on is 

what we call contributing technical partners in our mapping efforts. It really does recognize the work that local governments are 

doing in their own behalf for mapping. 

And there are a number of them that are doing a lot of significant work and, frankly, taking our regulatory products and executing them well beyond those requirements. North Carolina is one 

of those, and there are others that are doing the same thing. 

Senator BEGICH. OK. 

Mr. MILLER. It then becomes a true community partnership, and 

they begin to own their maps instead of simply adopting what 

somebody else presents to them. 

Senator BEGICH. Very good. Let me switch a little bit. 

Again, thank you for the conversation. 

Robert, let me ask you on the BuildStrong. I know one of the biggest issues you all have is building code enhancements. Are there 

other types of incentives? 

Put the building codes over here for a second. 

I can only tell you as, again, a former mayor, when the building 

code revisions came, it was—I have never seen so much interest in 

every element of the code, which is usually big. 

But are there other incentives that we can do? 

Obviously, again, I am assuming you and Christopher and others 

would agree that first the data is very important. If you do not 

have baseline data, it is very hard to know how to implement those 

incentives. 

But let’s assume for a moment the data are good, that it is all 

available, no matter what community, what size community you go 

to. 

What are other incentives that you would think other than, or 

in conjunction with, building code standards and other things? 

What would be other things that would really help get people focused on mitigation rather than waiting for a disaster to occur? 

Mr. DETLEFSEN. Well, Senator, one of them is a legislative proposal that I think I mentioned in my oral testimony. 

Senator BEGICH. You did. 

Mr. DETLEFSEN. And there are a couple others actually that are 

mentioned in our written testimony. 

The legislation that would allow homeowners and property owners to set up tax-free savings accounts that they could use solely 

and exclusively for disaster mitigation purposes, to mitigate their 

homes and make them more resilient and so forth. 

Senator BEGICH. That would be an incentive for them? 

Mr. DETLEFSEN. Well, sure, because I mean economic—— 

Senator BEGICH. Yes. 
26 

Mr. DETLEFSEN. Providing economic incentives for people to do 

the things that are, frankly, in their own best interest are sometimes the best ways to get them to do things that are in their best 

interest. 

Senator BEGICH. Right. I know in Anchorage we always—and I 

say Anchorage, Fairbanks, and I am thinking of areas in Kenai 

where forest fire activity can be very problematic. And mostly we 

have some issues in the south central areas with the spruce bark 

beetle that is wiping out a lot of trees and, of course, creating basically ignition capacity. 

Do you think people are incentivized by the fact of clear this area 

away from your house because if you do not, here is how close this 

dead wood is, and it could be basically a fire starter if you are not 

careful? 

Or, do you think you also have to, in situations like that have 

economic incentives to encourage them to do that buffer zone, 

where they see out of every three trees there are two that are dead, 

that are pretty dry, and could create situations in the future? 

Mr. DETLEFSEN. Well, the economic incentives, I mean, are 

also—— 

Senator BEGICH. A big driver. 

Mr. DETLEFSEN. They are a driver, and they also allow people to 

keep more of their own money so that they have it available to 

spend on these kinds of things—clearing more brush as opposed to 

less brush. 

Senator BEGICH. Do you think—this may not be something, obviously, that can be done on a Federal level. 

But do you think home builders we will use as an example—if 

they were incentivized through their building permitting process— 

I have seen what the permits cost here, unbelievable. 

Well, there are no trees really much when you are building, but 

I am thinking of Alaska. 

You could build in an area, and the building permits—if there 

were incentives to offset some of that cost, is that a local issue that 

you guys think about when you are thinking of these kinds of policies, or do you mostly focus on the Federal kind of component? 

In other words, if you went in to get a building permit to build 

a new home, if you add certain zones to clear around your area, 

fire-safe zones and other disaster potential, that your permit would 

be less cost. 

Mr. DETLEFSEN. Well, let me first make clear that the building 

codes that we would like to see adopted are ultimately local and 

regionally developed. 

Senator BEGICH. Adopted, right. 

Mr. DETLEFSEN. I mean, they are uniform in the sense that they 

are developed by national or international bodies, but the codes 

themselves are responsive to the particular risks that are prevalent 

in particular regions. 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 

Mr. DETLEFSEN. So, in a place where there is wildfire risk—— 

Senator BEGICH. Like western States. 

Mr. DETLEFSEN. Sure. Then the codes that we would like to see 

put into place would provide for things like fire-resistant roofs and 
27 

building materials that are less susceptible to wildfires when they 

occur. 

Senator BEGICH. Versus some place like an urban city like this, 

in a core area, it might be a little different. 

Mr. DETLEFSEN. Right. 

Senator BEGICH. For example, as I was describing to my son, we 

are really in a swamp here in the sense of the height we are in. 

When there are flash floods, it floods. It can be very quick here. 

So you have a different situation here than forest fires. You have 

flooding issues that could occur. So you might have different incentives. 

Mr. DETLEFSEN. Absolutely. 

Senator BEGICH. OK. Chris, thank you very much. 

And, again, has GAO—I know in your testimony you had some 

comment, but I want you to verbalize this if you can. 

What are some of the things that may be—and not to pick on 

FEMA, but they are the ones that do mitigation or FEMA management and so forth. 

Are there things that are disincentives that FEMA has within its 

processes, may they be regulation and/or programs, that cause 

mitigation to be less readily available or people who take it on, you 

might say, maybe individuals or local or even by an agency? 

Mr. CURRIE. Thank you for the question, Senator Begich. 

Senator BEGICH. Sure. 

Mr. CURRIE. As you know, we have ongoing work for your Committee. So we have not actually reported on specific disincentives. 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 

Mr. CURRIE. But one of the things we are looking at is the various programs after a disaster, such as HMGP and, as you know, 

the billions and billions that go out the door in public assistance 

funds. Public assistance dwarfs the HMGP. 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 

Mr. CURRIE. So one of the things that the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act (SRIA), allowed was for better alignment of those 

programs. It used to be where HMGP and the mitigation grants 

kind of came in afterwards and were an afterthought after billions 

had already been obligated. 

We are spending so much on storms. I think it makes a lot of 

sense that those things be integrated and to use those massive 

amounts of funds for mitigation purposes, too. 

The other thing is trying to cut down on red tape, honestly. 

There have been challenges in the past of aligning those programs 

and the paperwork requirements for one versus the other after a 

disaster. 

Within FEMA, those programs are completely separated organizationally, too. 

So this is something that we are going to look at in-depth. 

Senator BEGICH. Good. 

Mr. CURRIE. Specifically in response to Hurricane Sandy, we are 

going—and not to just focus on one part of the country. 

Senator BEGICH. Right. That is a big example you can draw from. 

Mr. CURRIE. Exactly. We can go in and look at massive Public 

Assistance (PA) and HMGP projects and actually talk to States and 

locals and see what the process has been, and we would like to find 
28 

out if they have made improvements on some of these things that 

you allow them to do. 

Senator BEGICH. Sure. Well, one good example—and either one 

of you can correct me if I am wrong here. 

The work they have done in getting debris removal changed a little bit—for example, reimbursement to local public works and not 

requiring overtime (OT) all the time, that you have to always have 

overtime, that you can actually reimburse a system that exists 

today. 

I know local governments like it because they can actually do the 

work because in a way, even though it was not overtime, they shifted to emergency, which meant all their regular work stopped, 

which was a cost. 

But when they were required just to do overtime, I can tell you 

as a mayor: OK, but we have the crews now on regular time. We 

will just divert them from all this other work they need to do, but 

because we are in a disaster moment, we need them to reassess 

and reshift. 

Is that an example of where some changes have started to occur 

that are cutting the red tape and just saying here is the check and 

get it done? Is that an example? 

Mr. CURRIE. Chairman, I think debris removal is a good practical 

example, and it actually made me think of another point, which is 

it is not just FEMA in these disasters. I mean, HUD was given almost $17 billion. 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 

Mr. CURRIE. DOT was given $13 billion in Hurricane Sandy. 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 

Mr. CURRIE. So it is not just FEMA’s mitigation programs anymore. 

And at the Federal level, this is what we are going to really look 

at—how do these things mesh up and how are these programs 

working together—because there are massive amounts of money in 

other places, not just FEMA. 

Senator BEGICH. When do you think, that you will have some of 

that work started and to bring forward, that we could look at as 

a Committee? 

Senator BEGICH. Yes. 

Mr. CURRIE. But we will come up and brief you on the results, 

and we are looking at later this year, hopefully, in the fall. 

Senator BEGICH. Excellent. Good. 

I am going to end there only because, one, thank you, unless you 

have other comments that people want to make. I do not want to 

cut you off. 

But for me, first, your written testimony, your verbal testimony—has been very helpful. I think it gives me a little food for 

thought of some things that I think we could be doing here. 

I think the mitigation is always going to be a challenge because 

no one wants to fund it. 

And we talk about it after, usually, a disaster. And then we go, 

why didn’t we do—fill in the blank. 

Then we throw a few nickels toward it, and then we go, that 

should solve the problem. And, really, it never does. 
29 

I mean, the idea—and I use an example. It was in Kotzebue, I 

think, or it might have been Nome. I cannot remember which one 

now, but it was a road stimulus project. 

It was not a complicated project, but it was a pretty important 

one. And it was just to create a new road along the coast. It was 

not a long strip, but they expanded it a little bit in the sense of 

its width and its height. 

Why did they do that? Because, sure enough, 12 months later, 

an ocean flood occurred. Luckily, that road was there because it 

stopped the flood from going into the city. 

If it would have gone into the city, we probably would have estimated half of that community would have been wiped out in the 

sense of a flood. 

Now that would have not—that did not qualify for mitigation, 

but it qualified, and luckily, we had it. 

I get criticized all the time about stimulus money, but that is an 

example that saved a community and a road that was designed a 

little differently in order to create a buffer to protect the city when 

really it was a transportation corridor. 

That, to me, is creative thinking that saves us a lot of money. 

And when I think of that city, what could have happened, because 

it was a winter storm which, you can imagine, in the northern part 

of Alaska a flood occurring in the winter is even worse because it 

is hard to work in those kinds of conditions and then we have no 

places to put people. 

So that is the kind of innovation that seems to be needed more 

and more. 

So, as you work on those issues and recommendations—and I 

know the work you guys are doing, of course, from the mapping 

and from how do we build things the right way. 

I mean, a road is a great example. Roads can be incredible erosion protectors, flood protectors, if designed the right way, at least 

from Alaska’s perspective, when it comes to coastal areas. 

And I just greatly appreciate the work you all have been doing. 

I know we get in a tug-o-war because we get frustrated. Maybe 

it is just my mayor days coming back, where we would just go do 

it, and if we think of a logical way to bring the stakeholders to the 

table and go. 

I am hopeful that we can continue to have this conversation 

about mitigation. We will continue to have ideas put on the table. 

And then we will do what we can through this Subcommittee but 

also through the larger Committee because our goal in this Committee also has regulatory reform. 

And that is why I was really having two hats on here—one as 

a full Committee Member but also as a Subcommittee Member. 

What can we be thinking of to create this system that moves 

good ideas forward? The two dozen ideas you have—I would love 

to implement some of those. 

I think of the legislation you are talking about. I fear passing it 

and then going, how long will it take us to implement it, not because it is an individual, just because the system has gotten to the 

point where it takes so many years to move something forward. 

And one thing disasters do not wait for—regulatory process. 
30 

In Alaska, we probably experience some form of disaster every 2 

to 3 weeks. We just had another earthquake—small in our comparison. In another community, it might have been very large in 

the sense of its magnitude. 

But we deal with this all the time, and we do not have the patience to wait for stuff, to have the regulation drawn up or whatever processes. 

So thank you for the opportunity to have you here today. If you 

have any last comments, I am happy to take them, and then we 

will close up the meeting. 

Any last comments from any of the members? Chad. 

Mr. BERGINNIS. Just two things. One of those goes back to the 

mapping question, as it relates to not knowing what our total mapping need is in the country. 

In our Mapping of the Nation Report, we did a cost model, and 

we estimated what it would cost to get the job done, to map the 

entire country. And that cost—— 

Senator BEGICH. May I ask what that cost is? 

Mr. BERGINNIS. It is between $4.5 and $7.5 billion. 

We have invested right now about $4 billion in the flood mapping 

inventory. 

Senator BEGICH. So less than 6 percent of what we spend on 

Hurricane Sandy. 

Mr. BERGINNIS. Yes. 

Senator BEGICH. That is like overhead in an operation, but go 

ahead. 

Mr. BERGINNIS. Yes. But it also puts into perspective the good 

work that the Congress has done and I especially wanted to mention Senator Reed’s leadership in establishing the National Flood 

Mapping Program and the authorization of $400 million a year. 

So, in practical terms, if it was fully funded for 10 to 15 years, 

we would get the job done. 

Senator BEGICH. Now that is a very good point. 

Any other last comments before I—— 

Mr. MILLER. I would offer one, and you mentioned it a couple 

times. In working with GAO and others, the Sandy Recovery Act 

afforded us a lot of opportunities to marry things in different ways. 

Sir, you talked about the debris and debris removal, things that 

we are doing now that were largely built out of Hurricane Sandy 

and Hurricane Sandy experiences. 

We talk about integrating what we call PA, or 406 mitigation, 

with our traditional 404 programs. We have done some things 

there, for instance, in writing project worksheets on the public assistance side for Long Island Power, a public utility. 

Senator BEGICH. Yes. 

Mr. MILLER. The traditional public assistance probably would 

have been, if I remember the number right, about $830 million in 

their disaster costs to recover in a normal way. 

But because we moved toward mitigation, both on the public assistance side and on our side, not in just allowing it but requiring 

them to move toward a mitigative environment, the cost went up 

significantly. That worksheet went from $835 million to about $1.3 

billion. But the savings, the cost-benefit, against future disasters is 

significant. 
31 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 

Mr. MILLER. The hard part to sell in any area, whether it is a 

public utility since there is a cost-share or the Federal Government 

and others, is I take the mitigative action, but it comes at a cost. 

And over what term do I see the return on that investment? That 

has been a big part of this discussion. 

In this case, Long Island Power wanted to make this investment. 

We are doing it in other areas. We did it in Moore, Oklahoma 

as we built safe rooms in schools. 

We have opportunities where we put mitigation together, but 

without a local community wanting to move in that area, to put 

their money forward, to share in that cost, it can become stagnated 

in a hurry. 

So I will give one other example because I do not want to lose 

this, and it has to do with mapping. When we did best available 

data and tried to set a standard, knowing people would be adversely affected in their insurance in New York and New Jersey, 

we put the data out, knowing it was not as precise as it could be 

if we fully vetted it. 

But we wanted to give them the best information we had available at that time so they could move forward. The point was to 

allow them to move forward quickly and rebuild. 

Because of that preciseness of the data, or what they saw as impreciseness of the data—and in this case the statement was that 

we overstated the risk. 

Now think of this; we overstated the risk. 

People stopped building until the maps became more precise because what they were looking for was the difference between 

whether they were in the special flood hazard area or they were 

not—— 

Senator BEGICH. Sure. 

Mr. MILLER [continuing]. In the standard to which they needed 

to build. 

We have people living on fine margins that are trying to make 

decisions in an imprecise mapping world. It is not that the maps 

are not true, but we do not pay for a level of preciseness—— 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 

Mr. MILLER [continuing]. That gets you to live in margins of 

three or four feet, or two or three blocks. 

Senator BEGICH. Gotcha. Thank you very much. 

Also, I should have said earlier, thank you for I think it was 1.3 

million of HMGP funds for Galena. That is a good example of using 

some mitigation even though it was post because you are getting 

them to think about the future, and that is very helpful. 

Let me say to you all of you, thank you very much again. 

We will keep the record open 15 days for other Members who 

may have questions or comments for the record. 

And, again, all your written testimony will be included in the 

record as well as, obviously, your verbal testimony. 

I know, Mr. Miller, Senator Landrieu had some requests that I 

know you will followup with her, and I appreciate that. 

Again, thank you all very much. 

At this time, the Committee hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:59 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(33) 

A P P E N D I X 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 

Æ