U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

21–645 PDF 2017

AN EXAMINATION OF THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY 

MANAGEMENT AGENCY’S LIMITED ROLE IN 

LOCAL LAND-USE DEVELOPMENT DECISIONS 

(114–53) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 21, 2016 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

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

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, 

Vice Chair 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

JOHN KATKO, New York 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

CRESENT HARDY, Nevada 

RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

CARLOS CURBELO, Florida 

DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

MIKE BOST, Illinois 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

JANICE HAHN, California 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

JARED HUFFMAN, California 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

(III) 

CONTENTS Page 

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

TESTIMONY 

Michael Grimm, Assistant Administrator for Mitigation, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency ............................................................................................ 5 

Christine Shirley, National Flood Insurance Program Coordinator, Department of Land Conservation and Development, State of Oregon ...................... 5 

Hon. Denny Doyle, Mayor, City of Beaverton, Oregon ......................................... 5 

Hon. Heather Carruthers, Commissioner, Monroe County, Florida, on behalf 

of the National Association of Counties ............................................................. 5 

Jon Chandler, Chief Executive Officer, Oregon Home Builders Association, 

on behalf of the National Association of Home Builders .................................. 5 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Michael Grimm ........................................................................................................ 39 

Christine Shirley ...................................................................................................... 55 

Hon. Denny Doyle .................................................................................................... 63 

Hon. Heather Carruthers ........................................................................................ 66 

Jon Chandler ............................................................................................................ 73 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon, request to submit three letters expressing concern over the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency’s implementation of reasonable and prudent alternatives arising from the National Marine Fisheries Service’s biological opinion: 

Letter of June 17, 2016, from Hon. Kate Brown, Governor of the State 

of Oregon, to W. Craig Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency ..................................................................................... 85 

Letter of June 28, 2016, from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Oregon, to Will Stelle, Administrator, 

West Coast Region, National Marine Fisheries Service ............................ 87 

Letter of June 28, 2016, from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio et al., to W. Craig 

Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency ........... 91 

Michael Grimm, Assistant Administrator for Mitigation, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, responses to questions for the record from the following Representatives: 

Hon. Lou Barletta of Pennsylvania ................................................................. 45 

Hon. Peter A. DeFazio of Oregon .................................................................... 48 

Hon. Lois Frankel of Florida ........................................................................... 52 

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

Letter of September 29, 2016, from Hon. Kate Brown, Governor of the State 

of Oregon, to Hon. Bill Shuster, Chairman, and Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, 

Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure ............. 93 

Letter of September 21, 2016, from Chad Berginnis, Executive Director, Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc., to Hon. Bill Shuster, Chairman, 

and Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure .................................................................................... 95 

iv 


Insert offset folio 1 here 21645.001
v 


Insert offset folio 2 here 21645.002
vi 


Insert offset folio 3 here 21645.003
vii 


Insert offset folio 4 here 21645.004
viii 


Insert offset folio 5 here 21645.005
(1) 

AN EXAMINATION OF THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY’S LIMITED 

ROLE IN LOCAL LAND-USE DEVELOPMENT 

DECISIONS 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2016 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

WASHINGTON, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m. in room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bill Shuster (Chairman 

of the committee) presiding. 

Mr. SHUSTER. The committee will come to order. Welcome to today’s hearing. 

I want to thank Ranking Member DeFazio for bringing this important issue to our attention. And today’s hearing will focus on 

two important issues, particularly. The first is the extent of 

FEMA’s authority to implement the National Flood Insurance Program, and the second is the national implications of FEMA’s implementation of the National Flood Insurance Program. 

The committee has worked this Congress to understand what is 

driving the rise in disaster costs and losses, including particular 

policies that may not make much sense or may be rewarding bad 

behavior. 

As we have seen recently with flooding in Louisiana and right in 

my home district in Connellsville and Bullskin Township, the National Flood Insurance Program is an important part of preparing 

communities for flood risks they face. We know that smart mitigation practices save the taxpayer at least $4 for every $1 invested. 

It is important that local land-use and development decisions ultimately reside with local officials who understand the risks and 

challenges of a particular area. Additionally, it is critical that Federal agencies understand the limitations of their authorities and 

work within their authorities. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. 

And now I yield to the ranking member for an opening statement. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for holding this 

oversight hearing of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 

And thanks to the witnesses who are here today. 

As you stated earlier, the National Flood Insurance Program is 

critical in many areas. It’s pretty simple. It says that, you know, 

the FEMA should develop minimum flood plain standards, and 

then it’s up to local communities to enact laws that meet or exceed 

2 

those in order to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. 

Now, in the particular case of Oregon, which, under this, is now 

being sort of nominated to be the poster child and the template for 

all the United States of America by certain agencies and groups, 

we have strict land-use planning. So the question becomes how are 

you going to overlay these new rules on top of our already strict 

land-use planning, which is designed to have compact urban 

growth? 

But it also says you have to accommodate future needs. And 

therefore, you have to have enough buildable property. In all probability, we would have to blow up our law, do away with the idea 

of compact growth, and say, no, we are going to have sprawling 

growth like so many other places because the downtown core of 

many of our cities, which was intended to be redeveloped with 

higher densities, including the riverfront through Portland, where 

Oregon Health Sciences is building major new projects. Parts of 

downtown Eugene, an area called Glenwood between Eugene and 

Springfield, these areas would be pretty well precluded from redevelopment. Therefore, it appears that we would then begin to 

model ourselves after the rest of the country. 

And somehow this is going to help the endangered species, according to the National Marine Fisheries Service. I give a—you 

know, we have a map that shows how many communities in Oregon would be affected, which they are going to put up. And you 

can see it is over 221 communities in Oregon would be affected— 

232. 

It would—in the case of Coos Bay—if I could have the Coos Bay 

map—Coos Bay is a community, it has been struggling with a depressed economy for many years. There are some glimmers of hope 

and activity there. But this is what has been designated and which 

FEMA would restrict or prohibit development or redevelopment in 

that entire area. 

That happens to be all of the downtown core—you can leave it 

up for a second, whoever took it down—that—that area, it does include the local newspaper building, which is critical salmon habitat. It does include Highway 101, critical salmon habitat. It does 

include some buildings that are well over 100 years old and need 

substantial renovation or actually would be replaced. But no, this 

area would be denied flood insurance unless they dramatically restrict or prohibit any redevelopment in that area, at least in an interim period, while FEMA develops rules to accommodate the socalled RPA. 

So, we are going to have a number of witnesses here today to 

talk about this. You know, when I first came to Congress, there 

was—one of the early black helicopter conspiracy theories was 

about the Rockefeller Commission. And I said, ‘‘Well, what is that?’’ 

And they said, ‘‘I have a plan to institute national land use—the 

Federal Government is going to usurp the police powers of the 

States under the Constitution, and is going to mandate national 

land-use planning.’’ And I would always tell those people they were 

nuts. Well, maybe they weren’t. That is why we are here today. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

3 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio. And with that, I recognize the subcommittee chair, Mr. Barletta, for a statement. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Since the beginning of the 114th Congress, we have been exploring the rising costs of disasters in terms of both the loss of property 

and human life. At our first hearing in the 114th Congress, I stated 

that my top emergency management priority was pursuing disaster 

legislation that will save lives, lower costs, and launch a comprehensive review of Federal disaster policies and the rising costs 

of disasters. 

Early last year, Ranking Member Carson and I introduced the 

FEMA Disaster Assistance Reform Act to call for the first comprehensive assessment of disaster costs and losses in over 20 years. 

One of the most important pieces of our country’s disaster assistance policy is linked to the National Flood Insurance Program, or 

the NFIP. So, today’s hearing focusing on FEMA’s authorities to 

implement the NFIP, and the extent that those authorities can impact local land-use and development decisions, is a critical element 

of that discussion. 

I thank Ranking Member DeFazio for bringing this issue to the 

forefront so that we could bring the right people together to help 

us understand how some of the challenges being faced in Oregon 

will impact the entire Nation. I look forward to hearing from 

FEMA, the State and local officials, and our representatives from 

the National Association of Home Builders, about their current 

challenges and concerns regarding these issues. Thank you. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you. And now I would like to recognize Mr. 

Curbelo to introduce one of his constituents, who is a witness 

today. 

Mr. CURBELO. Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member DeFazio, 

thank you for yielding me time and, more importantly, thank you 

for holding a hearing on such an important topic as FEMA’s role 

in the National Flood Insurance Program. 

My south Florida district is almost completely surrounded by 

water, so this hearing is of particular importance to my constituents, which is why I am so proud to have with us today Mayor 

Heather Carruthers from Monroe County, Florida, on behalf of the 

National Association of Counties. 

As the mayor of all of the Florida Keys, Ms. Carruthers brings 

to this hearing a unique insight on how flood insurance rates affect 

those who work and live in our coastal communities, not just those 

who come for vacation. 

As a member of the Key West Chamber of Commerce, and as an 

instrumental founder of the Fair Insurance Rates in Monroe County, or FIRM, Mayor Carruthers has been an invaluable source of 

information to me and my staff, as we work together on addressing 

flood insurance rates and disaster mitigation. She is a steadfast 

leader in our community for working on behalf of her constituents 

and those residents who call the Keys home. 

And fun fact: She has been a featured soloist with the Key West 

Pops and Island Opera Theatre. Also, recently, a charades partner 

with me—a very successful partnership, by the way, at a charity 

event—and, more importantly, Mayor Carruthers and her family 

4 

recently welcomed a little boy to the world, Colin. So congratulations, and thank you so much for joining us today. 

Ms. CARRUTHERS. Thank you very much, Representative. It is a 

pleasure working with you. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, and welcome. He said a soloist. Does 

that mean an instrument or a singer? 

Ms. CARRUTHERS. Mezzo soprano. 

Mr. SHUSTER. OK. The high voice. Is that the low voice? I don’t 

know anything about music. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SHUSTER. And with that, I will recognize Mr. Carson, the 

ranking member of the subcommittee, for a statement. 

Mr. CARSON. Thank you, Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member 

DeFazio, Chairman Barletta. 

You know, today’s topic explores how the Endangered Species 

Act affects the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s work in 

implementing the National Flood Insurance Act. Both of these laws 

are very essential, yet the interplay between these two laws raised 

several questions that we need to examine. 

Congress directed FEMA to carry out the National Flood Insurance Program. But this morning we will have a conversation about 

the extent the National Marine Fisheries Service should be allowed 

to direct FEMA, if at all, on how FEMA carries out the NFIP. 

FEMA currently does not authorize, fund, or license private development on private lands. Yet the Fisheries Service is directing 

FEMA to either take or prohibit certain actions. That will result 

in FEMA being responsible for determining whether privately funded activities on private lands may occur. 

So, the committee must examine whether FEMA should have 

this land-use authority, or regulatory authority. Now, the Fisheries 

Service is proposing that FEMA exercise its authority to prohibit 

most, if not all, private development in Oregon flood plains. If 

FEMA exercises its authority, we need to know whether it could be 

used nationwide. 

On the surface, these issues seem to only apply in Oregon. But 

what I want to learn more about is whether these authorities and 

directives could be expanded elsewhere. We have several endangered species in Indiana that deserve protection, but we also have 

flood plains, and property owners who have resided in these flood 

plains for a long time, and who need flood insurance. 

I look forward to learning more about the laws and processes involved here, as well as other issues, concerns, and suggestions for 

addressing these issues. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Carson. And, with that, we will 

start our panel. 

First, welcome to all of you for being here. We really appreciate 

you taking the time to testify with us today and help educate us. 

Our first witness is Mr. Michael Grimm, the Assistant Administrator for Mitigation at FEMA. Mr. Grimm, you are recognized for 

your statement. 

5 

TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL GRIMM, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR MITIGATION, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY; CHRISTINE SHIRLEY, NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM COORDINATOR, DEPARTMENT OF LAND 

CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT, STATE OF OREGON; 

HON. DENNY DOYLE, MAYOR, CITY OF BEAVERTON, OREGON; 

HON. HEATHER CARRUTHERS, COMMISSIONER, MONROE 

COUNTY, FLORIDA, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES; AND JON CHANDLER, CHIEF EXECUTIVE 

OFFICER, OREGON HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS 

Mr. GRIMM. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Shuster and 

Ranking Member DeFazio and members of the committee. My 

name is Michael Grimm, and I am the Assistant Administrator for 

Mitigation for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Thank 

you for the opportunity to testify about FEMA’s efforts to strengthen our National Flood Insurance Program compliance with the Endangered Species Act in Oregon, as well as the associated implications, nationwide. 

In response to lawsuits brought under ESA, FEMA has been required, either by the courts or through settlement agreements with 

plaintiffs, to undertake consultations under the ESA on implementation of the NFIP in particular communities and regions. In consultations undertaken in Monroe County, Florida, the Puget Sound 

region of Washington, and in Oregon, the Services—in some cases 

the National Marine Fisheries Service, or NMFS, and in other 

cases the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service—have found that the implementation of the NFIP in those areas was likely to jeopardize 

the continued existence of threatened and endangered species, and 

adversely modify designated critical habitat. When a jeopardy opinion is issued, the Services must also provide reasonable and prudent alternatives, if any, to a proposed action. 

The RPA is a recommended set of program changes that will ensure a proposed action is implemented in a manner that will not 

jeopardize species, as well as the adverse modification of critical 

habitats. 

Up until the consultation conducted with NMFS in Oregon, all 

of the RPAs from consultations had been able to be implemented, 

consistent with the NFIP and what we at FEMA call performancebased standards. FEMA uses performance-based standards to implement the NFIP throughout our 22,000 participating communities. FEMA recognizes that there are any number of ways in 

which a committee can meet the minimum flood plain management 

criteria established by FEMA for a community to participate in the 

NFIP. 

Performance-based standards provide flexibility for communities 

to meet the requirements of the ESA in a way that makes sense 

to them. In like manner, the RPAs FEMA implemented prior to the 

Oregon consultation operated within this framework, allowing 

FEMA to work collaboratively with communities to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act in a 

way that made sense to each individual community. 

For example, FEMA’s implementation of the RPA resulting from 

the Puget Sound Washington area consultation with NMFS proVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:33 Feb 27, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\FULL\9-21-1~1\21645.TXT JEAN
6 

vided communities flexibility to implement an approach to preserve 

ESA-listed species and their designated critical habitat in a manner that is consistent with local decisions and land use. While some 

communities chose to adopt a model ordinance to ensure compliance with the requirements of ESA, others have the flexibility to 

demonstrate through existing codes and standards that they are already meeting these important standards. 

Still others chose a third option, demonstrating compliance on a 

permit-by-permit basis. The RPA resulting from the Oregon consultation with NMFS, however, is different. In Oregon, NMFS 

issued an RPA that differs from the Puget Sound performancebased standard approach, following a prescriptive approach, instead. 

If implemented as written, the RPA in Oregon will result in expansion of areas mapped within the special flood hazard area to include areas likely to flood based on data reflecting the anticipated 

impacts of climate change, and will require enhanced regulatory 

flood plain management criteria going beyond the minimum standards currently required as a condition of participation in the National Flood Insurance Program. 

Changing FEMA’s regulations to accommodate these requirements of the RPA in Oregon will not only impact how FEMA administers the NFIP in Oregon, but across the Nation in all 22,000 

communities that participate in the NFIP. 

Environmental stewardship is an important responsibility, and 

FEMA is committed to doing everything within our authority to ensure that the NFIP is compliant with the ESA. At FEMA we believe in the whole-community approach in accomplishing our mission. As such, we will continue a close working relationship with 

NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as working 

with our State, local, and tribal partners to make sure we accomplish our goals. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to 

answering any questions the committee may have. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Grimm. Now our next witness 

today is Ms. Chris Shirley, the National Flood Insurance Program 

coordinator for the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and 

Development. 

Thank you for being here today. 

Ms. SHIRLEY. Good morning, Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member DeFazio, and members of the committee. I am pleased to be 

here today to talk about this—to discuss Oregon’s perspective on 

the reasonable and prudent alternatives. My name is Christine 

Shirley, and I work with communities directly on implementation 

of the National Flood Insurance Program in Oregon, as the State 

NFIP coordinator. 

I am going to present an abbreviated version of some written testimony that I have submitted. 

So, as Mr. DeFazio mentioned, Oregon has been a pioneer in implementing a statewide land-use program. This was implemented 

40 years ago. And it preserves local control and responsibility for 

land-use decisions while establishing an overarching set of goals 

known as our 19 land-use planning goals, which, at its core, direct 

new development into towns and cities, protect rural areas for farm 

7 

and forest use, and evaluate environmental impacts at the planning level, rather than at the permit-by-permit level that is the 

case in some States, many States. 

So, now Oregon is at the forefront of a Federal directive through 

these reasonable and prudent alternatives to incorporate an additional layer of land-use management in the special flood hazard 

areas. 

So I want to emphasize that the State of Oregon supports the 

principle of sound flood plain management, because we believe it 

protects people, property, habitat function, and economic vitality. 

And, as a result, the State has strenuously endeavored to be a good 

partner with our Federal counterparts at FEMA and the National 

Marine Fisheries Service during the multiyear consultation that resulted in the reasonable and prudent alternative, and will continue 

to participate vigorously in the years ahead. 

And since the RPA was released in April, we have learned a few 

things, recognized a few challenges. And primary among the lessons is the importance of early involvement of the States and local 

governments in the crafting of any future reasonable and prudent 

alternatives. 

The State was only allowed limited interaction with the Federal 

agencies during the consultation period, and we are now faced with 

a really difficult task of having to fit a consultation that didn’t really involve us and doesn’t really fit with the Oregon land-use planning system; we have to fit that RPA into our existing land-use 

program. It would have been easier if we had had the opportunity 

to do that fitting earlier on. 

In the same vein, it is important now that FEMA involve local 

governments in the development of implementation strategies for 

the RPA, and that FEMA understand local government timelines 

and resources in setting their implementation targets for the RPA. 

The State has been told by FEMA, for example, that they intend 

to develop guidance to implement interim measures set forth in the 

RPA by April of 2017, which is only 9 months away, and then have 

local governments adopt changes into their permitting programs to 

reflect that guidance. And that schedule of less than 2 years is not 

possible to be implemented for 232 communities in Oregon. 

And likewise, the schedule for adopting revised flood insurance 

rate maps that are called for in the RPA over the next decade, it 

must pay attention to State and local processes and budgets and 

resources. And realistically, the State can’t manage an aggressive 

map adoption process as called for in the RPA. And just by way of 

example, the FEMA map modernization program took over 10 

years to implement in a much smaller number of communities. 

To their credit, both FEMA and NMFS have emphasized outreach after the RPA was released, and scheduled immediately with 

us some webinars that local government and the State were involved in. And then we hosted 10 regional meetings throughout the 

State with FEMA and NMFS, where we talked about the RPA and 

heard from local governments what their concerns were. 

And we learned many important things, such as the need to get 

credit and leverage Oregon’s existing land-use planning program, 

to contextualize the RPA within the watershed management program, and not just focus directly on flood plains, develop a mitigaVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:33 Feb 27, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\FULL\9-21-1~1\21645.TXT JEAN
8 

tion banking program, and to limit uncertainty around changing 

rules, maps, and timelines that can dampen development investment. 

The State is concerned that the recommended changes to the 

flood plain mapping protocols as set forth in element 3 of the RPA 

would dramatically increase the footprint of the special flood hazard areas and regulation therein called for in the RPA, and—— 

Mr. SHUSTER. Ms. Shirley, if I could get you to wrap up—— 

Ms. SHIRLEY. Yes. And those could have a significant negative 

economic impact. 

So, in conclusion, the changes brought about by this consultation 

must not be overlaid on top of our existing system, but be woven 

into it, and that is going to take some time and resources and dedicated staff at the Federal level. 

Thank you very much, and I would be happy to answer any questions. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Ms. Shirley. And with that, our next 

witness is the Honorable Denny Doyle, the mayor of the city of 

Beaverton, Oregon. 

Thank you for being here today and proceed, Mr. Doyle. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Shuster and 

Ranking Member DeFazio. I am Denny Doyle, mayor of the city of 

Beaverton. I am also the incoming president of the Oregon League 

of Cities, as well as a board member of the National League of Cities. Beaverton is located just 2 short hours north of the majestic 

tall firs in Congressman DeFazio’s Lane County. Thank you for the 

opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the FEMA role 

in implementing the National Flood Insurance Program in Oregon 

and throughout the United States. 

As we all know, in 2009 FEMA was sued by environmental 

groups in Oregon for failing to ensure that the implementation of 

the NFIP complies with the Endangered Species Act. In response 

to the ruling, FEMA consulted with the National Marine Fisheries 

Service, resulting in the reasonable and prudent alternatives that 

aims to minimize impacts to ESA-listed species. 

The final draft of the RPA calls for drastic expansion of an area 

to be protected beyond FEMA’s current jurisdiction under the 

NFIP. If the new protected area is imposed on communities, it will 

have an unprecedented negative impact on economic growth, job 

creation, and new development as well as redevelopment, including 

affordable housing throughout Oregon. 

These lawsuits are occurring in a piecemeal fashion around the 

country. I encourage Members of Congress to be aware that if the 

impacts you hear about today have not yet affected your congressional district, they almost surely will in the future. I have had the 

opportunity to meet with representatives from both FEMA and 

NMFS over the past several years in both Washington, DC, and 

Oregon to discuss this situation, and I truly remain dismayed at 

the end results of ESA consultation. 

During development of the RPA, FEMA repeatedly stated their 

concerns with the ‘‘major legal and practical issues concerning the 

RPA,’’ and that the ‘‘RPA provides little flexibility in how to 

achieve ‘no adverse effect.’ ’’ Therefore, FEMA concluded that they 

were unsure how the RPA could be made ‘‘fully implementable 

9 

within FEMA’s legal authorities.’’ Yet here we are, with an RPA 

that FEMA and our local governments must implement. 

We all agree that the protection of threatened and endangered 

species is a high priority. However, Beaverton is an urban community, one with very little undeveloped land left. In or next door to 

our community are major corporations such as Nike’s world headquarters, Intel, Columbia Sportswear, to name just a few. Given 

the preponderance of many small streams that may contain threatened or endangered species, such stringent control of development 

in an arbitrarily enlarged flood area as proposed by the RPA could 

deter development for much of our community. 

Without development or redevelopment by our business community, we cannot create new jobs or continue to improve our little 

part of the world. For example, a restaurant in Beaverton with a 

long history of shallow-flood damage—i.e., water in a parking lot— 

has recently been demolished and reconstructed. This pre-flood insurance rate map building has been rebuilt with a finished floor 2 

feet higher than the base flood elevation. In other words, they lifted 

the ground 10 feet. This is smart, flood-resistant development. 

However, such a beneficial project could effectively be precluded in 

some way by the new RPA. 

In another example, a previously developed area located within 

the RPA-expanded flood zone could not be redeveloped into affordable housing because of the additional costs. Significant employers 

and exporters will also likely be adversely impacted. In general, 

any development plans within the affected areas would require 

costly and time-consuming consultations with NMFS and FEMA, if 

they were allowed at all, and if they were affordable at all. 

Finally, on a personal note, I am working hard to create an arts 

and culture center in downtown Beaverton, adjacent to Beaverton 

Creek. Twenty-plus years. Even though at this time ESA-listed 

species do not exist in the creek, the RPA will likely force us to implement significant RPA measures when developing and constructing the arts center. This is going to be built at no cost to the 

local taxpayers; it is a $45 million project. All of this comes at a 

cost, a significant one when just raising the funding to develop the 

arts center itself is a challenge on its own terms. 

It should also be mentioned that we remain frustrated about the 

lack of opportunity to provide comments on the RPA—and thank 

you for this opportunity. The Congress should know that the 

iterations of the RPA for Oregon were developed in an apparent 

vacuum, one that does not respect nor serve the local communities 

that must ultimately comply with its mandates. 

Simply put, the RPA developed by NMFS is unworkable in Oregon and for FEMA. It demands action that is unreasonable and 

potentially unenforceable by FEMA, all at little identifiable value 

to the species they aim to protect. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before you today. 

I am happy to answer questions later. And good luck to all of us 

that appropriate in November. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mayor Doyle. Our next witness today 

was introduced, the Honorable Heather Carruthers, the county 

commissioner from Monroe County, Florida. And she is testifying 

on behalf of the National Association of Counties. 

10 

Again, thank you for being here, and please proceed with your 

statement. 

Ms. CARRUTHERS. Thank you, Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member DeFazio, and distinguished members of the committee for this 

opportunity to testify on FEMA’s role in local land-use decisions. 

My name is Heather Carruthers, and I am an elected county commissioner from Monroe County, Florida, home of the Florida Keys. 

And today I am representing the National Association of Counties. 

The topic of this hearing is of great importance to my county and 

to many other counties across the United States. In fact, in Monroe 

County we have been dealing with this issue for more than three 

decades, initially through locally originated efforts, and eventually 

through the courts. 

The National Flood Insurance Program is vital to us, and any 

changes to the program and its requirements directly affect our 

residents, businesses, and local economy. Although counties are 

highly diverse across the country, we share many of the same goals 

and responsibilities. We establish local land-use policies that protect our natural resources and environment, but also provide the 

tools and foundation needed for development that helps our communities. In Monroe County we have worked diligently to identify 

solutions that help us balance both of these goals. Today my remarks will focus on three points. 

First, local governments work daily to craft land-use policies that 

protect endangered species, mitigate disasters, and facilitate economic development in compliance with existing State and Federal 

species protection regulations. In most States, land-use planning 

and regulation is carried out primarily at the local level. Through 

this land-use authority, we help to shape the local communities 

within our jurisdictions. 

In my county we have approximately 30 endangered and threatened species. We work to protect these species and their habitats 

in many ways, including establishing ordinances that limit construction and development in specific areas of the county. Our local 

regulations cap building permits for many reasons, the most important of which is to protect environmentally sensitive land. These 

local land-use policies are developed through extensive coordination 

with our communities, as well as our State and Federal partners. 

We have long required coordination with the Fish and Wildlife 

Service before issuing any building permits. 

Second, because NFIP is so important to our flood-prone communities, local governments have little choice but to comply with its 

participation requirements. In 2012, the Government Accountability Office estimated that about 95 percent of the Nation’s counties had NFIP policies in their jurisdictions. In Monroe County, we 

have over 27,000 NFIP policies, and Florida, as a whole, has over 

1.8 million. 

The importance of the NFIP to our county was highlighted when, 

in 2005, a Federal court halted issuance of new NFIP policies for 

nearly 50,000 parcels in Monroe County, following a lawsuit filed 

for conservation groups, even though we had already carefully developed comprehensive land-use policies to protect our environment 

and native species. For 7 years, this FEMA injunction remained in 

place, and owners of the parcels were unable to build. Construction 

11 

costs skyrocketed, and the permitting process dragged. We documented instances of homeowners paying over $1,000 more in permit fees, and waiting almost a year for Fish and Wildlife Service 

approval before they could proceed. 

The only homeowners and businesses that were able to move forward were those with deep pockets who could do without flood insurance. And as you can imagine, this really hurt our working families and small businesses. It further slowed economic growth and 

drove up business and housing costs. 

Finally, species protection regulations carried out through NFIP 

have typically been one-size-fits-all solutions that consider neither 

the variance in local communities nor our existing species protection efforts. As a result of the previously mentioned lawsuit, reasonable and prudent alternatives, RPAs, required our county to revise our flood damage prevention ordinances. We were required to 

implement a new permit process that was essentially a repackaging of existing county regulations with multiple layers of added 

bureaucracy. Owners of properties within endangered species habitat areas were already required to seek Fish and Wildlife Service 

approval before getting county permits for development. 

FEMA’s review did not take into consideration the unique circumstances of our county ordinances and procedures. Ultimately, 

no additional habitat acreage was protected. In short, the entire 

process added no real value to the species protective measures we 

had already developed and enforced. It simply added more redtape 

and cost. As you can see from this permit review process flow 

chart, this is what is required of a homeowner—property owner before they can get a building permit. And this does not even include 

what happens at Fish and Wildlife or FEMA. 

So thank you again, Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member 

DeFazio, and members of the committee, for this opportunity to 

provide the local perspective on how advancing species protection 

efforts through NFIP is problematic and ultimately counterproductive at the local level. And I am happy to answer any questions that you may have. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Commissioner Carruthers. And our 

final witness today is Mr. Jon Chandler, the chief executive officer 

of the Oregon Home Builders Association. He is testifying on behalf 

of the National Association of Home Builders. 

Thank you for being here today, and please proceed with your 

statement. 

Mr. CHANDLER. Thank you, Chair Shuster, Ranking Member 

DeFazio, members of the committee. I really appreciate the opportunity to come talk about what is happening with NFIP on behalf 

both of NAHB and my organization, the Oregon Home Builders. I 

am the CEO of the Oregon HBA. We are a State association of the 

National Home Builders, and this is an issue of great interest for 

us across the country. 

I am going to address this morning, in addition to my written 

testimony, the land-use problems that are created by linking the 

Endangered Species Act with FEMA’s National Flood Insurance 

Program. Quite simply, it is inappropriate to use the NFIP to protect endangered species. Doing it that way adds duplicative, burdensome, and costly regulatory barriers that will prevent the develVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:33 Feb 27, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\FULL\9-21-1~1\21645.TXT JEAN
12 

opment of communities in a sensible and planned fashion. It will 

hurt well-paying jobs, and it will increase the price of housing beyond the means of many middle-class and working families. 

Courts have held recently that FEMA must consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service concerning impacts of the NFIP on 

endangered species. In Oregon, as you have heard, NMFS issued 

a biological opinion dictating the implementation of NFIP. The 

State of Oregon and every city and county in Oregon has invested 

over 40 years in comprehensive statewide land-use planning, the 

money that goes along with that, the infrastructure planning and 

development that goes along with that. But with this NMFS BiOp, 

those efforts will be significantly undermined, if not completely undone. 

The terms of the BiOp could result in large areas of land that 

can no longer be developed. Under Oregon law, local governments 

can be held accountable for that diminution in value. What we call 

measure 49 holds that any Government entity that downzones or 

reduces by regulatory measures the value of a piece of property 

must provide compensation to the property owner for that diminution in value. 

Many communities simply will not have the resources to cover 

that, and may consider, as a result, dropping out of the NFIP. But 

due to the mandatory requirements for building for a homeowner 

in a flood plain, dropping out of the NFIP could result in the homeowner defaulting on their mortgage if they can’t afford or access 

the high cost of private flood insurance. 

The courts have ruled that both mapping and the NFIP’s minimum eligibility requirement criteria are discretionary. And therefore, FEMA must consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service. NAHB’s position is that those supporting components should be 

labeled nondiscretionary, and that FEMA should not be required to 

consult. The maps that FEMA prepares are based solely on technical evaluations of the base flood elevation. FEMA is drawing a 

line on a map based on science, math, and engineering. It cannot 

and should not be required to draw that line simply to benefit endangered species. 

Under the NMFS BiOp, if a landowner or local government seeks 

changes or revisions to areas in existing flood plain maps, FEMA 

would not be able to process that request until the owner demonstrates that all potential impacts to endangered species or the 

flood plain have been fully mitigated. 

FEMA does not authorize or approve the construction of structures or the replacement of fill in or around flood plains, and 

FEMA does not require what mitigation is required. FEMA’s role 

is to ensure that the information depicted on the maps is accurate 

and scientifically sound. 

NAHB also believes that the minimum eligibility criteria for communities to participate in NFIP should also be nondiscretionary. 

The BiOp requires the square footage of new structures to be 10 

percent or less of the average lot size. And to give you a sense of 

that, in the Pacific States, according to the Census Bureau data, 

the average size of a lot is 6,525 square feet. Under this requirement in the BiOp, that reduces the size of a single-story home to 

652 square feet. 

13 

Now, in Oregon, where the average lot sizes are 4,000 to 5,000 

square feet and 2,500-square-foot lots are not uncommon, that 

same 10 percent coverage requirement would have houses with a 

first floor—or a one-story house of 250 square feet. Compared on 

a national basis, the average home size is 2,500 square feet. That 

sort of a 10-percent requirement will dramatically hinder growth in 

communities where families want to live, and tramples on local 

government zoning authorities. 

These changes are occurring on a State-by-State basis, but they 

have national implications to the National Flood Insurance Program. Three States are currently engaged in consultation: Florida, 

California, and Arizona. There are billions of dollars of home value 

and remodeling costs at risk. For those States combined, NAHB estimates over $400 billion of home values and over $4 billion in remodeling spending is potentially at risk. Nationwide, that would be 

over $1 trillion. And we add in the proposal of the Atlantic sturgeon potentially to the protected species list, it is possible that 

States from Georgia to Maine may be next on the NMFS consultation list. 

For a lot of homebuilders, we already have to go through section 

7 consultation in the development process. That protects endangered species under existing law. That is currently on the books. 

We don’t believe this adds anything. 

And in conclusion, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, we appreciate very much the opportunity to put these concerns in front 

of you, and look forward to working with you, going forward. I 

would be glad to take any questions. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chandler. And again, this is an 

important issue. Any time that the Federal Government tries to expand an agency’s powers without congressional authority, and go 

beyond the mission of FEMA, it is troubling. And just the last 

words you said there, Mr. Chandler, it can be very, very damaging 

to development, to the economy, to job creation, which is important 

to all of us. 

And this is happening right in Mr. DeFazio’s State, in his backyard. So I am going to forgo my questions. I am going to yield Mr. 

DeFazio my 5 minutes so he has a full 10 minutes to really get into 

questioning here, because he knows the situation. And so I will 

leave it to him to use my 5 minutes. 

So, Mr. DeFazio, I yield to you. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would point out that, 

well, first, let me—a couple of questions of FEMA, and then I will 

point something out. 

Mr. Grimm, does FEMA have the authority to regulate privately 

funded development on private lands under the NFIP? 

Mr. GRIMM. [No response.] 

Mr. DEFAZIO. A simple yes or no would do. 

Mr. GRIMM. No. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK, good, thank you. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Now, you are going to be required, because of the 

RPA in Oregon, to amend your regulations to include an ESA 

standard. Will that change apply only to the State of Oregon, or 

will it apply to all of the States of America? 

14 

Mr. GRIMM. When we change our regulation, it applies to all 

22,000 communities. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK, all 22,000 communities, which I assume are 

scattered among the 50 States. 

Mr. GRIMM. Correct. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. And then, you know, that—have you consulted 

with—I assume you have in-house counsel, or do you use the Justice Department for legal consultations on your authority? 

Mr. GRIMM. We have in-house counsel, sir. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. And what does in-house counsel say about you 

asserting regulatory authority that wasn’t extended to you by the 

United States Congress? 

Mr. GRIMM. That we can only do what is within our authorities, 

and there are concerns over a number of the RPAs being outside 

of our current authorities. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. So then, arguably, perhaps your agency, in exceeding its authority to follow the directives of National Marine Fisheries and agreeing to adopt this RPA, is vulnerable to being sued. 

Mr. GRIMM. I—yes. And for the RPAs that are not within our 

legal authorities, we would seek other alternative RPAs, working 

with the States and the communities to implement the intent of 

the RPAs as issued by Marine Fisheries. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Now, the authority granted to you by Congress is 

you get communities who wish to participate in the program to 

adopt minimum standards, yes? 

Mr. GRIMM. Correct. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. So in this case we—you are far exceeding the minimum standard approach. 

Mr. GRIMM. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. How can that be? Never mind, that is speculative. 

But the point is, I—you know, I am having trouble tracking this 

whole thing. I put up a map earlier showing downtown Coos Bay, 

Oregon. And under what you are being forced to adopt by NMFS 

in declaring, you know, this area will be within the enhanced 100- 

year flood plain, well, we don’t know what the enhanced 100-year 

flood plain is yet, do we? 

Mr. GRIMM. We don’t, sir. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. We don’t. So this is actually just using the existing 

100-year flood plain. One would assume that when you include climate change, that these flood plains are probably going to, especially in coastal areas, become much larger. 

Mr. GRIMM. Yes. From FEMA’s perspective, when you include 

the climate change, the erosion zones, future conditions hydrology, 

we would expect flood plains to significantly increase and then the 

applicable flood plain management regulations would apply 

through the RPA—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. So many properties now that aren’t required to 

have Federal flood insurance in order to obtain bank financing will 

be required to in the future. 

Mr. GRIMM. Yes, sir. When we revise our regulations, that would 

apply. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Now, don’t you—didn’t Biggert-Waters require an 

advisory committee for mapping? Because mapping has been conVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:33 Feb 27, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\FULL\9-21-1~1\21645.TXT JEAN
15 

troversial and, in part, led to the adoption of Biggert-Waters. Is 

that correct? 

Mr. GRIMM. Absolutely. The Technical Mapping Advisory Council 

was established by BW–12 to provide guidance to FEMA and advice on our mapping standards. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. Doesn’t the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, of which NMFS is a subsidiary, so to speak, 

don’t they have a seat on that advisory committee? 

Mr. GRIMM. They do have a seat on that. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK, and has the advisory committee proposed this 

dramatic change to the rules? 

Mr. GRIMM. The committee has proposed some future conditions 

mapping, some erosion mapping, not necessarily in line with what 

the RPAs are recommending. That is one of our concerns, is that 

Congress established TMAC—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. 

Mr. GRIMM [continuing]. To provide guidance to FEMA. And 

when I personally was involved with the negotiations with Marine 

Fisheries on this, this was one of the key issues that I brought up, 

in that the RPAs must be aligned with recommendations from the 

map and advisory council, and that is one of our—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. But in this case, what is being recommended for 

Oregon, which is going to require a regulatory change which will 

apply nationwide, is not following the advice of that committee. 

Mr. GRIMM. There are differences. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yes, there are. So one subagency of an agency that 

is represented on the advisory committee established by Congress 

is forcing you to exceed your legal authority, to impose more than 

minimum standards, and to link, you know, the Endangered Species Act to the NFIP eligibility requirements. 

Now, what kind of a change is that going to be? Some say, ‘‘Oh, 

it is just really simple, you just reference it.’’ Do you think that can 

be done in one sentence? I have never seen an administrative regulation that is one sentence long. 

Mr. GRIMM. Yes, for—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I mean, usually we write 1 sentence, and you write 

100 pages. So how is that going to work? 

Mr. GRIMM. Thank you, sir. From FEMA’s perspective, you are 

right, there is one reference to a legal requirement or a regulatory 

change in the RPAs. We are currently evaluating that. We believe 

there are going to be a number of other regulatory changes that are 

required, particularly around redefinition of the special flood hazard area and minimum standards. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. So to Ms. Shirley, now, you referenced the potential conflict. I mean since—it is kind of odd. Washington State, 

where our regional office of NMFS is based, was allowed to go with 

performance standards, but it is a State that does not have comprehensive, statewide land-use planning. Oregon, a State that has 

comprehensive, statewide land-use planning, is being told, no, you 

must go with a prescriptive, one-size-fits-all solution being dictated 

by a Federal agency to another Federal agency that will be imposed 

on the State. 

You already talked about the logistical problems of having 232 

communities change their local plans. Having been a county comVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:33 Feb 27, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\FULL\9-21-1~1\21645.TXT JEAN
16 

missioner, I am quite familiar with the process, and you are right, 

it can be done in the timeframe we are talking about. 

But one of the key things in our land-use law is compact growth, 

sometimes controversial—recently in the city of Eugene, which I 

represent—because even though it is sort of optimal for planners 

to densify, sometimes the people who live there don’t like it. But 

the point is, that is probably the major goal, in addition to resource 

conservation, as to avoid the sprawl that many other States have 

seen. 

But there is also another thing where communities are supposed 

to have a stock of buildable land, or developable land, both for commercial, industrial, and/or residential purposes. So if our core 

areas, particularly, you know, downtown Coos Bay, which cries out 

for a lot of renovation and redevelopment, is off limits, and the city 

wishes or has to accommodate growth, then they are going to have 

a very arguable case to greatly expand their urban growth boundary. Isn’t that correct? I mean it seems to me the only option. 

Ms. SHIRLEY. Yes, we share that concern. We also believe that 

the RPA, as it exists today and can hopefully be negotiated further 

in the future, allows for redevelopment projects that incorporate 

some improvement to the salmon habitat without stopping development altogether. 

So I think there is a middle ground there. And through the work 

groups and working with FEMA we hope to find that middle 

ground. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. But it is not—I mean it is not explicit in the RPA 

that those sorts of—I mean since they moved us to a dictated approach versus a performance-based approach, it is not clear we will 

be able to do that. 

Ms. SHIRLEY. It could be difficult. The RPA is not cast in stone. 

It does have a little bit of flexibility, and we need to find and leverage those flexibilities. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I just—you know, as a—you know, I don’t even— 

there is no one here I guess who can really ask the question. I 

mean how does Highway 101 become critical salmon habitat? 

Mr. Chandler, can you help me with that one? Do you have any 

thoughts? I mean it is a highway, you know, and it is between the 

harbor and downtown. And then you have downtown, where the 

local newspaper—hopefully they have a reporter listening, because 

they are critical salmon—they should just look around the office 

and be really careful, because they might step on a salmon. 

Mr. CHANDLER. Ranking Member DeFazio, Members, I think the 

answer to that probably involves working for a Federal agency that 

isn’t here. 

There is no way it is salmon habitat. And that is part of the 

problem, I believe, with having a—what should be a science-based 

approach being handled as though it was a matter of philosophy. 

Yes, we in Oregon—as Congressman DeFazio has indicated, we 

have a long history of salmon protection, of working on natural resource protection, of having urban planning that has as its objective saving resource land. To come in and say now that a main 

highway or a parkway in Portland or a pick your street in any of 

those 232 cities in Oregon is now a salmon habitat is ridiculous. 

17 

And that has been part of our reaction to this, is that it simply 

doesn’t make sense on the ground, as we have built in Oregon. 

Most of you in your States, I know, the people who settled there 

settled near the waterways, because that would be silly to settle 

where there wasn’t water. So most cities in this country are built 

around lakes, streams, rivers. Oregon is no different. 

Most of our development is now, by State law and State and local 

planning, focused on those downtown core areas, as Congressman 

DeFazio indicated, to avoid urban sprawl. And what this does to 

that notion of taking those waterways off limits and now we, for 

20 years’ worth of land supply, or simply to keep up with the growing population, we expand out onto the farmland, which is exactly 

what the 50 years of policy in Oregon has said we should not do. 

And frankly, my industry supports that, and we are aghast at this, 

as well, that what we thought we were doing is now being changed 

by fiat, including, apparently, the designation of Highway 101 as 

a salmon habitat. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BARLETTA [presiding]. Thank you. As a former mayor, I completely appreciate the effort and money that a community puts into 

land-use planning, infrastructure, development, and economic revitalization. I also believe that local officials are in the best position 

to know and understand the unique challenges facing their communities so that they can implement the best policies to benefit their 

citizens. 

Now, from what I had heard today it sounds as if one part of the 

Federal Government, NOAA’s Fisheries Service, is asking another 

part of the Federal Government, FEMA, to impose land-use restrictions on State and local government. That would certainly cause 

concerns and have great implications across this country. 

Mr. Grimm, the Oregon RPA requires FEMA to amend existing 

and issue new regulations regarding development in the flood 

plain. From FEMA’s perspective, what does that mean for people 

in my home State of Pennsylvania and other areas of the country? 

Mr. GRIMM. Sure, thank you. When FEMA issues regulations, it 

impacts over 22,000 communities. We have designed our regulations so that we implement a consistent, uniform program, nationwide. One of the concerns that we have, as the RPAs are written, 

and the ongoing State-by-State lawsuits and implementation, is inconsistent implementation of the NFIP. So we would see, as we implement any regulatory changes to address the RPAs in Oregon, 

that would impact the entire United States. 

Mr. BARLETTA. And from FEMA’s perspective, what is the role of 

the NFIP? And does the Oregon RPA require you to do things outside of the roles and authorities which Congress prescribed to you? 

Mr. GRIMM. Yes. From FEMA’s perspective we do have concerns 

over a number of the RPAs being outside of our regulatory authority. For those RPAs that we believe are outside of our regulatory 

authority, we would work with committees and States to develop 

alternative RPAs such as what Ms. Shirley indicated. We are trying to work that flexibility to implement something that makes 

sense to communities and States. 

18 

Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Chandler, if FEMA is forced to comply with 

the Oregon RPA, what will be the most significant impact on local 

housing development? And will that be local to only Oregon, or will 

there be repercussions across the country? 

Mr. CHANDLER. Congressman Barletta, Members, the implications—it is a national flood insurance program. And I think FEMA, 

in the correspondence I have seen, has been pretty clear. They 

don’t want to do the Oregon flood insurance program, and the Florida flood insurance program, and the California flood insurance 

program. So I think what you are looking at here is the template 

being proposed nationally. 

As far as its impact in Oregon, you know, without getting too 

deep in the land-use weeds of my State, what this BiOp would require is a 170-foot set-back on—from the high-water mark of every 

stream, including ephemeral streams that only run seasonally in 

those 232 cities. And if you think about your own communities, or 

what Congressman DeFazio put on the map for Coos Bay, think of 

a 340-foot swath of essentially a no-build zone going through every 

community, or several times in that community, based on where 

the waters were. That is going to have a huge impact—particularly 

in Oregon, I suspect—because of our urban growth boundaries. But 

even in a State that doesn’t have that, if you think about that land 

coming out of production, and then that development capacity of 

that land going someplace else in your community is going to be 

dramatic. 

The other piece of this, of course, is that all the infrastructure 

planning is based upon the zoning on the books right now, whether 

it be Oregon or Illinois or California, it doesn’t matter. Every local 

government is basing their infrastructure—water, sewer, roads, et 

cetera—on where the maps say the development is going to go if 

this goes into effect. And now that development goes out of those 

areas someplace else, then not only is the land-use pattern 

changed, but the infrastructure financing pattern, as well, which is 

going to be doubly disastrous to those communities. 

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

Member Carson for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CARSON. Thank you. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Grimm, I understand that the Oregon reasonable and prudent alternatives required FEMA to change its regulations, guidance, and community rating service program. Will these changes be 

effective only in Oregon or could these changes apply nationwide, 

especially in the Hoosier State? 

Mr. GRIMM. Yes, sir. The—when FEMA changes its regulations, 

they will apply to all participating communities, including over 

22,000 communities, and including those nearly 1,400 communities 

that participate in the community rating system that are already 

implementing higher standards, often to the benefit of species. 

Mr. CARSON. Madam Shirley, do the RPAs require the State of 

Oregon and/or local communities to change existing laws? And, if 

so, have any laws that need to be changed been identified yet? Will 

the procedures used by the Oregon legislature meet the timeframe 

even used in Oregon? 

Ms. SHIRLEY. Yes. I believe we have identified a couple places 

where our State laws may need to change. And—but most imporVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:33 Feb 27, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\FULL\9-21-1~1\21645.TXT JEAN
19 

tantly, the local communities will need to change their regulations 

to comply. And that is a huge challenge. 

Mr. CARSON. Mayor Doyle—thank you, ma’am. You mentioned 

that you have met with both FEMA and NMFS over the years, yet 

the RPAs were still developed essentially in a vacuum. Do you feel 

that either Federal agency considered your comments when the 

RPAs were developed? 

Mr. DOYLE. You know, I really don’t know if that is the fact. Certainly what was ruled was not what we were looking to see happen. So I guess the answer would be a presumptive no. 

Mr. CARSON. OK. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Gibbs from Ohio. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am tempted to yield my 

time to the ranking member, but I heard the next one is going to 

do that, so I am trying to understand this issue a little bit. 

Mr. Chandler and Mr. Grimm, if a participating community 

made the choice to drop out of the National Flood Insurance Program, does that change a homebuilder’s responsibility under the 

Endangered Species Act? 

Mr. GRIMM. Not from FEMA’s perspective, and not—speaking on 

behalf of NMFS. Everybody—communities, individuals, and State 

and Federal Government have responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act. If they withdraw from the flood insurance program, their—FEMA’s involvement in that compliance with the Endangered Species Act, for example, through these RPAs, that would 

not apply. There would be other requirements that—I can’t speak 

for NMFS or the Services, but that would apply. 

Mr. CHANDLER. Mr. Chair, Congressman Gibbs, under current 

law, leaving out this RPA, if you have a 404 permit, for example, 

as a development project or subdivision, you have to go through 

consultation. That would not be changed. The only connection between the homebuilder that wasn’t subject to current law and now 

is this RPA. 

So, if we are not—if we take private flood insurance out, we are 

not subject to FEMA, we are not subject to NMFS thinking FEMA 

should do something, and now we are out of the program altogether. So we would not have to do any sort of hoop-jumping under 

the ESA, unless we already did under other Federal law. 

Mr. GIBBS. That is what I kind of figured. 

Mr. Grimm, in your testimony you mentioned instances in Oregon and Florida where FEMA has had to undertake consultations 

under the ESA and the implementation of the National Flood Insurance Program. Are you aware of similar issues potentially occurring in Ohio? 

Mr. GRIMM. I am not aware of any right now in Ohio. There are 

other States—California, Florida, we had some in Arizona. 

Mr. GIBBS. I guess, for the mayor, this RPA and the Endangered 

Species Act with FEMA, this is where it is all conflicting, the challenges. Can you explain that a little more, what is happening? 

Ms. CARRUTHERS. Sure. Thank you very much for the question. 

The difficulty for us is that it simply adds a level of bureaucracy, 

time, staff time that—and yields no real benefit in terms of endangered species protection. However, we are required to do it because 

the flood insurance program is so important to our community. We 

20 

saw no net increase in the acreage, habitat acreage that was protected. We simply saw a greater amount of paperwork, frankly. 

You know, FEMA—— 

Mr. GIBBS. Is this another example of one-size-fits-all policy out 

of DC? 

Ms. CARRUTHERS. Absolutely. I mean, we—you know, we—as I 

mentioned, we have over 30 endangered species and threatened 

species in the Keys. We are—for us, our environment is our economy. So we are very concerned with preserving the best aspects of 

that environment, and the—our ecosystem. So, you know, we seek 

to work with our governmental partners to do that, but only where 

it seems to make sense. And this is a case where it doesn’t make 

sense, it simply complicates the process. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Grimm, do you agree with that, or disagree with 

her? 

Mr. GRIMM. Could you clarify which part? 

Mr. GIBBS. She is talking about, you know, obviously, in the Florida Keys, you want to protect the environment and endangered 

species, because that is part of your tourism, part of your whole 

habitat, you know, it is ecosystem. And she has basically said that 

this is conflicting with the local input, it is a one-size-fits-all policy 

coming out of DC. I’ll just give you a chance to react to that. 

Mr. GRIMM. Sure. Yes, it is an interesting process, the consultation process is fed-to-fed, essentially. I personally had direct involvement in the RPA negotiations, or with Marine Fisheries, and 

recommended performance-based standards over prescriptive, recognizing that that is how we implement the National Flood Insurance Program, so that communities can come up with different alternative ways to implement this. 

So, it does add a tremendous level of complexity, I think, to local 

government land-use decisions and authorities. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Grimm, is there anything that Congress should 

be addressing to maybe help fix this, or help—you know, so it is 

a little simpler to get the process done? 

Mr. GRIMM. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today to discuss the complexities of what is going on with this issue. 

Mr. GIBBS. Anyone else want to respond to—Ms. Carruthers? 

Ms. CARRUTHERS. Well, thank you for that question. I mean, to 

me, I think that being able—that directing—well, first, I am not 

convinced that endangered species protection is a FEMA responsibility. It think that there are plenty of other entities that take care 

of that issue. So, I am—I would—if it is within Congress’ authority 

to remove FEMA from that particular aspect of this, it seems to 

make sense to me. 

You know, conversely, the Endangered Species Act requires every 

Federal entity to comply with its regulations. So if we—why stop 

at FEMA? Why not talk about low-income housing assistance? Why 

not talk about mortgages in general? I mean, you know, at some 

point we need to be—we need to make sure that the folks who can 

do a particular job well are given the tools to do that job well, and 

everybody else gets out of the way. 

Mr. GIBBS. Yes. 

Ms. CARRUTHERS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. My time has expired. 

21 

Mr. BARLETTA. The Chair recognizes Ms. Norton for 5 minutes. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am not sure which 

parts of the Endangered Species Act apply to my district, the Nation’s capital, District of Columbia, except for Members of Congress 

who may be endangered in the upcoming election. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. NORTON. But I can tell you this, that iconic parts of the Nation’s capital are located in a flood plain. So I have listened very 

carefully to this Oregon testimony, and appreciate it. 

Indeed, I have just finished working with FEMA on the 17th 

Street levee on the Mall to prevent floods on the Mall and the surrounding Federal and home-owning communities. Just this week I 

had a congressional briefing on flood risks to the Nation’s capital, 

the District of Columbia throughout, because this city is located on 

the banks of two rivers, the Potomac and the Anacostia. 

Now, therefore, when we heard what has occurred with Oregon, 

despite our understanding of the Endangered Species Act and how 

vital it is, one of the first questions that came to my mind, Mr. 

Grimm, was whether FEMA has the resources to potentially apply 

that model nationwide, if that is what you had to do. Because you 

answered to Mr. DeFazio that it should apply to all States, that it 

would apply to all States. 

Mr. GRIMM. Yes, ma’am. The resource issue is a real issue. If this 

applies to 22,000 communities, it is not only a resource issue at 

FEMA and our regional offices to implement something of this 

magnitude, but to our State and local and tribal partners that 

would also be implementing the recommendations through the National Marine Fisheries Service RPAs, if we change our regulations 

to implement. 

Ms. NORTON. So nothing like that is envisioned, in terms of its 

resources. At a time when we are trying to get resources just for 

vital life and death matters, this is a matter of some concern. 

I also listened very closely to Mr. Doyle’s testimony, because Beaverton, like the District of Columbia, wanted to expand its economic development. I have just had two really huge bills to come 

out of this Congress, one for the Southeast Waterfront, the Southwest Waterfront. The only way to expand in the Nation’s capital 

was to build right on the waterfront. We are very, very pleased 

with what is happening there. So, I have been looking very closely 

at the land-use decisions around there, which, by the way, have already been made, and are going to bring us extraordinary amounts 

of revenue. 

Now, I would like to ask Mr. Grimm, in light of Mr. Doyle’s testimony, I want to get an understanding of public input in the prudent—what is it, reasonable and prudent alternatives, RPA, process, why there isn’t—I mean in this Congress we are used to learning from the public. So virtually any regulation I can think of has 

public input, so we know what we are doing, both in terms of our 

own district, and in terms of the administrative process itself. 

So why isn’t there automatic public input of the kind that I am 

sure you are used to? And should there be more public input? How 

would you go about it? 

Mr. GRIMM. Thank you. It is a unique process, Federal-to-Federal. And in fact, the engagement that FEMA had with NMFS durVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:33 Feb 27, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\FULL\9-21-1~1\21645.TXT JEAN
22 

ing the development of the RPAs was unique. I personally was involved with discussions with NMFS with the Regional Administrator—— 

Ms. NORTON. Because I have one more question, I just want to 

know, is it possible to get input like the input, for example, from 

Beaverton before all of this occurred? 

Mr. GRIMM. Yes, ma’am. What we are going to do now—input 

wasn’t necessarily conducted through the NMFS process in the development of the RPAs. That could be, I believe, done better. I can’t 

speak on behalf of NMFS. 

However, now that the RPAs are out, FEMA’s intent in implementing the RPAs is to work closely with State, community, and 

tribal partners to develop reasonable alternatives for any of the 

RPAs that aren’t within our authorities, and implement—— 

Ms. NORTON. It is very important for the chairman to know what 

it is you intend to do about that input. 

Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence, I just have one question 

about the flooding of the National Mall and the Archives. 

In 2006, Federal buildings in the Federal Triangle were flooded. 

Horrendous pictures—for example, I remember seeing a picture of 

the Archives auditorium, the whole auditorium, or much of the 

front of the auditorium was under water. And that is all—IRS employees were put out of their headquarters for more than 6 months. 

So I have a real interest in who provides guidance. 

Does FEMA provide any guidance to Federal agencies on their 

land-use decisions and mitigation strategies? How do I know that 

the Archives and the entire Federal Triangle is not going to be 

flooded again, or that they have—do I know that they have taken 

mitigation in—of the kind that States, for example, would be required to take? 

Mr. GRIMM. Sure. Federal agencies comply with Executive Order 

11988, which—for flood plain management. So each Federal agency 

is responsible for looking at if they are in the flood plain, mitigation strategies to reduce damages—— 

Ms. NORTON. Can you tell me whether that has been done for the 

Federal Triangle? 

Mr. GRIMM. I don’t, but we can follow up and—— 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I would like that information submitted to the chairman, and I am sure that they will give it to me. 

Very important for me to know that. 

Mr. GRIMM. Yes, ma’am. Thank you. 

Mr. BARLETTA. The Chair recognizes Mr. Webster from Florida 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had a question for 

Mr. Grimm. You mentioned ongoing consultation regarding the implementation of the NFIP in Florida. Can you briefly discuss the 

basis of that consultation? 

Mr. GRIMM. Sure. It is similar to other ongoing issues across 

other States in that we are being challenged in regard to consulting 

on the implementation of the National Flood Insurance Program, 

and its role in private—we believe, from FEMA’s perspective—in 

private flood plain development. 

So, similar to Oregon, we are being challenged at looking at implementation through the permitting process, the flood plain manVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:33 Feb 27, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\FULL\9-21-1~1\21645.TXT JEAN
23 

agement, as well as our mapping standards, as we implement in 

communities throughout Florida. 

Mr. WEBSTER. So, during the process did FEMA get any public 

input regarding changes in implementation to the Services? 

Mr. GRIMM. For the public process in Oregon? 

Mr. WEBSTER. No, Florida. 

Mr. GRIMM. In Florida? I do not believe so at this point. This is 

a—again, similar to the Oregon—that Federal-to-Federal consultation process that doesn’t necessarily include public process. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Thank you very much. Yield back. 

Mr. BARLETTA. The Chair recognizes Ms. Frankel from Florida. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the witnesses 

for being here. 

So I want to just—I want to give an example of a real dilemma 

that a very, very poor city in my home county has. It is called 

South Bay. I am just going to go through some things that I think 

we have already said, but—to lead up to the story here. 

So Congress created the National Flood Insurance Program, as 

we have been talking about, NFIP, in 1968 in order to make flood 

insurance reasonably available to all property owners. We know 

that homeowners who live in a federally designated flood plain 

must obtain flood insurance in order to qualify for a federally 

backed mortgage. And I think, also, there is—there are other mortgages—even private mortgages, in some cases, requires that also. 

So, in order for—and, Honorable Carruthers, I think you mentioned this—in order for a community to participate in the NFIP, 

it must adopt FEMA’s flood plain map and meet minimum standards and regulations to mitigate flood damage. The flood maps declare what land is within a 100-year flood plain. I want to emphasize that, so I guess meaning that areas which FEMA determines 

will flood once every 100 years, or has a, I guess, a 1-percent 

chance of flooding every year for 100 years. Is that right, the 1 

percenter? 

Mr. GRIMM. [Nods head.] 

Ms. FRANKEL. OK. The participation in NFIP and compliance 

with FEMA land-use directives is technically voluntary, as we have 

heard, but local governments have little choice but to comply with 

the NFIP’s participation, because residents need flood insurance, 

and there is virtually—the private alternatives—well, in Florida, I 

don’t even know if there is any—is there anything in Florida these 

days? 

Ms. CARRUTHERS. Nothing significant that I—— 

Ms. FRANKEL. I know, I got—— 

Ms. CARRUTHERS. Surplus lines, possibly. 

Ms. FRANKEL. I got booted out of my flood insurance. All right. 

So, now I want to just talk about the dilemma with South Bay. 

The new flood maps deem the city of South Bay, Florida, to be completely within a 100-year flood plain, requiring the residents of this 

city, which is one of the least advantaged cities in our State—I 

mean we are talking about very, very, very poor. So it requires the 

purchase of costly insurance coverage from the NFIP. 

Now, this is new. And the reason that FEMA has said that they 

are going to put South Bay in this is because of the—it is near 

Lake Okeechobee. Lake Okeechobee needs its levees strengthened, 

24 

which is being done by the Army Corps, which is—I don’t want to 

say anything bad about the Army Corps, but I am just saying this 

has sort of been dragging for a lot of years, all right? A lot of lot 

of years. And now the Army Corps says it is going to complete the 

work on the Herbert Hoover dike in 9 years. 

OK, so here is my question. Well, to get to it. Oh, if it is a 1- 

percent chance each year for 100 years, and this is supposed to be 

resolved by the Army Corps, which has been taking too long—in 9 

years—why does South Bay, where one-third of them are living 

below the poverty line, have to pay the costly premiums now? Because they are not going to be at risk for 100 years. OK, try to give 

that a shot, if you can answer it? 

Mr. GRIMM. Thank you, ma’am. So, FEMA maps flood plains. 

And one of the areas of—that we do map associated with levees. 

And levees have to meet certain standards in order for FEMA to 

reflect the reduced risk behind levees. The Army Corps builds levees and then certifies levees, and then we update the map to show 

that reduced risk. Once Army Corps gets through that process of 

constructing the levee and then certifying the levee to FEMA to 

certify that so that we can then remove that flood area behind the 

levee, and then the insurance requirements change based on that 

newly mapped zone. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Mr. Chairman, I just ask a—OK, thank you. 

I am glad to hear that. How long will that process take? 

Mr. GRIMM. After the—— 

Ms. FRANKEL. Yes. 

Mr. GRIMM [continuing]. Certifies? I don’t want to say that depends, but that depends. It can take some time. It can take up to 

a year or two. I can’t give you a certain date. I am not familiar 

with that particular situation. In some cases, when we have all of 

that data well ahead of time—hopefully that is occurring in this 

case, and I can certainly look into that for you to find out a little 

bit more about the case for your situation, though. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Well, I am glad to know that it will eventually be 

alleviated, but I—I mean it is not—you know, what can happen to 

a community, even in a period of 9 years, in a few years where people can’t get mortgages for houses, and you have a economically 

devastated area now. Could you imagine the devastation when people cannot buy homes any more? I mean it is a pretty bad situation. 

And the delay being caused not by anything that the people are 

doing or not doing, but the Federal Government in fixing a problem. So, you know, I just—I thank you for your answer, but I don’t 

think the people in South Bay are going to be happy with it. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Mr. Davis for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am glad I got to follow my colleague, Ms. Frankel. You know, 9 years with the Corps 

of Engineers is like a 100-yard dash. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. DAVIS. So that is pretty good. Try representing the Mississippi River, where we have multiple levees and multiple State 

issues. And some of the concerns that you brought up, you know, 

25 

about there seems to be a race sometimes between FEMA and the 

Corps of Engineers to figure out what is going to cost constituents 

more. Levees need to be upgraded and our locals are making the 

investments to upgrade those levees. 

And at the same time, like in my State of Illinois, we are in a 

different region than Missouri is. So the different regions have different priorities as to where they are going to update their flood 

maps, you know, geographically, first. To me it would seem more— 

it would seem like it would be a commonsense approach to update 

those via regional capacities, like along the river, along the populated areas, versus rural areas. And that is something I know we 

have discussed with your office. 

I do want to get to mitigation. And Mr. Grimm, would you agree 

that States like Illinois have invested in mitigation, you know, 

post-1993 and in 1995 floods, you know, we have moved towns completely off of the flood plain, into higher ground, because we don’t 

want to have those liabilities during future flood events. 

Mr. GRIMM. Absolutely, sir. I know the State very well, and your 

State is very progressive. 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, thank you. I will even take the term ‘‘progressive’’ today as a compliment. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. DAVIS. We—Illinois has removed flood-prone properties, thus 

costing the taxpayers less in future flood events. But we are a 

State, too, that is punished because of our population, and where 

our center is, in the northeast corner of the State. So when we 

have disaster declarations, where most of the disasters hit in Illinois, they are in rural areas and we don’t meet the threshold. 

Now, other States that don’t have the same problem, would you 

agree that they may not be incentivized to participate in the mitigation program as much and invest as much in mitigation or participate in hazard mitigation? 

Mr. GRIMM. Could you clarify? I am—— 

Mr. DAVIS. So States—smaller States that don’t have a higher 

threshold to meet to have a disaster declared each and every time 

a disaster occurs, regardless of whether it is in an urban or rural 

area of their State, are they, under the current program, less 

incentivized to invest in mitigation because they are going to be 

awarded a disaster declaration, whereas States like Illinois, high 

population, one part of the State, we don’t get declared. We are 

not—we don’t have access to those resources in a disaster declaration that States surrounding us do, even in the same disaster. 

So, we have invested more on the front end, on the mitigation 

side. To me it seems there is no incentive for smaller States, less 

populous States, a lower threshold, there is no incentive, in my 

opinion, to invest the dollars in mitigation. 

And I would—so that is my question to you. Do you believe that 

is true? 

Mr. GRIMM. Well, I think the pre-disaster/post-disaster mitigation discussion is a very interesting and tough discussion. As you 

know, HMGP dollars for mitigation, the Hazard Mitigation Grant 

Program, provide dollars post-disaster. 

Mr. DAVIS. But the States have to invest, locals have to invest. 

They have to take the time to do it. And it seems to me that, the 

26 

way the current FEMA formula exists for disaster declarations, it 

disincentivizes them from investing long term like States like Illinois are forced to do. 

Mr. GRIMM. I think there is the other side of the coin with predisaster mitigation, and the pre-disaster mitigation program that 

provides States that don’t have as many disasters, provides dollars 

available. 

For example, this year we had $100 million available under the 

pre-disaster mitigation program. We just announced those awards. 

We receive four times the dollar—in applications than dollars 

available. So there is, to your point, a huge—— 

Mr. DAVIS. That is—— 

Mr. GRIMM [continuing]. Need for mitigation. 

Mr. DAVIS. That is great. And I have got another question, so let 

me reclaim my time. 

But I would urge you, in the next flood on the Mississippi 

River—and there will be one—take a helicopter ride down the 

river. Look left in Illinois, and look at the—you know, the limited 

damage because of mitigation, and then look right, and you will see 

whole towns flooded, still. So there is a lack of incentive, I still believe that. 

Now, are you—does the mitigation division run the LOMA process? 

Mr. GRIMM. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. OK. 

Mr. GRIMM. Federal insurance mitigation? Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Yes. It is the process that my homeowners have to 

follow when FEMA, the new map, declares their house or property 

in the flood plain. 

What is the average time it takes for a LOMA request to be decided by FEMA right now? 

Mr. GRIMM. I don’t have that. That is a little bit out of my program lane. I would be glad to get those statistics for you, though. 

Mr. DAVIS. OK, because we have a problem with updated maps 

that are not accurate right now. And I think there needs to be a 

better, more succinct process in place that costs taxpayers less. 

Sure, we want an appeal process, but I just don’t necessarily 

think the LOMA process is as efficient as it could be, and I hope 

you take that message back. And I have run out of—— 

Mr. GRIMM. I will. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Mr. Curbelo 

from Florida for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CURBELO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, although 

Mr. DeFazio has, I think, dissected this issue very effectively, as 

he is known to do, I do have a couple questions. 

And I first want to note I know a lot of communities throughout 

the country invest a lot in resiliency and mitigation, and that is 

certainly the case in the Florida Keys, and not just to mitigate 

against the risks of traditional flooding and disasters, which we are 

accustomed to in Florida, but Florida Keys is also leaning forward 

and thinking about climate change and rising sea levels—natural, 

when you live at sea level near the sea. So, I know just how much 

communities like the Florida Keys invest and dedicate resources to 

these efforts. 

27 

So, Mayor Carruthers, I want to ask you, these RPAs—and mitigation is important to this committee, I have actually filed legislation in support of Chairman Barletta to promote smarter mitigation throughout the country, but does anything in these RPAs in 

this policy scheme promote smarter mitigation policies that are 

making the Florida Keys less vulnerable? 

Ms. CARRUTHERS. Thank you, Congressman, for your question. 

You know, as I see that, no. In other words, the RPAs don’t have 

anything to do with how one mitigates if one were to build. It only 

has to do with where one builds, and those issues are already addressed through our restrictions such as our categorization of each 

property, based on its environmental sensitivity, based on its location, whether it is near a population center, or U.S. 1, or not, based 

on its habitat quality. So that doesn’t really impact—have anything 

to do with mitigation against damage from flood. 

Mr. CURBELO. And, Mr. Grimm, I want to ask you. NFIP in the 

Florida Keys is a way of life. It is just part of who we are. And 

I have an interest in representing my community and preserving 

a strong, robust, healthy NFIP. Do you fear that some of these policies could undermine NFIP and perhaps could ultimately encourage communities to opt out and weaken the program? 

Mr. GRIMM. From a FEMA perspective, what I am concerned 

about is inconsistent implementation across the Nation as a result 

of the RPAs, and as we implement regulations that affect all communities. 

You know, as you know, Congress designed the NFIP to be implemented at the local and State level where land-use authority resides, and that is how we have been implementing it since 1968, 

and working with communities to make smart mitigation strategies 

and implement mitigation decisions. 

Mr. CURBELO. So do you perceive any threats to the NFIP as a 

result of these issues that we are encountering in Oregon and 

throughout the country? 

Mr. GRIMM. I think the inconsistent implementation of the NFIP 

across the Nation could be a significant challenge. 

Mr. CURBELO. Thank you very much. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Mr. Hanna from 

New York for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HANNA. I am going to yield my time to the ranking member, 

Mr. DeFazio. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I thank my friend. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Grimm, what exact climate change model are you going to 

use? 

Mr. GRIMM. I think the best answer for that is we are still looking at available data for that model, and particularly looking at the 

mapping and advisory council recommendations, and what they 

would recommend to FEMA. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yes, I could point you to Oregon State University, 

where we have a couple of world-renowned climate change scientists, who say that, actually, there are incredibly contradictory 

models, which are both scientifically credible, for Oregon, where we 

may have more or less flooding. We may have way less rain and 

precipitation—i.e., you know, we may actually maybe have a smaller 100-year flood—that is one model. The other model is, oh, no, 

28 

it is going to be a huge expansion. So, how the heck are you going 

to figure that out? 

Mr. GRIMM. That is something we are still working out, sir. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yes. OK. Yes, that is going to take some interesting work. 

So does that have anything to do with—you sent a letter which 

caused a tremendous amount of concern that they—you know, on 

June 13th, that communities could either voluntarily impose a temporary moratorium on all flood plain development that adversely 

impacts ESA-listed species—that would be like repaving Highway 

101, for instance—or voluntarily implement interim measures 

found in the RPA until all permanent RPA elements are in place. 

Now, I understand that this was supposed to kick in on the 13th 

of September, or—and it hasn’t. What is the delay? How long are 

you going to delay imposing this new restriction? 

Mr. GRIMM. So the RPA 1 required outreach and education. That 

letter was part of meeting the requirements from National Marine 

Fisheries Service in implementation of RPA number 1. 

Interesting part about these RPAs are there are two sets of 

RPAs, the interim measures, as you pointed out, and the long-term 

measures that, you know, go out to 2021. We have some options, 

as you point out, in terms of a community could adopt that type 

of prohibition. FEMA has no intent to go and suspend or implement compliance until we get our guidance out. Our intent is to 

work with the States, communities, and National Marine Fisheries—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Well, what is the new deadline? I mean you had 

a deadline before. Is there a new deadline? Have you set it? 

Mr. GRIMM. No, we have not set a new deadline. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. And when do we anticipate we might know 

what the new deadline is? 

Mr. GRIMM. I can get back to you on that, sir. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK, all right. And then, there is, of course, an exception. ‘‘Where implementation of the mitigation standards set 

forth above is impracticable, a community may propose alternative 

mitigation standards’’—sounds good—‘‘which will be acceptable if 

both FEMA and National Marine Fisheries Service agree the alternative standards provide the resource protection equivalent to that 

provided by the measures above.’’ 

You have experts in your agency that can make these sorts of determinations on that? 

Mr. GRIMM. No, we don’t have biologists on staff, per se. We can, 

you know, contract out, for example, to get those services. That is 

my understanding of that particular alternative, and that is one 

that I had involvement in negotiating. That is the type of flexibility 

that we wanted to get in there. My understanding, though, is that 

the—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. It is not much flexibility if you include NMFS—— 

Mr. GRIMM. I—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO [continuing]. Giving them veto power. 

Mr. GRIMM. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. You know, I find this all very extraordinary. We 

have two Federal agencies that consult with one another. It seems 

like one that can bully or overrule you and require you to do things 

29 

that are beyond your legal authority, or at least propose them, and 

no public involvement. 

I mean I am really familiar with the National Environmental 

Policy Act. I mean why—you know, this is—it seems to me it is, 

like, way outside of what NEPA usually requires by Federal actions. This is a Federal action. Why doesn’t NEPA apply, which requires a public process, before you propose something? Why doesn’t 

that apply in this case? 

Mr. GRIMM. I can’t speak on behalf of the National Marine Fisheries Service in terms of the process with development of the RPAs. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yes. 

Mr. GRIMM. You know, as I stated, the process that was used 

was very unique, that FEMA got, I believe, extra time to try to negotiate and work through these RPAs to make them more flexible. 

And from a FEMA perspective, as well, when, for example, we 

work with communities to either develop ordinances or new mapping products, even, we do hold series of committee meetings in the 

mapping process, for example, to get data, to talk through—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. I—no, I was involved with that, and a county commissioner—— 

Mr. GRIMM. Yes. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Just one more quick point, Mr. Chairman. 

So now that NMFS—and my understanding is they say, well, we 

don’t like what we did in Washington State, because, A, they don’t 

have comprehensive land-use planning, unlike Oregon, so they 

have much more sprawl and that, but we gave them flexibility, but 

it is not working sufficiently, but now we are going to have a new 

prescriptive approach in Oregon, which we hope to apply nationwide to every State in the Union, no matter how different or diverse they are, or what species. 

How do we get Washington State to move—you know, I mean, 

what are our options up there? If what they are doing is insufficient, is their RPA, you know, permanent, with all this flexibility? 

Or is there a way to challenge that and say, gee, I think now 

Washington State needs to fall under the new prescriptions in Oregon? 

Mr. GRIMM. Two parts to that. FEMA believes the—from a 

FEMA perspective—that the Washington State RPA is working, 

and we appreciate the flexibility in that implementation so we can 

work with communities. 

If we do change our regulatory requirements, that would apply 

nationwide. And I imagine it is—I am kind of speculating here— 

it could impact the way Washington implements the current—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. So existing RPAs could be impacted because of the 

regulatory changes that are going to be necessary to implement the 

dictates of NMFS for Oregon? 

Mr. GRIMM. I believe that is a possibility, sir. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Well, I hope my colleagues from the other 49 

United States are listening. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BARLETTA. The Chair recognizes Dr. Babin for 5 minutes. 

Dr. BABIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Local officials 

in my district in La Porte, Texas, have expressed to me their concerns about FEMA rules regarding properties that are bought out 

30 

via the FEMA program to purchase homes that have experienced 

repetitive losses as a result of flooding. And we have seen quite a 

bit of it over the last few years there. 

FEMA rules prevent the property from being redeveloped in a 

manner that would not eliminate the risk of further property loss. 

So removal of these properties also permanently reduces the tax 

rolls for these municipalities, and also the revenue for communities 

that are not able to expand their boundaries. 

They have also told me that FEMA’s enforcement of property 

maintenance guidelines for those properties they have purchased 

has been seriously inadequate, as properties have not been kept up 

to local community standards. Frequently, the properties are overrun with weeds and grass and violation of local property maintenance codes. 

So, Administrator Grimm, I would ask you. What are your 

thoughts in revisiting this program to give local communities an 

opportunity to reacquire and redevelop these properties so that 

they can be better put to use? 

Mr. GRIMM. Sure. Thank you, sir. 

Dr. BABIN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GRIMM. Under our grant programs, there is a number of 

mitigation options. Acquisitions is one of those options. It is a voluntary program, so that, as a community develops its mitigation 

strategies, it will submit—the community will submit projects to 

the State, who will then submit projects to FEMA. And that can 

happen either post-disaster, under our Hazard Mitigation Grant 

Program, under our flood mitigation assistance program that is 

largely directed at these repetitive loss properties, or under our 

pre-disaster mitigation program. 

Under all three of those grant programs, voluntary programs for 

property owner to participate in the acquisition, the grantee, the 

State, and the community—the sub-grantee, generally—sign an 

agreement to de-restrict those properties in perpetuity, as you 

point out, to prevent future losses. 

Under our current framework and laws and authorities and program implementation, that does not permit certain development 

back on to those properties. It has to be compatible with open 

space. FEMA—for example, parks, recreation—— 

Dr. BABIN. Right. 

Mr. GRIMM. Preserving natural beneficial functions with the— 

under the Endangered—in line with, for example, this discussion 

on endangered species. Over the years, FEMA has spent approximately $2.5 billion on acquisitions in this—across the Nation to acquire acquisition properties, at-risk properties, and keep those in 

perpetuity. 

Dr. BABIN. OK. And then what advice would you give to local officials who are dealing with this maintenance and upkeep issues? 

And also, if I could, I would like to have your commitment that 

you or one of your officials could reach out directly to the officials 

in La Porte, Texas, and work with them to address as many issues 

as you can under the existing law and FEMA policy. 

Mr. GRIMM. Yes, sir. We will have somebody reach out directly 

to those officials following this hearing. And in—could you repeat 

the—— 

31 

Dr. BABIN. Yes. The first one was what advice would you give 

these officials when you do reach out to them? 

Mr. GRIMM. So I think, as communities and States develop their 

mitigation strategies, that is really the time and place to start 

thinking about whether or not they want to do that activity. Because, frankly, sir, sometimes when you do the onesies and twosies, 

it creates a checkerboard pattern, and it creates a situation that 

you are talking about. So, working through hazard mitigation planning, and looking at long-term strategies, and whether or not we— 

the community wants to go down that mitigation option. 

Dr. BABIN. Thank you very much. This has been a ongoing problem, not only in my district and districts to the west, but also 

across the Sabine, over in Louisiana, where we are going to wind 

up having lots of neighborhoods and whole sections of communities 

and cities that are going to be ghost towns. They want to know how 

to deal with that. 

So, thank you very much. I appreciate you reaching out to my 

constituents in La Porte. 

Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman—— 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Mr. Costello 

from Pennsylvania for 5 minutes. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. By the way of brief background, I used to be a township supervisor in Chester County, and 

we handled all land-use approvals. I then went on to be a county 

commissioner in Chester County. I see we have the NACo letterhead here; I was a proud member of NACo. But I never—I also was 

an attorney, a land-use lawyer who regularly dealt with regulations 

in terms of ultimately getting a project to the approval stage. 

I share that with you because it is usually the case that a developer and a municipal official will find ways to disagree with one 

another during the course of an application. So the fact that you 

have NACo here and you have the homebuilders here, both saying 

that this is highly problematic, I think is very, very telling. 

It concerns me that the status quo, as it exists right now, is not 

going to work, moving forward. It is simply unmanageable, and it 

is only going to get worse. And when you have RPAs that, for all 

intents and purposes—and I agree with the assertion by FEMA 

that additional set-aside land outside of the flood plain is outside 

of your jurisdiction, and yet you are being told, even though you 

have jurisdiction, that you must do that, I think that is highly 

problematic. 

And what is going to continue to happen, or what is at least 

plausible, and I would submit as predictable, is what is happening 

is you will have an organization come in, file suit, if for no other 

reason than to simply expand the amount of developable—excuse 

me, to reduce the amount of developable land. And by developable 

land, I mean private property. And to Dr. Babin’s point, land that 

comes off the tax rolls. 

I don’t understand how FEMA must essentially subordinate jurisdiction on this issue. And I just want to share a couple other 

points I found relevant, and then I will just open up to whomever 

would like to respond. 

32 

And most particularly comes from the—from NACo, from the 

mayor. Although participation in NFIP is technically voluntary, 

‘‘local governments have little choice but to comply with the participation requirements.’’ In this way, participation requirements effectively serve as Federal regulations that force local governments to 

adjust their policies in order to maintain eligibility for the program. 

That is one thing that you must deal with FEMA. And I don’t 

mean this to be disrespectful towards FEMA, but there have been 

many times, as local officials, we voice frustration with FEMA. Not 

in your emergency response, but as it particularly relates to the 

flood plain management program. Now it is only going to become 

more frustrating. And it is not FEMA’s fault, it is who FEMA has 

to deal with as a third party. 

So I will invite any of you to pick up where I left off. But let me 

just say for the record this is not going to work, moving forward. 

Like, this will persist and it will essentially—and it will become, 

it already has become, a tactic that is going to be used in every single community, in every single State across this country, until we 

sit back and say, ‘‘OK, somewhere along the line things went 

askew. How do we fix it?’’ I think we need to fix it now. 

I do think that there is a preemption issue here, where FEMA 

essentially needs to reassert its jurisdiction and the ESA cannot 

find its way in the middle of how we go about delineating flood 

plains and implementing the flood insurance program. Forty seconds. 

Ms. CARRUTHERS. If I may, thank you, Congressman Costello. 

And I think you framed the issue correctly. 

You know, we see FEMA as a partner in protecting our community, particularly as it relates to flood and disaster response. However, this is an area that is outside of its realm of responsibility, 

and it is outside of its wheelhouse. And we don’t believe it adds 

value to the process, and it essentially creates an unfunded mandate for local governments. 

Fifteen percent of our staff and of our operating budget is for 

growth management, and we only issue 197 permits a year. It does 

not make sense. And it is primarily because of regulations like this 

that we are forced to comply with—— 

Mr. COSTELLO. Well, I mean, I would say—I would agree with 

you that FEMA—you view FEMA as a partner. I would think that 

FEMA wants to be that partner. I would ask FEMA to share—and 

the other thing that it is going to do is it is going to drive up costs 

on the private landowner side. It is also going to drive up the costs 

of approvals and the ultimate cost of whatever ultimately is able 

to get built. It is also going to drive up the cost of insurance for 

everybody. 

But from the FEMA perspective, what is the solution, if—in a 

perfect world, what is the solution to how to address the encroachment on your jurisdiction? 

Mr. GRIMM. So I think one of the big concerns that we have are 

the prescriptive nature. So the flexibility that we have seen in 

other areas, or increased flexibility in general, on the way this can 

be implemented at the State and local level—— 

Mr. COSTELLO. And by ‘‘prescriptive,’’ you mean essentially ad 

hoc. Like, I mean—— 

33 

Mr. GRIMM. The—— 

Mr. COSTELLO. Every community—I mean it is going to be a different flavor all across the—there is no uniformity, right? 

Mr. GRIMM. Correct. You know, we are concerned about that uniform implementation. But the performance-based standards over 

prescriptive standards that are reflected in the Oregon RPA—— 

Mr. COSTELLO. The final point that I would make—I know I have 

gone well over my time, but if I could just make this—I think it 

becomes very difficult to evaluate risk when you don’t have uniformity, because you, in essence, aren’t necessarily guaranteeing or 

providing the same standard or level of standard uniformly across 

the country when you don’t have uniformity as it relates to implementation of NFIP standards in the first instance. I mean, that is 

just another piece of it. 

Now, that would be for the underwriters, but I just—this is very 

unworkable, and this concerns me greatly. 

Thank you for allowing me to go over. I yield back. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. The chair will now begin a second 

round. 

OK, the Chair will now recognize Mr. Graves for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to 

thank the—Mr. DeFazio for bringing these issues up. 

I had a few questions. Number one, Mr. Grimm, H.R. 2901 

passed the House unanimously, as I recall, a few months ago, and 

that would effectively allow for private insurers to offer flood insurance. If someone—if that were to become law and folks were to 

offer private insurance, would this have an effect on property owners, if they use private flood insurance, as opposed to going through 

NFIP? 

Mr. GRIMM. As related to the implementation of the RPAs? 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Yes, that is correct. 

Mr. GRIMM. So it is the participation in the flood insurance program and the flood plain management standards that would take 

precedence—— 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. So as long as—— 

Mr. GRIMM. So—— 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. But if a community chose—if a community, if a county, if a parish in Louisiana, if a city chose to opt 

for entirely private insurance, would this apply? 

Mr. GRIMM. And withdrew from the flood insurance program? 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. That is correct. 

Mr. GRIMM. Then, no, FEMA would not be involved with implementing the RPAs through our FEMA program. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. OK. So we would have dire consequences for these endangered species. I am being facetious. OK, 

so I just wanted to make that point. 

Number two, let me ask another question. In regard to some of 

the elevation requirements that are in place regarding having to 

build above base flood elevation, in this case—and I apologize, having gone through some of the specific details in Oregon as much as, 

obviously, Mr. DeFazio has, but is elevating above these flood 

plains, is that an option under these RPAs in some areas? 

Mr. GRIMM. That is one of the options we want to explore on the 

alternatives. Right now there are certain prohibitions entirely in 

34 

certain parts of the flood plain. So, from FEMA’s perspective, that 

is not an option in some areas of the flood plain. In other areas, 

where they give us—we talked about a alternative a little while 

ago. That is what we would want to explore. And that is the type 

of performance-based standard that we implement in the NFIP. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. All right, I am going to pivot to a couple of other questions. 

If someone’s vulnerability under NFIP—meaning their actuarial 

risk increased not as a result of something they did, but maybe as 

a result of something their neighbor did, how would that work in 

regard to the premiums that homeowner would be paying? 

So, give you a scenario. If I had a creek in my backyard and decided I didn’t like it any more, and I decided to fill it in, which then 

made the water run and make my neighbor’s home more vulnerable, what would happen in that case? 

Mr. GRIMM. So, under the flood plain management regulations, 

that would be in a—going along with the scenario here, that would 

be—fill in the flood way that the local community would have to 

go permit, they would go through a no-rise certificate, we call it, 

so—— 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Now, what would happen if that scenario resulted from the Federal Government’s actions? 

Mr. GRIMM. We would have to work with that other Federal partner to evaluate any impacts upstream or downstream to eliminate 

any upstream or downstream—— 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. And the State of Louisiana, following 

Biggert-Waters and the subsequent tweaks that occurred in 2014, 

folks have seen flood insurance rates increase, in some cases, 1,000 

percent in some of the extreme cases. And FEMA blames this upon 

actuarial analyses that have been done. Yet when you look at the 

actual vulnerability, it is largely tied back to Federal Government 

actions, specifically the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Do you 

think that is fair? 

Mr. GRIMM. I am not familiar with that particular case. The insurance—— 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Do you think it is fair if someone’s 

vulnerability or risk of flooding increased because of someone else’s 

actions, that they should be paying higher premiums? 

Mr. GRIMM. The NFIP requirements prohibit a neighbor—in your 

example, for example—to increase flood hazards on a downstream 

or upstream neighbor. So we would look to the communities to ensure that is not happening. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. OK. But in this case, again, it would 

be the Federal Government that is causing this to happen. 

I want to change gears again. Something else that we have been 

spending a lot of time focused on—I heard Mr. Davis citing the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—right now in the Federal Government you have hazard mitigation policies. And, as you have stated 

FEMA runs, I think, three different programs that you could—predisaster mitigation, hazard mitigation, and others, where you could 

potentially mitigate some risk or vulnerabilities. 

The Corps of Engineers has a flood protection program. HUD did 

their design competition. Under this budget request Interior now 

has—well, there is an attempt for Interior to create a resiliency 

35 

program. What efforts are you all taking at FEMA to try to coordinate with all of these various resilience efforts and programs out 

there to reduce your liability under NFIP? 

Mr. GRIMM. So some of the design competition, for example, my 

staff participate on those panels to look at the different types of 

projects. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Do you engage with the Corps of Engineers? Do you engage with other agencies, as well? 

Mr. GRIMM. Absolutely. We have a very close relationship—— 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. So in the case of Louisiana, where we 

just had a 1,000-year flood, 7 trillion gallons of water come down, 

31 inches of rain in 36 hours, in some areas; there was a Corps of 

Engineers project that has been around since the early 1980s, been 

around about 30 years. The only component of the project that has 

been built is this little bayou control structure that literally is a 

bathtub that connects to nothing. It is not designed to be a reservoir. It is just—it is a component of a project that doesn’t connect 

to anything yet—30 years, yet this is on track, as I understand it 

to be, the fourth most costly flood disaster in U.S. history. Extraordinary vulnerabilities to the flood insurance program. 

Do you see that as being good use and good stewards of taxpayer 

dollars, to have this fundamental disconnect and a 30-year project 

with the Corps of Engineers, yet all of this hundreds of millions of 

dollars are now going to be expended by NFIP? 

Mr. GRIMM. Yes, I can’t speak for the Corps of Engineers on 

funding for the project or where it stands, in terms of—— 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Last question, Mr. Chairman. 

Under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and other programs, there are many cases the State of Louisiana has tried to 

come in and use those funds to help protect entire communities, 

not just elevate individual homes, which does have a role in some 

cases. But let’s keep in mind, when flood is coming, you elevate individual homes, the homes are now islands. Their cars are flooded, 

they can’t get to the job, grocery stores, or whatever else. 

Do you think it is reasonable to restrict or prevent Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funds to be used to build out these federally 

authorized projects that Congress itself at some point said was 

worthwhile and in the public interest? Do you think that that duplication of benefits or restriction or prohibition on using those 

funds is—really makes much sense? 

Mr. GRIMM. Well, right now we are prohibited from using the 

dollars for—— 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. I am aware of what right now is, but 

I am wondering if you think that is reasonable policy. 

Mr. GRIMM. It is—— 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. To leave a project in the construction 

process for 30 or 40 years, leave people vulnerable. You got money 

on the table, design for resilience, but then prohibiting them from 

building a project that achieves—— 

Mr. GRIMM. Yes, it is the current law that we have to follow. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. But that wasn’t my question. Do you 

think it is appropriate? Do you think it is reasonable? 

Mr. GRIMM. I think the funds that FEMA has for mitigation that 

we work through State and local governments that then 

36 

prioritize—so, for example, in Louisiana right now we are going to 

work very closely with the State of Louisiana to develop mitigation 

strategies that may involve flood control projects at the local or 

State level, or mitigation strategies for individual homeowners. We 

will certainly coordinate with the Corps of Engineers on a Federal 

project. However, we are prohibited from cost sharing on those 

projects, by law. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. So you think it is unreasonable. You 

agree with me. Thank you. 

Mr. BARLETTA. I now recognize Mr. DeFazio for an additional 5 

minutes. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, first I 

would like to ask unanimous consent to put three letters in the 

record. One is from the Governor of the State of Oregon, expressing 

concerns about the potential implementation and concerns with the 

RPA. One is from myself, listing many concerns about this. And the 

third is from the Oregon delegation, or from six Members of the Oregon delegation, also expressing concern. 

Mr. BARLETTA. So ordered. 

[The letters referenced by Congressman DeFazio are on pages 85–92.] 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

So, Ms. Shirley, under Oregon law, measure 49 requires local 

communities to compensate property owners for any portion of land 

taken. What is going to happen with that under this proposal, this 

proposed RPA? 

Ms. SHIRLEY. Yes. We are evaluating that, the measure 49 issue 

at my office. And measure 49 has a off-ramp for activities that reduce hazards. And so, to the extent to which the RPAs reduce hazard, they would likely not be measure 49—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yes, but the whole intent of this RPA is not hazards. That is the problem—— 

Ms. SHIRLEY. Yes, exactly. That is where I was going next. But 

if the RPA does not directly relate to hazard reduction, then there 

could potentially be measure 49 claims. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. So, large areas, as the mayor of Beaverton mentioned—I was just looking at more maps in Coos Bay, where there 

has been State and local investment for hopeful massive redevelopment—and those areas become unbuildable, then the State is potentially on the hook for those costs. 

Ms. SHIRLEY. That is exactly why we want to work with FEMA 

to—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right, but FEMA is being forced to do this by 

NMFS, and—— 

Ms. SHIRLEY. Well, FEMA and NMFS. But yes, it is our intention 

not to create unbuildable lands. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. 

Ms. SHIRLEY. To the maximum extent that we are able to do. But 

we do have that—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. But without flexibility, as we have heard 

many times from the Administrator, that is going to be very hard 

to do. 

Ms. SHIRLEY. It could be difficult. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yes. 

37 

Ms. SHIRLEY. It is going to be a tough road to hoe. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yes. Mr. Chandler, you also mentioned the takings 

issue. Do you want to—— 

Mr. CHANDLER. Mr. Chair, Congressman DeFazio, yes, that is 

a—should be a very great concern for local governments and the 

State, because it is part of Oregon State law. And as one of the examples of things that NMFS simply didn’t ask about when they 

were doing this because of the lack of consultation with State or 

local governments—you asked an earlier question about the options 

that were available. 

One of the reasons that nothing has happened on the moratorium side, for example, is that Oregon statutes are very restrictive 

about when a local government can declare a development moratorium. Keeping NMFS happy is not one of the provisions. 

So, we simply cannot do that in Oregon. The measure 49 issue, 

the land-use issue, all of this adds up to exactly why we are very 

happy this issue is in front of this Congress. This needs to be resolved. This is causing—if it does forward the way it is written, 

with the best intentions of FEMA and the State notwithstanding, 

it is going to cause tremendous damage: policy damage, financial 

damage, local governments, private sector, across the board. And as 

Mayor Carruthers has indicated, in her district, probably with very 

little impact on the actual species, it is purported to be the basis 

for the regulation in the first place. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. I just want to go back to that again, Mayor. 

I mean you went through a process that went on for how long? 

Ms. CARRUTHERS. Thank you, Congressman DeFazio. Well, let’s 

see. Probably since 1990, frankly, when the environmental groups 

sued the Government, sued FEMA and NFIP. We were not party 

to that suit. There was a settlement agreement between NFIP and 

Fish and Wildlife that resulted in these RPAs that we now are 

forced to enforce. 

But in the 15 years that it took for this suit to get—to be finalized, and the settlement to be reached, we had already been in the 

process of updating our comprehensive plan to protect endangered 

species. And, frankly, everything that is in the RPAs was simply 

taken from our data and our regulations and repackaged and given 

back to us to enforce in a new way. 

So, it literally resulted in no net value to the process, no net improvement in protection of endangered species that we already care 

very much about. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. And I assume there was some cost associated with 

this. 

Ms. CARRUTHERS. There is cost and, frankly, I haven’t added it 

up. But as I mentioned earlier, we have a huge growth management department, and we have essentially no growth in our country. We have property owners that have not been able to—that 

were not able to build. 

And it also, you know, contributes to our issues with takings, as 

Mr. Chandler said, as well. We have huge takings issues in our 

county, and we litigate against those. So it has been quite a burden 

on our residents. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. And no net gain or—— 

Ms. CARRUTHERS. Improvement. 

38 

Mr. DEFAZIO [continuing]. Substantial change. That is just extraordinary. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. And I would like to thank you all for 

your testimony. Your comments have been helpful to today’s discussion. 

If there are no further questions, I would ask unanimous consent 

that the record of today’s hearing remain open until such time as 

our witnesses have provided answers to any questions that may be 

submitted to them in writing, and unanimous consent that the 

record remain open for 15 days for any additional comments and 

information submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in 

the record of today’s hearing. 

Without objection, so ordered. I would like to thank our witnesses again for their testimony today. If no other Members have 

anything to add, the subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:01 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

39 


Insert offset folio 6 here 21645.006
40 


Insert offset folio 7 here 21645.007
41 


Insert offset folio 8 here 21645.008
42 


Insert offset folio 9 here 21645.009
43 


Insert offset folio 10 here 21645.010
44 


Insert offset folio 11 here 21645.011
45 


Insert offset folio 12 here 21645.012
46 


Insert offset folio 13 here 21645.013
47 


Insert offset folio 14 here 21645.014
48 


Insert offset folio 15 here 21645.015
49 


Insert offset folio 16 here 21645.016
50 


Insert offset folio 17 here 21645.017
51 


Insert offset folio 18 here 21645.018
52 


Insert offset folio 19 here 21645.019
53 


Insert offset folio 20 here 21645.020
54 


Insert offset folio 21 here 21645.021
55 


Insert offset folio 22 here 21645.022
56 


Insert offset folio 23 here 21645.023
57 


Insert offset folio 24 here 21645.024
58 


Insert offset folio 25 here 21645.025
59 


Insert offset folio 26 here 21645.026
60 


Insert offset folio 27 here 21645.027
61 


Insert offset folio 28 here 21645.028
62 


Insert offset folio 29 here 21645.029
63 


Insert offset folio 30 here 21645.030
64 


Insert offset folio 31 here 21645.031
65 


Insert offset folio 32 here 21645.032
66 


Insert offset folio 33 here 21645.033
67 


Insert offset folio 34 here 21645.034
68 


Insert offset folio 35 here 21645.035
69 


Insert offset folio 36 here 21645.036
70 


Insert offset folio 37 here 21645.037
71 


Insert offset folio 38 here 21645.038
72 


Insert offset folio 39 here 21645.039
73 


Insert offset folio 40 here 21645.040
74 


Insert offset folio 41 here 21645.041
75 


Insert offset folio 42 here 21645.042
76 


Insert offset folio 43 here 21645.043
77 


Insert offset folio 44 here 21645.044
78 


Insert offset folio 45 here 21645.045
79 


Insert offset folio 46 here 21645.046
80 


Insert offset folio 47 here 21645.047
81 


Insert offset folio 48 here 21645.048
82 


Insert offset folio 49 here 21645.049
83 


Insert offset folio 50 here 21645.050
84 


Insert offset folio 51 here 21645.051
85 


Insert offset folio 52 here 21645.052
86 


Insert offset folio 53 here 21645.053
87 


Insert offset folio 54 here 21645.054
88 


Insert offset folio 55 here 21645.055
89 


Insert offset folio 56 here 21645.056
90 


Insert offset folio 57 here 21645.057
91 


Insert offset folio 58 here 21645.058
92 


Insert offset folio 59 here 21645.059
93 


Insert offset folio 60 here 21645.060
94 


Insert offset folio 61 here 21645.061
95 


Insert offset folio 62 here 21645.062
96 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 63 here 21645.063