U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

26–042 PDF 2006

FLOOD MAP MODERNIZATION AND THE FUTURE

OF THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

HOUSING AND COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JULY 12, 2005

Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services

Serial No. 109–44

(

(II)

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio, Chairman

JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

DEBORAH PRYCE, Ohio 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware 

PETER T. KING, New York 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio 

SUE W. KELLY, New York, Vice Chair 

RON PAUL, Texas 

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio 

JIM RYUN, Kansas 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut 

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio 

MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

JEB HENSARLING, Texas 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida 

RICK RENZI, Arizona 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

TOM PRICE, Georgia 

MICHAEL G. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts 

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon 

JULIA CARSON, Indiana 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

BARBARA LEE, California 

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee 

RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA, Texas 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEVE ISRAEL, New York 

CAROLYN MCCARTHY, New York 

JOE BACA, California 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

AL GREEN, Texas 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

MELISSA L. BEAN, Illinois 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin, 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

Robert U. Foster, III, Staff Director 

(III)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio, Chairman

GARY G. MILLER, California, Vice Chairman 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

PETER T. KING, New York 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio 

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida 

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida 

RICK RENZI, Arizona 

STEVAN, PEARCE, New Mexico 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL G. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky 

MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

JULIA CARSON, Indiana 

BARBARA LEE, California 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

AL GREEN, Texas 

BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts 

(V)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on: 

July 12, 2005 ..................................................................................................... 1

Appendix: 

July 12, 2005 ..................................................................................................... 49

WITNESSES 

TUESDAY, JULY 12, 2005

Bullock, Michael, President, Intermap Federal Services, Inc. ............................. 24

Edelman, Scott K., President, Watershed Concepts ............................................. 26

Jenkins, William O., Jr., Director, Homeland Security and Justice, U.S. Government Accountability Office ............................................................................. 22

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

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

Small, Cheryl A., President, National Flood Determination Association ........... 27

Williams, James R., Co-Chairman, Mapping and Engineering Standards Committee, Association of State Floodplain Managers ............................................ 29

APPENDIX 

Prepared statements: 

Oxley, Hon. Michael G. .................................................................................... 50

Browne-Waite, Hon. Ginny .............................................................................. 53

Ney, Hon. Robert W. ........................................................................................ 54

Bullock, Michael ............................................................................................... 56

Edelman, Scott K. ............................................................................................. 107

Jenkins, William O., Jr .................................................................................... 124

Maurstad, David I. ........................................................................................... 145

Small, Cheryl A. ............................................................................................... 154

Williams, James R. ........................................................................................... 160

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Miller, Hon. Gary G.: 

National Association of Realtors, prepared statement .................................. 175

Jenkins, William O., Jr: 

Written response to question from Hon. Stevan Pearce ............................... 182

Maurstad, David I.: 

Written response to question from Hon. Stevan Pearce ............................... 184

Written response to question from Hon.Robert W. Ney ................................ 185

(1)

FLOOD MAP MODERNIZATION AND 

THE FUTURE OF THE NATIONAL 

FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM 

Tuesday, July 12, 2005

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND

COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY, 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES, 

Washington, D.C. 

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

2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Gary G. Miller [vice 

chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Ney, Miller of California, Jones, BrownWaite, Pearce, Neugebauer, Fitzpatrick, Davis of Kentucky, Waters, Miller of North Carolina, Scott, and Green 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. [Presiding.] This hearing of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity will come to 

order. Today’s Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity meets to continue its review and oversight of the National 

Flood Insurance Program. Specifically, today’s hearing will focus on 

FEMA’s program of updating flood maps and how this process affects the flood insurance industry and local communities. 

Flood maps identify areas of greatest risk of flooding and provide 

the foundation for the National Flood Insurance Program. The 

maps are used by the communities to establish minimum building 

standards designed to reduce the effects of flooding and also guide 

FEMA in setting insurance rates. However, nearly 70 percent of 

the country’s flood maps are more than 10 years old, according to 

FEMA, and reflect outdated data that could affect the ability to accurately identify flood hazard areas. As a result, the agency is in 

the middle of implementing a $1 billion, 5-year map modernization 

program to update its flood maps. I am hopeful that today’s hearing will give us a better understanding of FEMA strategy and expected benefit of more accurate and accessible flood maps. 

Floods have been and continue to be one of the most destructive 

and costly natural hazards in our Nation. In the aftermath of Hurricane Dennis this past weekend, I fear many communities in the 

South and Midwest will witness the unrelenting power firsthand, 

as a tropical depression continues to unload heavy flooding rains 

in the inlands. 

The National Flood Insurance Program is a valuable tool in addressing the losses incurred throughout the country due to flood. 

2

It assures that businesses and families have access to affordable 

flood insurance that would not be available in the open market. 

As part of the passage of the National Flood Insurance Act of 

1968, insurance companies generally did not offer coverage for flood 

insurance disaster because of the high risk involved. Today almost 

20,000 communities participate in the National Flood Insurance 

Program. More than 90 percent of the companies sell and provide 

flood insurance policies. There are approximately 4.4 million policies covering a total of $620 billion. Last year’s Flood Insurance Reform Act achieved significant reforms to the important Federal program. 

And I look forward to hearing from all our witnesses today as we 

discuss FEMA’s implementation of its flood mapping policies as 

well as determining whether new reforms and initiatives are in 

order to accomplish this work as we accomplish this year. 

I now will yield to the Chairman. 

Mr. NEY. Thank you. And I want to thank Congressman Miller 

for chairing this. And I will be in and out. But I will be back because of today’s important testimony, and I think that Chairman 

Miller has summarized this in a right and adequate way, eloquently, what we are about here. 

During the past year there have been three major floods in the 

district I represent in Ohio. All three of these incidents qualified 

for Federal flood relief and was granted by President Bush in January of this year, but it resulted in historic levels of damage and destruction in several local areas and also in some problems with the 

dams, especially, for example, Tuscarawas County. Three communities were forced to evacuate in Tuscarawas County and displaced 

7,000 people in the snap of a finger. 

I was able to, obviously, witness this terrible devastation not 

only in Tuscarawas, but in Guernsey County and Ross and other 

counties throughout the district. 

I am going to actually hold a hearing, probably in Tuscarawas 

County, a field hearing next month to continue the subcommittee’s 

oversight of the National Flood Insurance Program. And it is a valuable tool. 

And I think we will hear some interesting testimony today about 

mapping. Mapping is important. It is important for the future. It 

is important for the flooding areas, and also, frankly, for where you 

can develop. 

I just had a constituent come this week about a development, 

and they are in total dispute about how correct is the mapping or 

how incorrect is the mapping. And actually when you look at one 

of the maps, it shows that they should be able to do development, 

but it has kind of randomly been designated. There can’t be development on that site. And I think those are issues that can be dealt 

with, frankly, and cleared up in a large part through technology. 

So I want to thank both panels today and thank Mr. Miller for 

support of this issue. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Robert W. Ney can be found on 

page 54 in the appendix.] 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Mr. Pearce from New Mexico. 

Mr. PEARCE. Distinguished Chairman, I appreciate this hearing. 

Early in 2003 when I first arrived at Congress, one of the commuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:12 Apr 19, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\DOCS\109.44 RODNEY
3

nities brought to my attention that they were not able to get development because the floodplain maps that were drawn had been expanded without consideration of many of the factors; for instance, 

a diversion dam that had been put upstream. The FEMA was very 

resistant to recalculation, and we are still in an ongoing process. 

But we will be very interested in listening to the testimony today, 

and I appreciate you having the hearing. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Mr. Neugebauer, do you have an 

opening statement? Ranking Member Waters? 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, I have been 

trying to learn information about floods and flood control and flood 

insurance. And today is a very important hearing because I suppose we are going to find out about—and I hope we will find out 

about FEMA’s maps, whether or not they are modernized, whether 

or not they are adequate to be able to distinguish between those 

areas where people absolutely need insurance, and maybe those 

areas where people don’t need insurance. So I am anxious to hear 

from our witnesses that will be here today. 

And with that, I will yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you. 

Our panel today, we have David Maurstad. He is the Acting 

Mitigation Director and Federal Insurance Administrator for Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate at the Department of 

Homeland Security. His area of oversight includes the National 

Flood Insurance Program, the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program, the National Dam Safety Program, and the National 

Hurricane Program. 

You are a busy man, aren’t you? 

Previously, Mr. Maurstad served as Regional Director of FEMA’s 

Region 8, where he coordinated FEMA’s activities for six western 

States, including the State of Nebraska, where he has served as 

Lieutenant Governor. And we are looking forward to your testimony, sir. 

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

Mr. MAURSTAD. Good morning, Mr. Miller, Chairman Ney, and 

Ranking Member Waters, and subcommittee members. I am David 

Maurstad, the Mitigation Division’s acting director within the Department of Homeland Security’s Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, which includes the Federal Emergency Management Agency. I appreciate the opportunity to appear today before the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity. 

First, I would like to thank the subcommittee for its support of 

FEMA’s flood map modernization program, a program to modernize 

the Nation’s flood insurance rate maps over a 5-year period. The 

resources Congress has provided are resulting in products that increase flood risk awareness, stimulate dialogue among various levels of government and industry, and help communities mitigate 

against flood losses. As a result, we will continue to make this Nation less vulnerable to flooding. 

4

FEMA and its partners provide flood hazard maps and data to 

support flood insurance and community floodplain management activities for the NFIP. Flood map modernization uses state-of-the-art 

technology, on-the-ground intelligence, and a strong set of mapping 

guidelines, specifications, and standards to deliver reliable data 

and maps in geographic information system format. 

Digital flood maps provide many benefits. They provide a uniform structure for assessing our Nation’s changing vulnerability to 

flooding, allowing us to monitor flood mitigation’s effectiveness. The 

digital data, along with the platform to store, maintain, and distribute the information also can be used to support other activities 

such as preparedness, response, recovery, and local planning. Lastly, digital maps are easier to maintain and keep current. 

Flood map modernization is well underway. Since 2003, Congress 

has appropriated $550 million for the program. In addition, under 

our Cooperating Technical Partner Initiative, we expect by the end 

of fiscal year 2005, our 212 active State, regional, and local community mapping partners will have added over $100 million in data 

and other resources. The CTP program has been very well received 

and continues to yield both short- and long-term benefits. 

We have also engaged industry to help us develop solutions. That 

is, we have presented them with objectives and asked them how 

best to meet those, rather than the more traditional government 

approach of mandating a solution and asking them to work within 

it. This is being accomplished by the issuance of performance-based 

contracts both at the national and regional level. 

We also regularly meet with industry to share ideas, stimulate 

growth, collect feedback, and collect feedback on technical procedures and practices. Using these practices, and through these partnerships, we have completed mapping projects in nearly 1,000 of 

our most at-risk communities. And flood mapping modernization 

projects are underway in over 2,100 other communities. Our goal 

is to have the Nation’s flood map inventory modernized by 2010 

with all maps in a GIS format and available online. 

Equally important, we will have a comprehensive and robust risk 

identification and assessment system, allowing us to more readily 

track, over time, the Nation’s ability to reduce its flood vulnerability. There is no one-size-fits-all solution to identify the Nation’s 

flood hazards. The risks and the people they impact are diverse. 

For example, in the arid West, streambeds can lay dry for years, 

yet these innocuous features can release torrents of water without 

warning after a brief thunderstorm. On the other hand, in the East 

where it rains regularly and vegetation is thick, rivers that flow 

year round tend to take days before reaching their peak. Along our 

coasts, the hazards also vary widely. In the South Atlantic and 

Gulf, hurricanes strike quickly compared to long, drawn-out extra 

tropical storms that can pound the Northeast shores for days. In 

the Pacific, long highways tend to elevate water levels through 

processes that are entirely different than those of hurricanes. 

The Nation’s variability in landscape and flooding characteristics 

require State, tribal, and local governments to use a variety of 

floodplain management approaches to make their communities 

safer places to live, work, and do business. 

5

As such, communities require and use different tools to collect 

that data needed to properly analyze their flood risks. Obviously, 

the Nation cannot resolve its natural hazards issues with a single 

universally applied approach. This country’s geographic diversity, 

combined with its variety of natural hazards threats, requires us 

to apply, mix, and match a series of processes to effectively identify 

hazards, communicate risks, and reduce vulnerability. 

We understand the ramifications of producing flood maps which 

do not accurately reflect the risk. We realize there are concerns regarding use of ground elevation data and other information that is 

potentially inaccurate. To offset the risk of error, we have implemented a risk-based approach to ensure quality, leverage industry 

best practices and lessons learned, and foster opportunity for community involvement. 

This approach has been applied and proven successful in many 

areas around the Nation. For example, in our partnership with the 

State of Nebraska, U.S. Geological Survey topographic data are utilized in conjunction with field reconnaissance to develop flood hazard maps and data. In North Carolina we utilized detailed ground 

elevation information generated by the State’s own laser technology. This data, in conjunction with automated hydraulic modeling techniques, helps to identify flood risk in moderately developed areas. 

In Lincoln County, Ohio, we have partnered with the county to 

produce draft flood maps using aerial photographs, topographic 

data, and flood hazard information developed using local and State 

resources. 

We have firmly committed to a clear quality standard for modernized maps to make sure that poor quality hazard information is 

not simply digitized from an old map. Developed with the support 

of our key stakeholders, this standard requires that, at the minimum, all the flood hazard boundaries on modernized maps will be 

evaluated and adjusted as necessary. Overall, this program’s ability 

to meet the unique and diverse risks faced by a variety of stakeholders relies on a sound balance between efficiency and flexibility. 

We have done this by performing much of the work associated with 

flood hazard identification at the local level in a decentralized fashion while managing the work centrally using technology, earned 

value management techniques, and integrated performance teams. 

Although we have a long way to go to modernize the Nation’s 

flood map inventory, our progress to date shows we have focused 

initially on areas where there is the greatest flood risk, we have 

hit the ground running, and that our solution strikes a good balance between efficiencies through standardization and flexibility by 

allowing industry and State and local governments to tailor solutions to suit unique situations. 

Again, I want to thank the subcommittee for its support of flood 

map modernization. We are well underway, and we look forward to 

making this Nation more disaster-resistant and better equipped to 

deal with the ever-present danger of floods. 

I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of David I. Maurstad can be found on 

page 145 in the appendix.] 

6

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you. Without objection, your 

statement will be made a part of the record. 

There are more than 92,000 flood maps currently available, and 

I think over 65,000 of those are more than 10 years old. A lot of 

them are inconsistent and inaccurate and nonstandardized data 

available in those. 

Are these the maps that FEMA plans to digitize, or are there 

plans to replace this data? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Mr. Miller, I am sorry, I cannot hear you. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Can you hear me now? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. A little better. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. We will turn the volume up. 

There are over 92,000 flood maps available, and over 65,000 of 

those are over 10 years old. They contain data that is inconsistent, 

inaccurate, and nonstandardized. 

Are these the maps FEMA plans to digitize, or are there plans 

to replace those maps?

Mr. MAURSTAD. Not in every circumstance. What we are doing in 

the flood map modernization process is working with and through 

the regions with States as they have developed their State business 

plans to determine what areas of the State need additional work 

and what areas of the State where the previous data is still adequate and that can be digitized. 

So it is important to understand that we are working very closely 

with the local partners in determining through the scoping process 

what their needs are and then working with the State in trying to 

fund those various efforts. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. How would the process go for State 

and local government to qualify for FEMA funds to go through this 

process? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. How would the process—

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. How would they go through the process to qualify? Can you describe the process they go through? If a 

local government or State wants to participate in this, how do they 

go through the process with FEMA to qualify for funds? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. We have published the Multiyear Flood Hazard 

Implementation Plan that details and outlines the methodology by 

which we are going to fund various mapping efforts in the individual States. We provided assistance for the States to develop 

business plans. They submitted those business plans to the 10 

FEMA regions. Those regions looked at those plans and have 

worked with the State to develop the process by which to proceed. 

We at the national level have taken those plans and given the 

resources that are available, have provided the regions funding for 

them to work with the State partners on a prioritized basis—the 

highest risk areas being done first—for the digitization process to 

occur. So it is a bottoms-up process. But there is a very close working relationship between the regions and the States in determining 

how those States will be mapped. 

Once those areas are identified within a State, the region will 

work along with the State and the communities in looking at—it 

is called the scoping process—what needs to be done to meet the 

standards that have been published, to bring those maps up to the 

GIS quality standards that we are looking for. 

7

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. We have had a lot of flooding in the 

last 2 years. Do you have any idea of what percentage of people 

were impacted by floods and claims that were not necessarily in 

flood hazard areas, and what percentage of the people do you think 

have flood insurance that were not in flood hazard areas? Do you 

have any idea what the numbers might be, the percentages? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. No, I don’t. Of course, there is—the whole mapping process is intended to try to delineate what one’s risk is for 

flooding. And there is going to be, of course, there is a sliding scale 

for that. And there certainly are a number of flooding events that 

could happen in those areas that are, based on the maps, less vulnerable than those right alongside. There are a lot of factors that 

go into determining the risk, and so it is—everyone to a certain extent is at risk. 

And what the mapping process is intended to do is delineate 

what that risk is, use that information to not only make land-use 

decisions at the local level, but provide the basis by which flood insurance can be appropriately priced and provide the basis for making sure the national flood insurance fund remains strong. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Of the 92,000 maps we recently 

have, over two-thirds are out of date. Now we are going to update 

those. How do we prevent this from happening in the future? Do 

you have any idea on that? Is there a program that is going to be 

implemented to make sure they are updated on a regular basis so 

we don’t have the same situation occur again? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. The current plan certainly looks at making sure 

that all of the maps are updated, brought into the GIS world. We 

are along the way determining that there are areas where additional studies may need to be required. The plan is a fluid plan, 

one that is going to need to continually be assessed, which we do 

twice a year with our mapping partners. And so right now we are 

focused on the process of getting those maps up to date. 

Certainly at the—our target is 2010. 

As we approach the completion of this phase of our work, it 

would certainly—and it is a personal goal of mine that we, in fact, 

provide the mechanisms by which the maps can be maintained out 

into the future. 

Part of that will be more possible in this environment than the 

old paper environment because this technology will allow for these 

maps to be updated far more easily. Our hope is that we will have 

willing partners at the local and regional level that will assume responsibility for updating and maintaining those maps. And that is 

certainly a part of the process that we are working on in this 

multiyear effort. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you. 

Ms. Waters, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much. 

I have information that shows the average age of FEMA’s flood 

maps is 18 years. Is it true that in many cases, FEMA’s maps modernization program is digitizing old data? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Well, there are certainly some cases where that 

may be the fact. And it may very well be appropriate. Just because 

those maps are 18 years old, or the data is 18 or more years old, 

does not mean that that data is inaccurate. The topography may 

8

very well be the same; the population may very well be the same. 

The factors that were in place when those maps were developed 18 

years ago for the paper medium may, in fact, be the most accurate 

and the most needed information in the GIS basis. 

If during the process it is identified that that data on the paper 

maps that is 18-plus years old is not accurate, then we are committed to making sure that those maps reflect the needed information so that State and—or so that local governments can, and individuals can make decisions, risk-based decisions, and so that it appropriately supports the National Flood Insurance Program. 

Ms. WATERS. Well, several counties are complaining that due to 

the age of FEMA’s maps, they have been forced to comply with regulations that at best do not serve or at worst harm their constituents. For example, in Collier County, Florida, county commissioners complain that the FEMA maps incorrectly show they have 

areas in harm’s way, forcing residents to needlessly purchase flood 

insurance. Conversely, some Texas officials are complaining that 

they have areas that are in harm’s way, yet FEMA’s maps indicate 

no risk exists. 

So my question is, and my allegation, perhaps, is not that you 

simply may be digitizing old maps, but I want to really understand 

what you do to ensure that that information is updated. Whether 

there has been development that has changed the topography or 

what, are we sure that we have all the information? And if old 

maps are being digitized and there is no problem, that is fine. But 

it is not fine if, in fact, there have been changes and they are not 

reflected in the new maps. That is what we are concerned about. 

How can you assure us of that? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Certainly I understand that. I know firsthand, as 

a former mayor, that there are always going to be disagreements 

amongst individuals as to whether they should be in the floodway 

and required to buy insurance or not. 

My experience as a regional director merely solidified that previous experience at the local level as I worked with communities 

in FEMA Region 8 in working with their citizens in making sure 

that there was confidence in the accuracy provided; that was, of the 

data being provided for those maps. 

Again, what we utilized were the resources and the information 

at the local level. We seek that information. We want the maps to 

be accurate. We want there to be community buy-in for those maps. 

So we work very closely with the communities in developing these 

maps. It is to our mutual benefit that it be done. 

So in this process, the scoping process, where we literally sit 

down at the table and work with the community and the individuals that are responsible for the local efforts and work through 

these various issues point by point—and, again, I would just say 

that we are committed to making sure that we use the best data 

available and that the maps are accurate, and that in those circumstances where there are difficulties, we will do what we have 

done in the past, and that is try to work as amicably as possible 

with the local communities. 

Ms. WATERS. That is extremely important. There is a lot of controversy around this whole issue. I understand that there is a lawsuit. And I am not going to ask you to comment on the lawsuit, 

9

but I am curious about something. Is this flood insurance intended 

to restore policyholders to pre-flood conditions, or is there something else different? What is the language in the policy? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. As I indicated in my previous testimony dealing 

with the flood insurance program, the sale of insurance and flood 

insurance program, restoration of pre-flood condition is, in my review, in legislation, it is not in the flood insurance policy. It is not 

the intent that the flood insurance policy would provide policyholders or restore them to what—depending upon your definition of 

pre-flood condition—that is not the intent of the program from my 

analysis. The intent of the program, the intent of the insurance policy, was to assist the policyholders in the recovery from the financial effects of a flooding event. 

Ms. WATERS. Has anyone—do you have, and can you get us a 

copy of the policy? This continues to be a real question. And I want 

to know exactly what is in the policy. 

And I then I would like to, if I may, Mr. Chairman, just ask that 

you respond to a request that was made of you from Mr. Steve 

Kanstoroom. In May, he along with Representatives Hart, Davis, 

and Ruppersberger submitted document requests and questions to 

FEMA on the record that pertain to oversight of the National Flood 

Insurance Program. And since that time, they have not received 

any response. 

And 2 weeks ago, of course, the Washington Post reported this 

$2 billion lawsuit was filed against FEMA and its insurance partners. Now, the suit goes to many of the same issues that are still—

that are unanswered requests. I also understand that similar suits 

will be filed in additional States. 

Can we expect that the answers to the questions from these gentlemen be given and the documents that they are requesting some 

time soon? Are you familiar with these requests? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Ma’am, we have responded or are in the process 

of responding to every congressional inquiry and question that has 

come to my office. The individual that you mentioned is a party of 

a lawsuit. Our Office of General Counsel is dealing with that lawsuit. But most importantly, we have responded—

Ms. WATERS. Sir, will you do me a favor? And if you think you 

have responded to him or if you are yet to respond, would you get 

back to this committee and let us know when you did respond or 

when you are going to respond to these requests? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. I will check with the Office of General Counsel 

and we will certainly provide the information that we are able to 

to this committee, no question. 

Ms. WATERS. All I want to know is, did you get them the information? And if it is something that their lawyers need to request 

formally, just let us know. 

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you. Consent to insert the 

written testimony in the record by the National Association of Realtors, without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. Pearce, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Maurstad, the idea that we have a plateau of funding 2 million, which damages don’t exceed, we don’t get help. Is that right? 

10

The 2 million, is there a threshold of 2 million in your agency’s responses? If the damage does not exceed 2 million, then it is left 

with the community? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. I will to have get back to you on that, sir. 

Mr. PEARCE. Okay. So you are not aware of any threshold that 

you all place for damages on events? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. In response to a disaster? 

Mr. PEARCE. Yes. 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Well, could there—yes, but I think that I need 

to defer to the folks—

Mr. PEARCE. Is there a threshold, I guess, and whether it is 2 

million or—

Mr. MAURSTAD. There is criteria which the President utilizes in 

determining whether a disaster declaration—a Presidential disaster declaration. 

Mr. PEARCE. If there is a threshold, is there a weighted threshold? Because $2 million damage in a major city is completely different from $2 million in a small community in my district, and I 

wonder—and many times we do not reach the threshold for assistance. I am wondering, is there a weighted threshold? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Yes, there is. But I would prefer that I be able 

to respond to that. 

Mr. PEARCE. I would appreciate that, if you get that for me. If 

you would get that response, I would appreciate it. 

What about the idea that in 1993, the agency or whatever fund, 

that the NFIP was deemed to be insolvent and shortly after that—

you had a questioning look. Was that not true? In 1993, the Clinton administration did not start rewriting the rules for FEMA or 

for expanding the floodplains? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. I am not aware, sir. I can find that out. 

Mr. PEARCE. It appears that about 1994 the floodplains were 

redrawn, redesignated, increasing them significantly because there 

appeared to be an insolvency in the NFIP. And I guess my question 

is how did the insolvency affect the floodplains? In other words, 

floodplains generally are pretty static and not correlated to financial activity, but they have some mobility; but many of our communities began to notice about that time that they couldn’t get development because the floodplains had been redrawn, increasing—putting certain places in that had not previously been in. Do you have 

any opinions about that? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. You know, that is not—that is not my understanding. The mapping efforts, to my knowledge, have not been correlated with the strength or lack thereof of the national flood insurance fund. Certainly the national flood insurance fund when I became the acting director a year ago was strong. It remains strong. 

Mr. PEARCE. In several communities—

Mr. MAURSTAD. Excuse me. The mapping is done on a scientific 

basis to determine what the risk is for that particular area. It is 

not done for the purpose of generating additional premium for the 

national flood insurance fund. It is done to identify the risk so that 

individuals can make prudent decisions based upon that information. 

Mr. PEARCE. There are no internal decisions? I am just confirming what you are telling me. There are no internal decisions to 

11

change the flood mapping? In the mid-nineties there were no 

changed criteria? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Certainly none that I am aware of. 

Mr. PEARCE. I would like for you to inquire in your agency and 

extend beyond what you are aware of, and if you can get back with 

me on that, on that particular thing, I would appreciate that. 

One of the big elements here is you said you always want to 

work with States and communities to determine the risks. The 

community of Carlsbad spent quite a bit of its own money to determine that hydrology was a very important factor, yet FEMA continues to assert that hydrology is not a very important factor. 

When you have a disagreement like that, who wins in the dispute? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. What we try to do in working through circumstances like that is to be able to rectify the difference in the 

experts’ opinions. But in the end, if there is a difference between 

what the program believes is the most accurate data, it is our responsibility to act on that information in the administration of the 

program. 

Mr. PEARCE. And in this case, the hydrology still seems to be disregarded. And I will tell you that the hydrology has put the town 

down in the floodplain with the highest point in Texas—I mean in 

New Mexico—but the highest point in Texas occurs about a mile 

across the border, and the pressure from water that falls on that 

highest point builds up, always putting tremendous pressure down 

at the bottom of the base of those geographic or geologic formations, tremendous hydrologic, hydrostatic pressure there. And I am 

not sure your agency has been extremely responsive. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MAURSTAD. We will go back in and work with the region and 

try to see if we can come to a mutually acceptable decision in that 

circumstance. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Mr. Miller from North Carolina is 

recognized for 5 minutes. You have no questions? 

Mr. Neugebauer from Texas recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having this important hearing. 

One of the things that I have heard from some of the communities in my district as we go through this remapping process is 

that the initial grants were not enough money to really complete 

the entire community. And that, for example, I think in Abilene, 

I think was they could only study like three or four runoff areas, 

and I think there were 26. 

We have been working to help get those funds to complete that. 

But one of the things that concerns me, I just wonder if that is 

going on around the rest of the country. And it appears to me a 

better strategy is if you are going to systematically remap communities, that partially completed flood maps don’t really do you much 

good. You might as well have, you know, the old maps. 

What are you doing to look at, you know, completing and making 

sure that what we leave a community here, what we leave a region, 

that we do have new, valid, updated maps? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Again, the regional office is working with the 

States to—of course, they are working with their communities to 

determine the process of when—what is going to happen where 

12

within that particular State based upon the criteria that we set out 

in the guidelines. So, again, you have to go back to that specific situation and see what the circumstances are. 

But most importantly, what we are doing now as this program 

is really getting into gear is taking a look at what we have learned 

from all these scoping meetings that have gone on around the country and seeing if we can develop some type of an analysis of what 

is being required when and what it costs so that we can then use 

that data to determine whether or not the—and how best to use 

the resources that Congress has provided us. 

So we now have some information that was not available a couple of years ago to be able to assess how to continue to move forward. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I heard you talking a little bit about some of 

the technology you are using. And I know aerial surveying is a 

technology. And are we investing in that, and are we—is that an 

option for us to use on a broader basis than we are using it currently now? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. We are looking at all technology. And the direction has been to use the technology that is most applicable to the 

circumstances. There are certainly areas of—in fact, in Region 6 

where the technology we talked about is certainly applicable, it is 

certainly being used. It is being tested there, and we are using that 

information on a pilot basis to determine where it can be utilized. 

That technology does not work very well where there is a lot of 

vegetation. So there are some areas where it works very well and 

it is acceptable, certainly acceptable, some areas where it is not. 

The same can be said for other technology that is being used in the 

other circumstances. 

So our primary mapping contractor is working with all the available technology and what works best in each particular circumstance. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. We don’t have the vegetation problem, as you 

know, in—

Mr. MAURSTAD. No, you don’t. That is why it works out. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. My second question is based on where you are 

in the program today and based on—obviously you had some cost 

estimates—what it was going to take to do this project. Do we have 

enough money? And if we don’t have enough money, you know, do 

you have a feeling of what it really takes to complete this process 

in a timely manner so that these communities can have that data 

available to them, and people that are currently paying for flood insurance that shouldn’t be, and those that aren’t that should? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Yes. As my testimony indicated, we feel as 

though we are going to be able to meet what Congress outlined for 

us when the program started. Nonetheless, it is also prudent of us, 

as I indicated before, to analyze and provide actual hard data on 

what it costs to map certain areas and to be able to determine how 

best we can use those resources. So we are in the process of that 

analysis. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. And is there a need to do this comprehensive 

remapping in every area? Are there areas of the country that—

Mr. MAURSTAD. No. There doesn’t need to be a new study done 

on every area. And in fact, what was contemplated when map modVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:12 Apr 19, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\DOCS\109.44 RODNEY
13

ernization began was not that there would be new studies done in 

every area. There are certainly some areas where the current data 

is certainly acceptable and what needs to be done is that data 

transferred from the paper—paper environment to the digital environment. There are some areas that are at risk and some areas 

that are certainly not at risk. And so it is perfectly appropriate 

that those maps would be digitized. 

But the process itself also—that base map is going to be a better 

map than before. So there will be some changes in most all maps. 

Whether that changes the risk will differ from circumstance—

again, circumstance to circumstance. It is very difficult when we 

are talking about 90,000 mapping areas to be—you know, make 

general statements, because virtually there are—most areas are 

different from the other areas. We try to put in place a process that 

is flexible enough to recognize all of that, have standards that are 

flexible enough to recognize that, and yet have quality maps 

throughout for the communities to use and for the programs to use. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you. 

Mr. Fitzpatrick from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 minutes. 

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

Mr. Maurstad, I appreciate your commitment to flood map modernization. This is a Federal program as much as any other that 

impacts constituents, at least those who live within flood-prone 

areas, in a very significant and personal way. 

Until January of this year I served as a county commissioner in 

a large county in southeastern Pennsylvania that has sustained 

many very serious floods in the last 9 months, and I am always 

amazed during the response, not so much the response, but in how 

many constituents didn’t know they were in the flood area, weren’t 

notified. And the problems, the calls that go to the emergency management office about the flood mapping process are always after 

the fact. 

And then about 2 weeks ago I received a call from a constituent 

of mine, an elderly couple that lived in a home for a long period 

of time. The home had never been flooded, water never near the 

home. They are in the process of actually applying for and receiving what is called a reverse mortgage so that they can stay in their 

home during their senior years and have some resources to fix up 

the home and as part of that mortgage application process, found 

out that they are now in a flood designated area, even though the 

home had never been flooded. And it may be the condition that precludes them from getting this reverse mortgage, stops them from 

staying in their home during their senior years, the fact that they, 

according to these flood maps, now a mortgage company will now 

require a flood insurance policy for them, and they are not cheap. 

They don’t come inexpensively. 

So I guess my question is, as you pursue modernization, what 

can we do to help our constituents better understand that process? 

I know it is not something they think about every day when they 

get up. But is there a plan of public participation, a plan of public 

information that will closely bring in the local governments, the 

State emergency management organizations, to get the word out 

14

there, specific contacts to individuals who are being moved into a 

flood mapped area or out of a flood? And that is important as well. 

People who have flood insurance continue to pay and then find out 

they are not in a floodplain area anymore and then get flooded. 

So what is the plan of public participation and information that 

will help our constituents better understand what you do? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Let me respond first in a broader context. We 

have a public awareness campaign now—Flood Smart, that is—targeted to communicating more, all across the country, on the risks 

associated with floods, that floods can happen to any of us, and 

that floods are not covered under your homeowner’s policy, and so 

you need to get a flood insurance policy to protect yourself from 

that possibility. 

So we continue to do that. It has actually been successful. We 

have had 13 consecutive months of more policies than before. So we 

think we are reaching more people with the message not only that 

you need the protection, but raising overall awareness of the flood 

hazard vulnerability that we are prone to flood. 

Secondly, and most importantly, in the circumstance it is required that there be community adoption of these flood maps. Now 

that process will certainly vary from community to community and 

State to State. 

But there is a link—and I will get it for you—from the time that 

we issue preliminary maps until the time that those maps become 

final; it is a 12- to 18-month process, primarily because we require 

community notice, that there be community participation—I am 

not sure if it happens every time, so I want to have a caveat—

where there is notice given to the property owners that they are 

going to be brought into the floodway. 

So we need to work with and encourage our local officials and 

communities to make this awareness greater, that the public—potentially they go beyond the public notice in the newspaper that 

there is going to be a hearing to adopt the maps. So we are working with that. 

In addition, part of the digitization process will be that this information will be online and more accessible to your constituents than 

the paper maps were that are housed in a warehouse somewhere. 

So our hope is through the libraries, if they are elderly people—

although most of the elderly people that I know now, most of them 

are online too—will be able to access this information, If you go on 

to the Flood Smart Web site, for example, and put in your zip code 

and address and you can find out what your flood risk is. 

So we are committed to that communication component that you 

talked about. And it was certainly important in the past; it is even 

more important as we go through this map modernization process. 

And we are going to have more of these maps that are going to 

need to be adopted at this community level. This communication 

piece and the acceptance of the community is going to be critical 

as we move forward. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Jones from North Carolina is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

And, Mr. Maurstad, I want to give you a situation that came to 

a satisfactory conclusion. When we talk about this new mapping 

15

system and how it is going to impact on the people, I think in the 

long run it is going to be extremely helpful. I have the Outer Banks 

of North Carolina in my district, mostly a coastal area, with the 

exception of Wilmington, which is Congressman McIntyre. We are 

very interested in insurance as well as the new mapping system. 

I got a call about a year ago from a constituent in Camden County who said, Congressman, I can’t put a shed to put my new ride 

mower in my backyard. And I said, well, this sounds like it should 

be a county problem. He said no. He said, no, it is FEMA. And I 

said, FEMA? 

And so then my staff and I looked into it. And obviously they 

were doing some of the mapping, digitized mapping systems. They 

were in the process. And this was what the problem was. 

But the reason I bring that up, Mr. Chairman, is it came to a 

very satisfactory conclusion. And I want to compliment FEMA and 

Mr. Fabrizio, who I called, and he came down with my staff, along 

with the local officials in the State of North Carolina, and it was 

a satisfactory conclusion. 

So I just wanted to bring it down to the people who pay the taxes 

and to give you just a little example of how this person—I think 

in the long run for that county, it is going to be very beneficial. 

I think you have spoken to this, but I wanted to ask you to repeat. Once this modernization has taken place, we in eastern North 

Carolina, and I am sure any other coastal area of America, it seems 

like whether you live on the coast or you live inland of the coast, 

the insurance is just getting to be astronomical. And my good 

friend from New York was talking about older citizens. And they 

are the ones that primarily live in these inland counties close to 

the coastal areas. 

Do you believe that the insurance industry itself, once this new, 

more sophisticated mapping is available, do you think that they 

will try to look at some method or some format to see if there is 

any way, based on the new mapping systems, that they can help 

bring the cost down for the consumer? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Well, I certainly am not in a position to speak 

for the industry, but I would say that, you know, we are—FEMA, 

the NFIP program, is committed to that direction in the NFIP reauthorization, that flood insurance be affordable. So when my staff, 

when the actuaries are developing the rates that we are going to 

require to make sure that the fund is strong, we certainly are very 

mindful that we need to make the insurance as affordable as possible. 

And part of that certainly is the balance as to the extent of the 

coverage that can be provided with the cost associated with increasing coverage, increasing the provisions and the benefits under 

the policy. So we weigh that constantly also, and that is why there 

are deductibles and that is why contents are only covered on an actual cash value basis and why we don’t have additional living expense provided under the standard flood insurance policy. 

So we are very cognizant of that. Relative to the mapping, of 

course, we are hopeful that the map modernization process in those 

areas where additional work is being done, that that information 

will be able to be utilized by the fund to more accurately reflect the 

risks associated with the example of the individual that you had 

16

before, what the cost of that insurance ought to be in relationship 

to the risk, and that that risk be able to be spread throughout the 

4.6 million policyholders fairly. 

But also, and it is not to—we don’t map so that we get more people that have mandatory purchase. But we are hopeful that as the 

risk is better identified and people recognize what their risk is, 

they will take the same steps in addressing their flood risk as they 

will in addressing their fire risk or the risk that their roof will be 

hailed on in certain parts the country, et cetera; and by doing so, 

will be able to expand the number of policyholders, which will give 

us more people to spread the overall risk associated with the program amongst more individuals and be able to maintain affordability. 

Mr. JONES. I thank the gentleman. Thank you. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. [Presiding.] Mr. Davis from North 

Carolina. 

Mr. Davis, do you have any questions? 

Mr. DAVIS OF KENTUCKY. Kentucky. 

Mr. MILLER. Kentucky, I’m sorry. 

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, we will claim him. 

Mr. DAVIS OF KENTUCKY. Mr. Chairman, although we have had 

very pleasant experiences in North Carolina, I am from the Commonwealth area. 

One question that I am interested in: your perspective on integrating this overall with a homeland security management process, 

as well as dealing with flood issues. There are direct interoperability issues that I think are very relevant. 

Do you see this as being a fully integrated network-centric mapping system similar to what the Department of Defense uses operationally to be able to provide instantaneous response capability to 

folks who are going to be participating and responding to disasters, 

as well as providing ease of update? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. I think, while this is a flood map modernization 

initiative, and that is the focus, certainly as various local communities use this mapping opportunity, they will be able to have this 

data and this information available to them for a variety of reasons, whether that be local emergency management planning, mitigation planning. But the data that we are collecting is flood specific, so I am not—I am certainly not a technology expert. To the 

extent that that would be beneficial, just that data would be beneficial for security reasons. I am not—

Mr. DAVIS OF KENTUCKY. One of the reasons I prompt my question, we have regular flooding—I represent an Ohio River district, 

about 27 percent of the length of the river, but we have a lot of 

the tributary flooding, a serious problem in 1997—participated in 

flood relief, a major disaster in one of our counties. And accurate 

maps, particularly of meandering streams, different issues like 

that, really became a bit of a problem to get to responders and support elements who were coming in. So I was just curious from that 

perspective. 

I am a big proponent of digitization. I was just curious about a 

wiser vision that you have for this. 

Mr. MAURSTAD. I think certainly at the local level the maps could 

be utilized in developing their local emergency plans, their evacuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:12 Apr 19, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\DOCS\109.44 RODNEY
17

ation plans, their response plans, as you have indicated, how you 

get from the ambulance from one part of the county to another during a flooding event. I mean, these maps all lend themselves to 

helping that decision-making process. 

Mr. DAVIS OF KENTUCKY. Thank you. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman NEY. Gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Brown-Waite. 

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, I am delighted that you are having this hearing, and 

I want to say just a few kind words about the great work that 

FEMA does. 

Many of my constituents were affected by the many hurricanes 

that hit Florida. One just this weekend was just there, and although it hit the Panhandle, certainly parts of my district had 

some high storm surges, I know. I talked to my husband, because 

I wasn’t home, and he kept telling me how the water was rising, 

and believe me, I know that my constituents appreciate the fact 

that FEMA is there in time of need. 

I just have a couple of questions about how well you are coordinating this mapping with local governments. 

In Florida, as in other States, we have what is called a water 

management district. And the water management district has been 

engaging in GIS mapping for some time, using taxpayer dollars 

that they collect through the water management district. 

I want to make sure that in areas where they have legitimate 

updating of the maps, that we are not going to reinvent the wheel. 

So that would be my first question. 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Very much we are utilizing and leveraging those 

resources at the local level. And, in fact, water management districts in Florida are good examples of how we are working closely 

with them to make sure that we are not duplicating. In fact, this 

year I believe that we anticipated having participation at the local 

level and with our partners at $45 million and spent $60 million. 

So certainly the funding plan that we have developed incorporates the contributions made at the local level and, in fact, builds 

upon them. We couldn’t do what we are doing without what the 

local efforts, regional efforts are. 

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. With all the development that is taking place 

in Florida, it is an ideal place for all the baby boomers to retire 

to—no income tax, usually great weather, except for a few months 

of hurricane problems. But overall, with the development that is 

taking place in Florida, certainly the water management districts 

and local governments that are engaging in updating their maps 

could use some funding. 

Are you helping out the water management districts? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Yes. We help them develop plans on how to go 

about participating in the flood map modernization. And we, of 

course, through the State of Florida, provide funds for those areas 

within those management districts for the actual mapping and the 

digitization to occur. So we certainly are doing that in Florida. 

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. I appreciate that. 

The other question that I have is, I had lived in another part of 

another county further inland, and it was questionable whether or 

not I needed flood insurance. 

18

Could you just estimate initially how many people you think, as 

a result of the remapping, will need flood insurance and how many 

of them who are currently paying for flood insurance—excluding 

me, who moved into a V-zone, so I certainly am paying flood insurance—how many people who are paying for flood insurance now 

would be alleviated of that cost? 

So those who would be brought on, who would now require flood 

insurance? And those who are paying for flood insurance, who may 

be able to drop it? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. No, I don’t believe we have that information at 

this point in time. And part of the reason why it is important this 

map modernization continues is so that we can more accurately determine exactly what the point of your question is. 

But I want to take this opportunity to also say we have got a circumstance where you have the mandatory requirement—mandatory purchase of flood insurance, and of course, this will affect that, 

those individuals that would be brought into a mandatory purchase 

zone and those that would be taken out of a mandatory purchase 

zone. But just because you are not in a special flood hazard risk 

area, I would not conclude that you no longer need flood insurance, 

that your risk may not be as great as what it was before, but I 

would contend that the need is still there. 

It is going to be less expensive, but I am not—my point is this, 

that sometimes we stay focused solely on the mandatory purchase 

requirement, and those are the people that need flood insurance, 

those that are in special flood hazard zone areas. And if you are 

not in that special flood hazard zone area, you don’t need flood insurance. I am trying to pop that balloon because you still need 

flood insurance, even though you may not be in the highest rated 

area and you may not be under the mandatory requirement to purchase. 

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. One more question, Mr. Chairman, if I may. 

I know my time has expired. I will just go ahead and ask it. 

Are you going to then notify the lending institutions for areas 

that now, as a result of the remapping, will require flood insurance? Because that is a great concern of many home owners, that 

I am not in a flood area now, but I may be, and is my bank going 

to be notified, and am I going to have to purchase that? 

In other words, although they have a mortgage agreement with 

a lending institution, could this then be a requirement addendum 

to that loan? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Well, the 1994 Reform Act of the NFIP tightened 

up the mandatory purchase requirement so that the lenders were 

paying more attention to this requirement in the lending community. So I would say that that is not as a result of the Flood Map 

Modernization effort, but that is just a fact of what the law requires them to do before map modernization and now. 

But I would say that we work closely with lending institutions. 

I met with those individuals about 2 months ago to talk about common interests and work on common solutions to difficulties that 

both of us have. So we have a relationship with them. We don’t operate in a vacuum, and it certainly is important for us to continue 

to have strong cooperation from the lending community in this 

19

mandatory purchase requirement for the benefit of the people that 

live in those high-risk areas. 

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. Thank you. 

Chairman NEY. [Presiding.] I thank the gentlelady. And I apologize for not being here for most of the time due to other commitments. 

I had a question about—and this is something I personally witnessed—something we would contact, obviously, FEMA on. There 

are some inconsistencies. 

For example, recently there was a flood area designated—it is actually down in Belmont County, Ohio, an area I am very familiar 

with—I was born in the city of Bellaire. Some water came up 

around a road, and now 22 acres have been designated as flood 

prone, never to have flooding, probably can’t ever have flooding. 

And then the alternative is a 90-day appeals process where you 

have to disprove that as citizens. Of course, the constituents call 

us. I met on this last Thursday. 

There are a lot of those inconsistencies out there where it is not 

a matter where we argue back, how did you do this; it is a matter 

of why don’t you disprove what we had deemed. And I know you 

have had to run up on these, probably, congressional inquiries, 

maybe your office. How do you answer that type of thing? 

Is there a better process versus you have made a determination? 

Why don’t you prove why you determined that versus its coming 

back on the constituents or local governments to say, wait a 

minute, we have to hire all these engineers to say why maybe it 

was indiscriminately done? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Well, I will have to get back to you as to when 

the last time was that this process was evaluated. But I would say 

that there are a variety of ways where that can occur—through a 

letter of map revision, conditional letter of map revision. We try to 

recognize the difficulties that you have outlined and yet still not 

have a process by which everyone that does not want to be in a 

flood hazard area has the ability to opt out, so to speak. So it is 

part of the regulatory nature of the situation. We certainly would 

work with the committee and encourage you to get information 

from the residents on how we can make this process better. 

I would allude to a comment that I made earlier, that you would 

not have heard, that our hope is through the flood map modernization process that we are able to find partners out there at the local 

level that are able to administer and revise these flood maps in 

this digital environment that would not have been possible in the 

old paper environment. 

So we are hopeful that some of these maintenance issues, maintenance circumstances, could be—that that can be carried out by 

the local governments as an important aspect of this modernization 

process. 

Chairman NEY. The other thing that has been raised, to be adequate about this, there are going to be companies that are out 

there that say, yes, it is been done correctly, the mapping; and 

other entities, other companies—and you could probably find two 

on each side, three on each side—that are going to say the process 

that is undertaken now is just taking the old way of doing it and 

digitizing the old way. 

20

And I am sure you have heard that. Do you have a comment on 

that? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. My comment would be that in some circumstances that would be appropriate; if the data that was used 

two decades ago was still accurate, was still pertinent, then it 

would be what we should do. In those circumstances where things 

have changed, then we need to update that data and not just merely digitize an outdated map that doesn’t have the current information. 

So we are committed to making sure that as we go through the 

modernization process, we have quality end products. 

Chairman NEY. One other question I had that—I should know 

this, and I apologize for not knowing it in advance—but North 

Carolina, I am told, has digitized flood maps. We see Mr. Jones’ 

family farm that has been there since the 1800s. And in Ohio we 

have got a lot of the old satellite photos. 

I assume North Carolina paid some dollars, or did the Feds update North Carolina’s system. 

Mr. MAURSTAD. North Carolina has certainly been very aggressive in this environment. They certainly have made investments at 

the State and local level that we, again, are utilizing and 

leveraging as we move forward. So they have been a very model 

partner with the Federal Government in the modernization process. 

Chairman NEY. So Ohio and other States that are not up to par, 

as North Carolina is, then they would have to make some local investment in it? 

And can we find out—if you can give us information, how much 

North Carolina invested or how much Ohio—I mean, there are 

other States where we have interest. Obviously, I have interest in 

Ohio, but I would like to just know, do you get on a Federal kind 

of list that says Ohio is ready now to invest, or how do other States 

do that? Is there a priority list that the States will have to make 

a certain amount, percentage of commitment, do you know? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Well, we certainly are working with the States. 

We have the Cooperating Technical Partner program; we have over 

200 Cooperative Technical Partners that we are working with that 

are making contributions of various levels on their own. 

We will provide you that information on a State-by-State basis. 

But, you know, we certainly—to those States and areas that are 

moving forward faster, we are certainly not getting in their way, 

we are wanting to assist them as they move at the rate that they 

want to move at. 

Chairman NEY. Just in closing, I think the aim that I have in 

persons representing a district is for the good of the Nation, some 

consistency across the United States. How are we going to get to 

the best mapping and updated mapping? And also, what incentives 

are going to be out there, you know, for the States to come in, 

partnering with the Fed? 

I think consistency would very good. 

Mr. MAURSTAD. It certainly is a part of our standards and guidelines. And I would say that in the case of North Carolina, what 

they are doing is, they are going beyond what the requirements are 

for the National Flood Insurance Program, so they are able to utiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:12 Apr 19, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\DOCS\109.44 RODNEY
21

lize what they are doing for other purposes and purposes that more 

specifically meet their needs. 

So it is not that others aren’t to that level; it is that they are 

going beyond what the requirements are that are put forth in the 

general guidelines of the Federal Map Modernization process. 

Chairman NEY. So we would be able then as individual members 

to receive a breakdown of our States and what Ohio, for example, 

has put in or Georgia—whatever States are requested, how much 

they have put into the system, how much the Feds have put in, 

and what level we are at of modernization? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Some of it is a match at the local level, in kind; 

it is not necessarily all hard dollars. Sometimes it is utilizing the 

information that North Carolina or that Florida has already generated. They provide us with that data, then we are able to put it 

in the format that we need so that we have this uniformity across 

the Nation. 

We will certainly look to see what we can provide for you. 

Chairman NEY. I appreciate your time on this important issue. 

Thank you so much for your time. 

I would note that some members may have additional questions 

for the panel, which they may want to submit in writing. Without 

objection, the hearing record will remain open for 30 days for members to submit written questions to the witnesses, and we will 

place their responses in the record. 

And we will begin now with Panel II. 

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. Mr. Chairman, while they are taking their 

seats, I would like to ask unanimous consent to submit an opening 

statement. I was on the floor actually speaking on another flood insurance bill. 

Chairman NEY. I want to thank the gentlelady. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Ginny Brown-Waite can be 

found on page 53 in the appendix.] 

Chairman NEY. I want to thank the second panel for being here 

today. 

William Jenkins served as Director of Homeland Security and 

Justice issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office. His area of 

responsibility includes emergency preparedness and response, elections of the Federal judiciary, sentencing and corrections, and 

bankruptcy. 

Michael Bullock is the President of Intermap Federal Services, 

Inc., a wholly owned U.S. Subsidiary of Intermap Technologies Corporation. Intermap is located in Englewood,Colorado. Prior to joining Intermap in 1996, Mr. Bullock was a senior associate with 

Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Inc., a management and technology consulting firm. 

I will now yield to Mr. Jones to introduce the next witness. 

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And on behalf 

of my colleague, Congressman Howard Coble, I would like to welcome and introduce Scott Edelman. He is the president of Watershed Concepts, located in Greensboro, North Carolina. He is an authority on hydrologic and hydraulic engineering and computer programming. 

22

Mr. Edelman currently serves as the principal in charge for the 

North Carolina Statewide Floodplain Mapping Project. Welcome. 

Chairman NEY. I want to thank the gentleman. 

The next witness is Cheryl Small, who is president of the National Flood Determination Association, a national nonprofit organization comprised of flood determination companies. Ms. Small is 

vice president of Specialty Markets, First American Flood Data 

Services, located in Highlands Ranch, Colorado. 

Jim Williams is testifying today as the cochairman of the Mapping and Engineering Standards Committee, the Association of 

State Floodplain Managers. Mr. Williams is a hydraulic engineer 

with the Nebraska Department of Natural Resources in Lincoln, 

Nebraska. 

I want to thank all the panelists for being here today and sharing your time. We will begin with Mr. Jenkins. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM O. JENKINS, JR., DIRECTOR, HOMELAND SECURITY AND JUSTICE, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. JENKINS. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, 

I appreciate the opportunity to participate in today’s hearing on 

Flood Map Modernization. Floods are the Nation’s most frequent 

and destructive natural disaster. 

Up-to-date flood maps are a key means of identifying the boundaries of the areas at greatest risk of flooding. When we reviewed 

FEMA’s Flood Map Modernization program last year, FEMA estimated that about 70 percent of the Nation’s approximately 92,000 

flood maps were more than 10 years old. Maps must be periodically 

updated because such things as erosion and development alter 

draining patterns and, thus, the boundaries of the areas at greatest 

risk of flooding. 

FEMA develops flood maps to identify areas at risk of flooding, 

determine rates for national flood insurance policies, and provide 

information that can be used for floodplain management and mitigation. 

FEMA expects that producing more accurate accessible flood 

maps will produce three major benefits. The first is that communities can use more accurate digital maps to reduce risk through 

effectively regulating development in areas of high risk. Middleburg, North Carolina, for example, has used revised maps to adapt 

and enforce building standards that it estimates will save over 

$300 million in future flood damage. 

Secondly, accurate digital maps available on the Internet will facilitate identifying property owners who are statutorily required to 

or would benefit from purchasing flood insurance. 

Third, FEMA expects that accurate and precise digital data will 

help national, State, and local officials accurately locate infrastructure and transportation systems to help mitigate and manage risk 

for multiple hazards. Houston has used the digital data from its 

maps to develop a model for projecting the path of a petroleum spill 

at a Houston oil refinery. North Carolina is using the digital data 

to develop a real-time flood inundation model that can be used to 

identify bridges and roads flooded and likely to flood during a 

storm and are, thus, unsuitable for evacuation. 

23

FEMA faces three principal challenges in its flood modernization 

program. First is developing new, accurate maps across communities with different levels of flood risk while working with its 

State, local, and regional partners to maximize the effective use of 

Federal, State, and local resources. 

Flood maps are no better than the accuracy of the data and analysis on which they are based, but not every area requires exactly 

the same level of data collection and analysis. Areas of lowest flood 

risk will require less intensive data collection and analysis than 

those at highest risk. We recommended that FEMA define the specificity and quality of data needed for communities with different 

levels of risk to ensure that similar data collection and analysis 

were done for communities in similar risk categories. In its 2004 

multi-year risk hazard identification plan, FEMA has outlined 

some of the factors that it is going to consider in doing this. 

With regard to resource sharing, FEMA’s goal is that nationally, 

overall, its State and local partners will contribute 20 percent of 

the resources FEMA does. Actual experience to date across FEMA’s 

ten regions has ranged from less than 10 percent to more than 40 

percent. North Carolina, to date, for example, has contributed 

about $41 million, or about 65 percent of the cost of the flood mapping effort. 

FEMA faces a challenge in leveraging its resources in partnership with communities who have few resources and little experience with flood mapping. FEMA’s November 2004 plan does not directly address this challenge and how it plans to deal with it. 

Secondly, developing partnerships with participating communities, lenders, and other stakeholders that will enhance the use of 

the new maps for mitigation or the purchase of flood insurance is 

a continuing challenge. This is important because FEMA has no direct authority to enforce community building code and mitigation 

regulations, and FEMA must rely upon Federal regulated lenders 

to ensure that property owners who are required to purchase flood 

insurance do so. 

The third FEMA challenge is effectively overseeing and managing its performance-based flood modernization contract. As we 

recommended last year, FEMA has established performance goals 

for the map modernization project. They include the population 

that has digital GIS data, the percentage of the population that has 

adopted maps that meet FEMA’s quality standards, the previously 

mentioned State and local resource contribution targets, and appropriated funds sent to its cooperative technical partners. 

At the time of our review, FEMA faced a shortage of staff with 

the skills needed to effectively oversee its performance-based contract for map modernization, although it was making efforts to hire 

such staff. Staff with the appropriate skills are key to effective 

management and oversight of such a large, complex contract. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, FEMA has made progress in creating a structuring process for effective map modernization, but 

faces continuing challenges in successfully implementing this complex program. 

That concludes my statement. I would be pleased to respond to 

any question you or other members of the subcommittee may have. 

Chairman NEY. Thank you. 

24

[The prepared statement of William O. Jenkins can be found on 

page 124 in the appendix.] 

Chairman NEY. Mr. Bullock. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL BULLOCK, PRESIDENT, INTERMAP 

FEDERAL SERVICES, INC., AND VICE PRESIDENT, INTERMAP 

TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 

Mr. BULLOCK. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, 

it is a privilege for me to testify on this particular topic. I have prepared written testimony that I ask be submitted for the record. 

Chairman NEY. Without objection. 

Mr. BULLOCK. A national strategy is needed for topographic mapping to support the flood maps that are being produced under the 

FEMA Map Modernization program. 

In year 2000, Britain faced serious flood mapping problems. 

There was severe flooding that caused over $1.5 billion worth of 

damage. The people there complained that the flood maps were not 

accurate and not only that, but they said that the risk that they 

were paying in terms of their premiums did not reflect the actual 

risk of flood. 

I suspect that many of these themes ring true to you here today. 

Now let’s fast forward to 2004. Again, there was severe flooding 

late last year, but the new maps that were created in Britain accurately predicted the flood extent almost to the individual property—

Chairman NEY. I am sorry, the new maps created in Britain by—

Mr. BULLOCK. I will get to that in a second, sir. 

How did they get there? How did they get to mapping an entire 

country in a few short years very accurately and very precisely? 

The way that that was done is that the largest flood insurer in 

the country, Norwich Union Insurance, recognized they needed better topography for the country in order to support more accurate 

flood maps. They entered into a partnership with ourselves where 

we used the latest technology to map all of England, Wales, and 

Scotland—and this we did in 18 months, which is an unprecedented achievement. We used a new technology based on airborne 

radar that does direct measurements of the Earth’s topography; it 

does it very effectively and very quickly. And when they produced 

these flood maps, they found that the data is king, that you can’t 

produce accurate flood maps without accurate and current topography. 

Now in the poster that you see off to the right, that is a depiction 

of the data that we created for England, Wales, and Scotland. It 

is complete; it is accurate; it is current. 

Now today, the U.S. is also updating its flood maps into the Map 

Mod program, and it is an excellent program that will benefit our 

country for many years. However, there are concerns that all of us 

should have in regards to this program. 

For some areas, there are concerns that we are digitizing and 

modernizing old data. And in those areas, particularly in the rural 

parts of the country, the policy of the Map Mod program is to update the flood maps using the best available topographic data. 

Well, for much of the country the best of the topographic data—

25

Chairman NEY. Sorry, just so we follow on track—and we won’t 

take this off your time—the first map you had up there was Great 

Britain with the modern mapping. What is this map? Because we 

don’t have the screens in the committee here. What is this map of? 

Mr. BULLOCK. This map that you are seeing depicts FEMA Region 6. 

Chairman NEY. This is not a mapping; this is just a map? 

Mr. BULLOCK. The color coding is depicting the USGS data that 

is available for FEMA Region 6. Each color is a different era in 

terms of when it was produced, typically between 1940 and 1980. 

And that chart speaks for itself. It is a random quilt work of various vintages and various accuracies. 

Chairman NEY. This is the map that would be used today, then? 

Mr. BULLOCK. For many areas under Map Mod, in the rural 

areas of the country, yes, the best topographic data is the USGS 

data. 

Chairman NEY. I just want for the members to be on track. 

Mr. BULLOCK. To use this data with various vintages, with various inaccuracies, it brings to mind the phrase, ′′garbage in, garbage out.′′ Mr. Chairman, we can and we must do better. The Map Mod program has a critical and dramatic need for updated topography for 

the country to support better and more accurate flood maps. 

The next poster which is being shown is of a pilot project that 

we performed with FEMA Region 6 in the Texas area. And in that 

pilot project, it was very successful in terms of evaluating new airborne radar data in terms of creating new topography to support 

flood map generation. In comparison with the existing USGS data, 

it found the USGS data to be off by as much as 5 feet vertically 

and 170 feet horizontally; and when it comes to updating flood 

maps, those are huge errors. 

Right now we are engaged—our company is engaged in mapping 

the United States just like we did in Britain. We are going to map 

the entire continental U.S.; we are going to do it in 4 years. We 

have already completed Mississippi, Florida, and in a few months 

we will have all of California completed. In the next 3 to 4 years 

we will have the whole continental U.S. mapped, the topography 

mapped, more accurately than has ever been achieved, just like we 

did in Great Britain. 

Now our data alone is not a complete solution for FEMA. We recognize that. But for the sparsely vegetated areas of the country, 

roughly 60 percent of the country, it is a very effective solution. 

And then, using airborne LIDAR and other technologies for the 

vegetated areas, we can, in fact, have a solution that has accurate 

topography for the entire country. 

The Map Mod program is in a critical phase right now, where 

many hundreds of counties are going to have their flood maps updated. We need to ensure that we are not simply digitizing and 

modernizing old data. And when we are updating the flood maps, 

we need to ensure we are using the most accurate topography that 

our technology or anybody’s technology can provide. 

And so, to sum up, a national strategy is required for collecting 

this topography to support the most accurate flood maps that are 

possible. Thank you. 

26

Chairman NEY. I thank the gentleman. 

[The prepared statement of Michael Bullock can be found on 

page 56 in the appendix.] 

Chairman NEY. Mr. Edelman. 

STATEMENT OF SCOTT K. EDELMAN, PRESIDENT, WATERSHED 

CONCEPTS, A DIVISION OF HAYES, SEAY, MATTERN & 

MATTERN, INC. 

Mr. EDELMAN. Good morning, Chairman Ney, Ranking Member 

Waters, and members of the subcommittee. 

I am Scott Edelman, president of Watershed Concepts, a division 

of Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern, Inc. I appreciate this opportunity to appear before this Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity. 

Watershed Concepts has been involved with creating flood maps 

for FEMA since 1984. During this time, I have witnessed many 

changes within FEMA and the flood insurance program. I believe 

the current approach FEMA is taking to produce maps is highly effective. Drawing on this experience, I am honored to represent Watershed Concepts and to provide testimony on the topic of this 

hearing. 

Specifically, I have been asked to provide my opinion to four 

questions contained in the July 1, 2005, letter from Chairman Ney 

to me. I have supplied detailed answers to the committee before 

giving this testimony, and I am summarizing my responses as follows. 

The first question deals with how important is it for FEMA to 

keep the maps up to date and what are the negative consequences 

of delaying map modernization? I believe it is critical to keep the 

maps up to date and detrimental to the country if the maps are not 

kept current. The maps provide protection for 4.5 million policyholders and provide approximately $650 billion in coverage, with 

annual flood damages of approximately 1.1 billion. 

If the maps are not updated, then the annual cost is likely to increase for two reasons. First, FEMA has not studied every stream 

in the Nation; FEMA has only studied about one-third of the 

streams. Many of the unstudied areas are on Federal lands and are 

unlikely to be developed. However, because of population growth 

and shifts in the Nation’s population from one region to another, 

development will occur in areas that were not previously anticipated for development. 

Second, as the watershed develops, more parking lots, building 

and road construction occurs. This creates additional storm water 

runoff that under natural conditions would have been absorbed by 

the soil. We have performed studies that show watershed development can increase water surface elevations along flooding sources 

by more than 10 feet. I believe that these are the two reasons why 

it is critical to keep the maps current. 

The second question dealt with who decides which maps would 

be modernized and is the process sufficient. I observed that FEMA 

headquarters sets national policy with map modernization being 

implemented at the ten FEMA regions. Each region obtains considerable input from the States and local communities, but FEMA decides when the study will be performed and the scope of the study. 

27

If the community wants to take on additional responsibilities once 

FEMA has made the basic decisions, it does allow for delegation of 

portions of the program to the partner. I believe this is an effective 

means to manage the program. 

The third question dealt with the use of USGS maps as the best 

available topographic information. FEMA has strict guidelines and 

specifications for performing studies. These guidelines state that 

USGS quadrangle maps cannot be used for detailed study areas. 

These are medium- to high-risk flood-prone areas. 

We do, however, consider USGS quadrangle maps for areas of 

low-risk flooding. These are typically rural America where growth 

is very small or negative and the population densities are small. 

We have performed pilot studies in these areas with emerging technologies to determine if a better product can be created within the 

limits of the set budget. These emerging technologies do offer the 

hope of creating a better flood map, but issues such as data licensing and evaluation of the actual benefit in low-risk areas may need 

to be done. 

The fourth and final question dealt with FEMA’s overall map 

modernization strategy. I have observed FEMA performing a comprehensive nationwide approach, upgrading standards, and evaluating new methodologies and technologies that may benefit the program. I believe that modernization is being effectively managed. 

I want to again thank the subcommittee for this opportunity to 

address the members concerning this important topic. I am honored to be able to provide testimony as the subcommittee considers 

the most efficient methods to prevent or reduce flooding losses. I 

would be happy to answer any questions that you have, and with 

the permission of the committee, I would like for the detailed responses to my questions to be entered in the record. 

Chairman NEY. Without objection. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Scott K. Edelman can be found on 

page 107 in the appendix.] 

Chairman NEY. Ms. Small. 

STATEMENT OF CHERYL SMALL, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL 

FLOOD DETERMINATION ASSOCIATION 

Ms. SMALL. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Waters, and members of the committee, thank you for your time to speak. 

I am representing the National Flood Determination Association, 

and that is a professional association of companies which provides 

flood zone determinations to lenders for compliance with the mandatory purchase requirements of the NFIP. The association represents some two-thirds of the industry and is probably the most 

frequent user of the flood maps, with approximately 33 million determinations completed for lenders in the year 2003. 

The NFDA is gratified that the Administration has recognized 

the real need to update and modernize the flood maps. I would like 

to convey to this committee NFDA’s full and complete support for 

the Map Modernization initiative. Seventy percent of the flood 

maps are 5 years and older, with 57 percent at least 20 years old. 

And several thousand flood-prone communities remain without 

flood hazard maps. About 20,000 maps require updates since they 

have outdated or inadequate flood hazard data. 

28

In the near term, many of the new maps will be just a digitized 

version of the current updated flood map. In those cases, the maps 

will not incorporate Letter of Map Amendment updates. If the Letter of Map Amendment update revalidation process is delayed, 

then home owners may have to seek insurance coverage when, in 

fact, their property has been exempted from the mandatory purchase requirement. 

In 2004, 40,000 Letters of Map Amendments were issued. In recent years, processing these consumed about 80 percent of the 

funds from mapping fees generated—for mapping generated by 

fees. When a revised map is issued, enormous cost is incurred by 

all parties as it initiates the life of loan tracking processes and procedures developed by lenders and flood companies to ensure compliance with flood regulations and secondary market requirements. 

This process involves notification to lenders by flood determination 

companies and then lenders contacting borrowers and home owners 

regarding insurance-related matters. In 2003, our industry was 

tracking 97 million loans for map changes. 

Flood determination companies are in a somewhat unique position of understanding the issues involved with the development 

and deployment of the maps. We have regular communication with 

home owners and lenders who are directly affected by the release 

of new maps into the communities. In 2003, our member companies 

fielded in excess of 1.3 million calls from home owners and lenders 

discussing compliance and mapping-related matters. 

In 2003, we organized the technical mapping meetings with 

FEMA, NFDA, and FEMA’s mapping partners. This forum was created as a way for all parties to discuss and resolve technical mapping issues, receive updates on the progress of map modernization, 

and voice any concerns about the direction of the program. 

FEMA and their mapping partners have gained a better understanding of how the determination industry uses the flood maps 

and how a seemingly minor change on their part can have significant impacts to lenders and borrowers, as was played out with the 

North Carolina paneling schema. At this point, it is not clear 

whether our input has been taken into account, and if it has not 

been, then there could be serious problems for our industry lenders 

and their borrowers and their home owners. 

We understand that meetings have taken place concerning some 

important items for our industry, but we have not received information on the outcomes. If the determination industry is not kept 

in the loop on these matters, the result would be a slowdown in the 

closing of real estate transactions. 

NFDA is concerned that all involved appear to be focused on fulfilling the program metrics rather than considering an adjustment 

of the time and money needed to produce accurate digital maps 

based upon updated topographic base data and updated flood studies. Map modernization is more complex, extensive, and costly than 

originally estimated. Updates require more time and investment, 

and this raises a concern that insufficient analysis is being undertaken in order to complete actual amounts more quickly. Until the 

program was under way, certain factors affecting costs and time estimates were not realized. 

29

We would not want the new maps to be simply digital maps produced from existing flood information. To do justice to the national 

investment and good flood-risk maps, there may need to be some 

adjustments to the quantitative standards by which the program is 

evaluated, and it may not be possible to complete the job in the 

projected 5 years. 

NFDA applauds FEMA’s commitment to produce easier-to-use 

and easy-to-update digital maps. We expect a significant number of 

maps to be released under the Map Modernization initiative in 

September. And once we begin to work with the new data, we will 

have more facts on which to base our opinions on whether map 

modernization is achieving its goals. 

We would appreciate an opportunity to address this committee in 

the future about the issues that may reveal themselves over the 

course of the next few months. NFDA recommends that FEMA establish an stakeholder advisory group and model it after the successful Technical Mapping Advisory Council established by the 

Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994. 

That concludes our testimony. 

Chairman NEY. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Cheryl Small can be found on page 

154 in the appendix.] 

Chairman NEY. Last witness, Mr. Williams. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES R. WILLIAMS, COCHAIRMAN, MAPPING 

AND ENGINEERING STANDARDS COMMITTEE, ASSOCIATION 

OF STATE FLOODPLAIN MANAGERS, INC. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Chairman Ney, Ranking Member Waters, members of the subcommittee. 

My name is Jim Williams. I am the project manager for Nebraska’s floodplain mapping program. 

Just to give you an idea of where we are coming from, we have 

mapped more than 10,000 miles, stream-miles, in the State of Nebraska, and we have mapped it at the lowest cost in the Nation. 

And I am here testifying on behalf of the Association of State 

Floodplain Managers. 

I am going to address all four of the bullet points, the questions 

that were in our invitation letter. 

The first question was, how important is it to update the flood 

insurance rate maps? The sad truth is, it is not important to anybody until our next flood. People have very short-term memories 

when it comes to disasters; however, after the next flood people are 

going to want to know yet again how did it happen, why wasn’t I 

warned, who is going to pay for my losses. And we all know who 

they are going to be writing and calling when that happens. 

So the NFIP protects citizens and their property from losses due 

to flooding. Map Mod is in the process of making maps so people 

can be aware of what their risk is. 

The second question was in reference to who makes decisions 

about what projects go forward during any one fiscal year. I have 

got kind of a two-part answer to that. Overall, it is the FEMA regional engineers and the various regional offices that make those 

decisions. During early years of Map Mod, we believe some serious 

mistakes were made. The emphasis was based on hitting popuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:12 Apr 19, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\DOCS\109.44 RODNEY
30

lations in counties with high populations, and so populous counties 

with acceptable paper maps received new Map Mod funding, while 

new, completed county-wide studies could not move forward; they 

sat on the shelf waiting for publication money. 

In the State of Nebraska, we had over a dozen completed studies 

that were delayed 1 to 2 to 3 years. We couldn’t hit the print button because we were throwing big dollars at Lincoln and Omaha, 

which already had useful paper maps. 

However, I do want to emphasize, we believe FEMA is getting 

back on track on this. They are making decisions in more of a 

partnering mode. Regional personnel are working with State and 

local authorities to properly prioritize what projects move forward. 

The third question was, what value is there in comparing flood 

zones to 40-year-old USGS topo maps? Well, I believe that this 

guidance, which is in section 7 of FEMA’s plan, Multihazard Implementation Plan, was written to address two things. First of all, you 

can quickly judge the quality of a map by superimposing it on one 

of these old topo maps. If it doesn’t fit the old topo map, you have 

no business digitizing that old map. If it is bad enough, throw it 

out; do a new study. 

Secondly, many study contractors insisted they could delineate 

Approximate Zone A flood zones on digital elevation models. Well, 

the problem is that the DEMs are derived from the USGS topo 

maps; therefore, the quality is degraded. DEMs do not represent 

the best available topo. Based on my experience, the topo maps are 

adequate for modeling and delineation in rural areas. They should 

be double-checked in towns. They are not accurate enough for detailed studies. And the topo requirements are very clearly spelled 

in out in FEMA’s guidelines and specifications. 

The fourth and the last item was a request for an overall assessment of FEMA’s Map Mod strategy. Overall, I am going to give 

FEMA a thumbs-up on this issue. 

I could talk to you all day long about some of the good things 

that are happening with Flood Map Modernization, but I am close 

to out of time, so I am going to mention the one main thing I want 

to leave with you: There isn’t enough money. 

We now know that $1 billion is not going to do the job; it is going 

to take maybe three times that amount, based on State business 

plans. You might be asking, are we looking for gold-plated maps? 

No. We are looking for just a simple, usable map that passes what 

we call the red-face test. How did we get the numbers so wrong? 

There are lots of reasons, but quite frankly, we didn’t know how 

bad the maps were. We had to go into Map Mod 1 to 2 years to 

start seeing some of these things come out. And we now know that 

it is going to take probably $3 billion to do the job that our citizens 

need to have done. 

Thank you for your time. 

[The prepared statement of James R. Williams can be found on 

page 160 in the appendix.] 

Chairman NEY. Thank you. 

I want to ask you a question based on something you said 

about—from my understanding what you are saying is, we don’t 

need gold-plate mapping everywhere. Also, in the rural areas, who 

would determine and separate out—let me give you an example. 

31

There are some areas where nothing is developed, nothing has 

changed, so therefore one would say, well, we don’t need the goldplate mapping in that area because there is not enough money. But 

what do you do in some of the rural areas—I will give you an example where we have had long—are you familiar with underground 

mining? And in underground mining, they don’t have to get rid of 

you to permit. They go under your house, and as you know, sometimes it disrupts an aquifer, it disrupts flows, and you could have 

different patterns which might affect a creek, and you might have 

flash flooding where you never had it before. But technically, to the 

eye, you don’t have any type of development in that area, but you 

could have a situation which could create possibly some changes 

that might lead to flooding or redirection of creeks or something 

like that. As you know, that could happen with that. 

Now how do you separate that type of area out, that it doesn’t 

need maps, from an area that does need maps? How would do you 

that in rural areas? I mean, I understand in the desert you don’t 

need probably million dollar mapping, because what is going to 

change there, particularly, but—

Mr. WILLIAMS. The short answer is, we don’t know. Let me give 

you a little bit more on that. 

My subcommittee with the State Floodplain Managers is actively 

addressing this, and we hope to work in partnership with FEMA. 

We know that we don’t need to map large portions of national 

parks and other Federal properties, bombing ranges. 

It is my opinion that every town needs a map. Some people within FEMA are not yet convinced that every town needs a map. Their 

point is if you are not in the National Flood Insurance Program, 

you don’t deserve a map. 

Well, we have got a chicken-and-an-egg problem here. Many communities in Nebraska haven’t joined the program because they 

don’t have a map; they don’t know they have risk. So my opinion 

is, every incorporated community, and perhaps some zone outside 

of that community, needs, at a minimum, an Approximate Zone A 

map. 

My next point is that areas that are growing need a detailed 

study. Overall, there is huge cost savings when developers know 

exactly what the risk is in those areas. But there is that gray area 

that is in between communities and growing areas versus the Federal lands, and that is something we have got to hammer out together. We haven’t answered that question. 

Chairman NEY. That is a good, honest answer. You don’t have 

the answer yet, because I can think of other places in the district 

where we have bedroom communities—now Columbus, Ohio, that 

did not have huge development, and now they have constant development because people are living there and working in—for example, in Columbus, Ohio, so that is creating more runoff, water runoff, things that we haven’t dealt with before. 

I guess what you are saying is, we don’t know yet how to separate out; this doesn’t ever need mapping for the short term and this 

does. We still just don’t know how to do that. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. That is correct. 

There is another aspect I would like to introduce to this. I think 

that every community that gets a floodplain map, obviously that 

32

panel is going to get published. There are going to perhaps be large 

portions of that panel not close to the community. How are we 

going to map those? If it is Zone D, unstudied, the insurance is 

going to be pretty expensive there. Are we going to map it as 

shaded Zone X? 

My point is that it is a very complicated question, and it has 

huge fiscal impact. 

Chairman NEY. Mr. Jenkins, the question I have, are most people, do you think, generally—are aware, unaware, whether they 

have to get flood insurance? Is there a consistent mechanism where 

people know, yes, that they are aware that they have to have flood 

insurance or not, or should have it or not? 

Mr. JENKINS. I think they—the answer to that is, no, in terms 

of consistency. In prior work that we have done, there does seem 

to be a problem. 

As you know, mortgages shift—mortgage servicers shift from the 

original person you get the mortgage from; somebody else takes it 

over. And there seems to be problems there with consistency in 

terms of them knowing that this person needs flood insurance. So 

there seems to be some problem in whether or not people really do 

know. 

There are some examples in the current flood mapping process 

where they have taken quite a bit of trouble to try to notify people 

when a map has been proposed to send notification to every person 

that would either come into the floodplain and would have to be 

required to purchase flood insurance or would move out of the 

floodplain and would not be required to buy insurance. 

So that is an important part of the flood mapping process, that 

at the time that the map is proposed and sent out that a company 

notify everybody that would be affected by a change in the boundaries. 

Chairman NEY. Thank you. 

The gentlelady from California. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Bullock, am I to understand that you are representing here 

today that you have the state-of-the-art technology by which to do 

mapping in a way that would give us the information that we need 

in order to determine whether or not we need to change the maps 

that are not used—the old, not digitized, just old data? Is that 

what you are telling us? 

Mr. BULLOCK. That is correct. And again, we are not a solution 

for the entire country, but this is what we learned again in Britain. 

The existing Government topographic data was not good enough to 

have consistent, accurate flood maps for the entire country. And so 

that is when our technology was employed; and in 18 months we 

mapped all of England, Wales, and Scotland to a very consistent 

and complete topography that was then later used to generate new 

flood maps for those three entire countries. 

And as a result, 600,000 properties were now available and 

qualified for flood insurance. Premiums for many of those property 

owners have decreased or gone away entirely. And so Britain is 

now the most accurately flood-mapped nation on the face of the 

Earth. And there is an opportunity to employ those same practices 

and technologies here for much of the country to improve the topogVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:12 Apr 19, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\DOCS\109.44 RODNEY
33

raphy—again, topography that data is king in terms of the accuracy of the resulting flood maps. 

Ms. WATERS. So are you contracting with FEMA now for anything? 

Mr. BULLOCK. No. FEMA Region 6 did sponsor a small pilot 

study in Texas which—I showed you the results in my testimony—

which was very successful. As of right now, we don’t have any contracts with FEMA, although Region 6 has expressed interest in not 

using the USGS data as a result of that pilot study and in using 

our data in certain counties. But right now we are not under contract. 

Ms. WATERS. I see. I guess—I don’t know if this is an appropriate 

question or not to Mr. Jenkins. 

Are you familiar with Intermap Federal Services, Inc., of Englewood, Colorado? 

Mr. JENKINS. No, not really. I did have some information that 

they sent me about what they do and what their product is and so 

forth, but we are not particularly familiar. And in the work we did, 

we didn’t really assess different technologies and the merits of different technologies for mapping. 

What we did focus on is consistency and approach and making 

sure that they have some way of identifying and assessing that the 

maps are accurate and that they are accurate for the purpose of 

which they are intended, which is identifying accurate flood boundaries. 

Ms. WATERS. Well, the question that appears to surface here 

today is whether or not we are going to digitize old information. 

What do you think about that? 

Mr. JENKINS. Well, I think there is an issue that hasn’t been 

raised about digitizing old maps, existing paper maps. 

Assuming, as Mr. Maurstad said, that one has determined that 

that data is still sufficiently reliable in terms of identifying 

floodplains, there is the potential that the map itself has errors in 

it, that is, that the data from the survey was transferred onto the 

map, errors were made doing that. So, at the very least, if you decide that that map is sufficient and you have done an analysis to 

decide that the map is sufficient, you need to at least make sure 

that you are digitizing correct data, that you are not digitizing errors that were inadvertently placed on the map to begin with. 

Ms. WATERS. Are you convinced—while you said you did not look 

at the technology, you haven’t evaluated the technology that is 

being utilized to determine whether or not they can get the correct 

information to make the corrections. Is that a fair statement? 

Mr. JENKINS. That is right. We did not really look at the technology. We did visit a number of locations that were doing Map 

Modernization, that used extensive LIDAR in both North Carolina 

and Houston. Most of that LIDAR was paid for locally, not by 

FEMA. So we looked at the kinds of technologies that they were 

using, but we didn’t assess whether or not they were the right technologies. 

Ms. WATERS. I see. 

May I just ask Ms. Small and Mr. Williams, do you know anything about this technology and whether or not we are using the 

34

appropriate technology to get the information to make sure that we 

are not digitizing old maps? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I do believe that we should look closer at it. We 

would like to evaluate some of the data from the pilot study. I 

would like to try out my own software and tools on that data. 

There are large portions of Nebraska for which this technology 

appears that it would be useful. It is—as Mr. Bullock said, it is not 

appropriate everywhere, and I understand this. Understand that in 

Nebraska we are in a unique situation in that we have the USGS 

contours already electronic—′′in the can,′′ so to speak. There are 

large portions of the country where the cost of moving from paper 

to the computer is equivalent to the cost of getting brand new data 

from this new technology, and in those areas it should be looked 

at more closely. 

Ms. WATERS. Ms. Small. 

Ms. SMALL. I am not familiar with the technology from Intermap, 

but we do—as an organization that uses the maps 33 million times 

in 1 year, we do realize the importance of having the latest, updated topographical-based data because it certainly allows us to 

make accurate determinations that are rendered of whether a 

home owner is required to have flood insurance in response to the 

mandatory purchase requirement. 

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I don’t think there is anyone here 

who could answer for me whether or not the cost of new technology 

that may be much more accurate than what we are using now is 

prohibitive or whether or not the amount of dollars that is allocated toward the remapping would be sufficient to pay for this 

technology, but I think it is something we need to find out about. 

Chairman NEY. Homeland Security—or can anybody answer 

that? 

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Bullock. 

Mr. BULLOCK. The current practice in rural parts of the country 

for developing new topography is done county by county in cooperation with local communities, and it is a good thing to cooperate 

with the local communities. But to map a country county by county 

would be like carpeting your home 1 square foot at a time, buying 

that carpet from different stores and then piecing it together. 

There are economies of scale when you employ new technology to 

map entire States, entire countries, do it simultaneously instead of 

over decades; and that is what we did in the U.K. And that is what 

I talk about, when we need a national strategy to collect this topographic data to support the Map Mod program. 

We need to do that; we need to start it now because when you 

consider the schedule and the course of the Map Mod program, it 

is unlikely they are going to avail themselves of this type of technology on a wide scale practice before the program is done, and we 

will end up with a lot of new flood maps based on old and inaccurate data. 

Ms. WATERS. How many companies are there that do what you 

do? Do you have any idea? 

Mr. BULLOCK. Currently, we are the only company that uses this 

technology specifically for flood mapping. But again, we can’t do 

the whole country for flood mapping accuracy. We have a solution 

that we believe fits for about 60 percent of the country, the agriVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:12 Apr 19, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\DOCS\109.44 RODNEY
35

culture and sparsely vegetated, but that is a good start. And then, 

using other companies that have LIDAR and other technologies, we 

can, in fact, develop a national topographic database just like was 

done in the U.K. and again have the most accurate flood maps on 

the Earth. 

Ms. WATERS. Well, you answered my question, because that is 

precisely where I was going, whether or not you in cooperation 

with other companies could put together that kind of a strategy 

that could be looked at for dealing with what I think is a very complicated problem that we really don’t have a handle on. 

I have not been satisfied, just listening today, that we will not 

be simply digitizing our maps. I think—the testimony we have 

heard leads me to believe that that is precisely what we are going 

to do unless we come up with a different, more comprehensive 

strategy that perhaps everybody here is suggesting in one way or 

the other, and I am certainly supportive of that, yes. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Ms. Waters, if I may, I have to emphasize that 

it is not FEMA’s task or duty to come up with topographic data. 

It is not cheap, and it is not particularly easy, especially on a piecemeal basis. 

But trying to do flood maps without good topographic data is like 

trying to clean the room without the lights on; it is like trying to 

drive without headlights. It is the fundamental basis of what we 

are about here, and however we get to it, we need to have a good 

strategy for accurate topo delineations in towns and in rural areas. 

And there are various costing levels that are appropriate. 

And I don’t know the answer of how to fund that, but you have 

hit on the key item here, yes. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman NEY. Thank you. 

The gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Pearce. 

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I was close to Sonora, Texas, a couple years ago, and the water 

was running about 11 foot deep, and it was over the overpass there 

along the main highway. 

In my own hometown a couple years ago we typically hit 9 inches 

of rain a year. We got that all in about 45 minutes, and it washed 

the pavement out of many of the streets in town. 

So when we want to disregard the flat desert, it is not. Mr. Bullock, what was the cost of providing the maps to Britain. 

Mr. BULLOCK. We did that in a partnership with Norwich Union 

Insurance where they provided about half—

Mr. PEARCE. I just wondered the total cost if I wanted to get a 

comparative basis. 

Mr. BULLOCK. The total cost was approximately $7 million, and 

the area that was mapped is roughly 1/40th the size of the continental U.S. 

Mr. PEARCE. So for $280 million, do you think you could do that? 

Mr. BULLOCK. That includes the topographic mapping as well as 

all of the flood mapping, creation of the new flood maps. Now they 

use a different technique than what FEMA contractors would use, 

but that is roughly what the level of investment was. 

Mr. PEARCE. Do you think for 280 million you might be able to 

do the U.S.? 

36

Mr. BULLOCK. I would just speak to the topographic portion of 

that, since I don’t do the creation of the flood map—

Mr. PEARCE. That is all right. The FEMA made a comment that 

you are willing to sell maps, but are not willing to allow the public 

use of these maps. What is that all about? 

Mr. BULLOCK. Well, the reason why we are able to do it so inexpensively is we license the data. We are going out and mapping the 

United States right now using our own investment, and then we 

spread the cost of that data across multiple users and multiple 

agencies. 

Mr. PEARCE. And every time they access it they pay a fee or 

something? 

Mr. BULLOCK. No. Once they buy a license they have that in perpetuity. They can use it—

Mr. PEARCE. What would a small town pay for a license, say a 

town of 12,000 in New Mexico? 

Mr. BULLOCK. Well, typically it is only $10 a square kilometer. 

A small town might be 500 square kilometers, so it might be 

$5,000. Very affordable. 

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Jenkins, as we discussed the whole process of 

FEMA, does FEMA ever pay claims? People rebuild and within a 

year or two they pay the same claims on the same spot? 

Mr. JENKINS. Yes, they do. They do. 

Mr. PEARCE. How does that work? I thought FEMA in previous 

testimony, their idea was to get protection and tell us where not 

to build. How does it—

Mr. JENKINS. Where not to build. We did testify, and I have some 

information I can share with you for the record about repetitive 

loss properties. But that is the issue. There are properties where—

repetitive loss properties are primarily located in Texas and Louisiana. They are more in those two States than any other places. 

They are places that have filed, you know, more than one loss. In 

some cases, the loss is greater than the value of the property; that 

is, the payouts are greater than the total value of the property. 

And of course that was one of the things the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004 was designed to try to address was repetitive 

losses. But they are a big problem, and they are a major portion 

of the total payout in flood insurance. 

Mr. PEARCE. Does FEMA have a process to identify if they get 

multiple claims? 

Mr. JENKINS. Yes. It a process for that. 

Mr. PEARCE. And does the process then begin to limit that? 

How—in other words, I watch—I don’t live on the coast, but I 

watch all the TV with houses being washed away from the coastline, and yet it appears when I go to the coast those things are rebuilt.

Mr. JENKINS. There is a point at which you are not eligible for 

disaster assistance because of that and other things as a way to encourage you to either elevate the property or move out of the floodplain. 

Mr. PEARCE. What is that point, that point of discouragement? 

Mr. JENKINS. I don’t exactly remember. I have it in my office—

37

Mr. PEARCE. If you would submit that it would be interesting to 

see that because it to me seems a lot of times we simply do the 

same things over and over again, and I would appreciate that. 

Mr. JENKINS. I will send you that information. 

Mr. PEARCE. I see my time is about to elapse, Mr. Chairman. 

Thanks. 

Chairman NEY. Mr. Fitzpatrick. 

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Thank you, Chairman Ney. I appreciate the 

testimony of everybody on the panel. I know that those of us who 

represent districts who are victimized by habitual flooding find 

your information very helpful. It also sounds like everybody agrees 

we need better coordination with our local partners, with our State 

governments and local governments. I know as a county commissioner for Bucks County, Pennsylvania, for 10 years, every week 

county governments and local governments are signing contracts to 

not only update their flood maps, but they are signing contracts for 

high resolution aerial photography. They are buying new hardware, 

upgrading their software, GIS systems. And in my view, we need 

new incentives and better incentives with local governments. 

I was wondering if anybody on the panel has any suggestions for 

new incentives that the Federal Government could use that would 

draw in that new data that is being generated every single day and 

recognizing as we create a new incentive and part of the incentives 

may be to, you know, to encourage local governments to use not 

only Homeland Security dollars, Federal dollars, and State dollars, 

but start using some of their own local resources, which many governments are willing to do, use their own local resources and 

maybe move those governments to the top of the list for quicker 

flood map modernization. And if you do that, again, you have to 

recognize—and I heard a little bit today about standardization. I 

am looking at that map down here, and that is everything but 

standardization. But the fact is that there are 3,000 counties in the 

United States, and all those counties have their own contracts and 

they are getting different kinds of data. 

So on the one hand, we all appreciate the benefits of standardization. We have to recognize there are local governments and county 

governments out there getting their own data and different kinds 

of resolution of data, and so what kind of incentives can we give 

local governments to spend some of their own dollars so that with 

the $1 billion we talked about—and, Mr. Williams, I think you indicated that is not enough—encourage the local governments to 

help out, and what does that do to standardization and flood mapping around the country? 

To any of the members of the panel. 

Mr. EDELMAN. Maybe I can go first. FEMA is embarking upon 

a digital system, and they are putting all their information into a 

managed information platform, mapping information platform, 

MIP, mapping information platform. This allows data to be built 

upon. So that, for instance, in your Bucks County, if they came up 

with better topo information after FEMA has done their study they 

will be able to incorporate that information easier and update the 

flooding information more efficiently and faster as time goes on. 

So there has been a lot of talk about how we are going to move 

forward. What I believe FEMA is doing is FEMA is getting us to 

38

that base layer of instead of getting us out of the paper world and 

into the digital world such that once you are in digital world updates become a lot more efficient and a lot more effective and a lot 

more timely as new information becomes available. There are plenty of counties across the United States that get new topo information once every 2 or 3 years, and it would be really nice to be able 

to update the maps in these growing areas to do that. 

So a lot of emphasis is going on on how the partnership can work 

with local communities to take this data in to provide the updates. 

Mr. BULLOCK. If I might respond. Again, I think it is important 

to cooperate with the local communities, but to rely on them to provide the topographic data on a county by county basis, I believe 

that is a flawed approach. 

If that was the approach we had taken in the United Kingdom, 

we would still be talking about the program instead of already having the best flood maps that exist. 

I believe that a lot of the initial reliance on the local communities 

was due to budget concerns and trying to help them fund the collection of this data, but with new technology that exists today that 

is no longer as much as of a problem because we can, in fact, collect 

data for the entire country in just a couple of years. And it would 

be consistent, complete. Instead of having a patchwork that you see 

on that poster there, you have a consistent database. And then you 

share that with the local community so they have the access to that 

high accuracy data as well. 

Thank you. 

Mr. JENKINS. I think one thing in our work that we noticed is 

that it really does help; it is not so much giving the community an 

incentive but it is an understanding of how the digitized data can 

benefit them and the things that they can use it for. 

One of the things that they can use it for is emergency planning. 

Houston has been using their data to be able to deal—for quick response model and do a quick response under different conditions; 

that is, you know, high or low tide, et cetera, for hazardous waste 

spills in Houston’s ship channel, and to be able to then develop 

evacuation plans on the basis of that; that is, that it is going to be 

here in an hour and we need to get these people out because it has 

this lethal plume and the topographical data then can be used for 

plume analysis, for things like chlorine emissions, a tanker car that 

has liquid chlorine in it and gets breached. 

So there are a number of things that it can be used for that are 

beyond flood mapping. That is more difficult for them to use it 

when it is not digitized because the location of the particular facilities is much less precise. You can use it, as North Carolina is, to 

try to identify evacuation routes in areas that are likely to be flooded so people are not going to be able to get through and get away 

from the coastal areas. They are developing a realtime Web based 

flood inundation system that can be used and that can be accessed 

by radio and television stations: Don’t go to this bridge; don’t go to 

that road; it is going to be flooded; you can’t get out that way. 

So the more they understand the multiplicity of uses the data 

has for them, the more likely they are going to be able to see value 

in it. 

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I see my time has expired. 

39

Chairman NEY. I have a question, and after that if either gentlemen would have other questions, please feel free. 

I just want to see if I am on the right track of the thinking here. 

Basically, Mr. Bullock, you are agreeing—or Mr. Williams agreed 

with you—that there are certain or—I am sorry. You are agreeing 

with Mr. Williams. I assume there are certain portions of the country that just cannot be mapped. Is that correct? 

Mr. BULLOCK. No. 

Chairman NEY. I mean cannot be mapped as accurately as other 

portions. Because you see 16 percent. 

Mr. BULLOCK. Yes, and that is for our particular technology. And 

there are other technologies again that need to be part of the solution such as airborne lasers, and so forth, but—

Chairman NEY. I am sorry, maybe Mr. Williams said there 

wasn’t enough money to map correctly—I mean, to map everything. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. There is two types of mapping I think that we are 

discussing here. For topographic mapping, some other technologies 

other than radar may be more appropriate, such as laser methods 

or advanced photogrammetric methods. The other mapping would 

be the floodplain mapping itself. And my point is perhaps we do 

not need to do floodplain mapping in Federal areas. We should concentrate on towns and elsewhere. 

Chairman NEY. So, Mr. Bullock, I am assuming you cannot probably accurately map forests in certain regions. Is that correct? 

Mr. BULLOCK. That is correct. 

Chairman NEY. Go back to the question about natural forests. 

Should we even map them in the first place with the most up-todate technology? 

Mr. BULLOCK. And that is fair. That is a fair statement. But I 

would add that, for example, in Ohio, we looked at—it is our understanding that there is no plans for your particular district, Mr. 

Chairman, for collecting extensive new topographic data, whereas 

technology such as ours could map it very quickly, very completely, 

to produce better and more accurate flood maps for that entire congressional district. And under the current progress of the plan I 

don’t see that changing unless this committee takes some action to 

change how we collect our topographic data on a nationwide basis. 

Chairman NEY. Following up on that, let me ask Mr. Jenkins a 

question appropriate for you. 

Based on what Mr. Bullock just said, is it FEMA’s responsibility 

to, you know, update areas like my district or the State of Ohio or 

other States? Is it their responsibility. 

Mr. JENKINS. It is definitely FEMA’s responsibility under the 

Flood Mapping Modernization Program to determine what the—

they have put every county into a risk category, and to determine 

for those risk categories what the appropriate level of analysis is 

for those different categories, what is the type of data that is needed, what is the specificity of data that is needed, what is the quality of data that is needed in order to produce a flood map of, quote, 

acceptable quality, and it is also FEMA’s responsibility to define 

what ′′acceptable′′ is. So in that sense it is their responsibility. 

40

Chairman NEY. Just for my own clarification, Mr. Edelman, do 

you use a different, your company use a different technology than 

Intermap? 

Mr. EDELMAN. We are an engineering firm that utilizes the products of Intermap and other companies, and we are the company 

that actually did the pilot for FEMA utilizing Intermap’s data in 

Texas. 

Chairman NEY. You utilized Intermap data? 

Mr. EDELMAN. Yes, we did. 

Chairman NEY. So the two companies worked together to 

produce a product? 

Mr. EDELMAN. Yes, we have. It is my opinion that the data that 

Intermap is providing would be useful for the program, anywhere 

from west of the Mississippi and east of the Rocky Mountains, 

about the same area that Mr. Bullock had mentioned. However, in 

all these areas we are talking about we have to come back that 

FEMA will not use USGS quads in any areas that are medium or 

high risk. In those areas we are currently working on perhaps 

maybe 60 or 70 active countywide studies. We are not using any 

USGS quads in any medium or high risk area. 

Chairman NEY. I am sorry. What does that mean? 

Mr. EDELMAN. Okay. FEMA has ranked—there are about 3,100 

counties across the Nation. Okay? And there are different areas 

within counties that you can get a risk classification on. The higher 

risk is the number of people who live in the floodplain, the density, 

number of policies, number of flood damages, things of that nature. 

The USGS topo maps are only considered for the very lowest of 

low risk categories, okay. These are counties that have declining 

populations or almost no population at all, and that is where the 

USGS quads have traditionally been used before. 

Now would I prefer to use better, newer data? Of course I would. 

Okay, however, you have to balance that with the benefit of the 

cost of the newer and better data, and is it better to spend it there 

or someplace else. 

Chairman NEY. I want to defer to my colleagues, but I want to 

come back to that cost question in a second. Mr. Pearce. 

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you. 

If we were to pursue that line of thought, Mr. Edelman, we are 

in the process of spending a billion dollars; we have already spent 

maybe 550 million of it. Do we have to even do that cost-benefit 

ratio that you are talking about that USGS uses if we simply redid 

it more or less with more thorough technology? 

Mr. EDELMAN. Okay. The first counties that FEMA has performed are their highest risk counties. Typically, these are the high 

population counties. They are the ones that were ranked first. As 

they are working through the 5-year program, the lower risk counties are the ones that are being done later in the program. 

An evaluation would really need to be looked at to determine is 

the cost valid—

Mr. PEARCE. Well, my point is that we have got 450 million in 

unexpended funds. Mr. Bullock says he can do it for 280 million for 

60 percent of the country. My point is why are we going to proceed 

ahead if the data is somewhat unusable? 

41

Mr. EDELMAN. Okay. Now I had the privilege of meeting one of 

the engineers who performed the study for Great Britain. The engineering methods that they used there are not acceptable and do not 

meet FEMA’s minimum guides and specifications. 

Mr. PEARCE. USGS stuff meets—they are using USGS data. 

Mr. EDELMAN. Typically the cost of the topo data is just one 

small piece of an entire study. The topo data may run anywhere 

from 10 to 20 percent of the cost of the entire study. So just because you get new topo doesn’t mean the cost ends there, and the 

procedures that were used in Great Britain are completely different 

than what the minimum standards FEMA has set for the industry 

in the United States. 

Mr. PEARCE. Does FEMA reach its minimum standards in the 

United States? 

Mr. EDELMAN. Yes. 

Mr. PEARCE. Why do the charts that Mr. Bullock showed there 

show a fairly large deviation on the USGS maps? Why? 

Mr. EDELMAN. What the USGS—what that is showing is that the 

age of the USGS topographic maps, just because data is old doesn’t 

necessarily mean it is inaccurate. There were very—there were a 

lot of different contractors—

Mr. PEARCE. I will go ahead and reclaim my time. 

Mr. Bullock, why don’t you address the other side and save time 

for Mr. Jenkins? I would like for him to kind of weigh in on this. 

Mr. BULLOCK. I agree with Scott that the techniques used in the 

U.K. are different from what is typically used here, but the fundamental fact is they have a complete flood map for the entire country instead of just focusing on high risk, medium, or so forth, on 

a county by county. Floods do not obey county boundaries. You 

have to map by watersheds and stream, river courses, and so forth. 

And so they found a tremendous value in having a complete topographic map of the entire country that was collected near simultaneously, that is accurate, consistent, and calibrated, which we do 

not have here. 

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Jenkins, do you want to weigh in on this? And 

before you get right to the point, is this an accurate—does this—

this map kind of conveys a sense of disarray and chaos. Is that an 

accurate reflection? 

Mr. JENKINS. Well, it represents topographical data. It is not a 

representation of the accuracy or the age of flood maps. Some of 

the flood maps are newer than this data. So it is the topographical 

data, represents the age of the USGS topographical data, which is, 

as has been said, is one input into a flood map. It is not the only 

input. You will need, you know, hydrological data and so forth. 

One of the things that has been said here that is true is one of 

the reasons FEMA approaches things by counties is because that 

is where the governance structure is. The governance structure is 

not by watershed. It crosses watersheds. So in terms of being able 

to get—they also have to get buy-in from localities and so forth. 

The way you get buy-in is you have to go through what the governance structure is. 

It is true that there are places where counties have gone together 

to try to pool their resources and work with FEMA to map entire 

watersheds, but that is simply not the norm. It is not the average 

42

way in which they approach things, but it is certainly an option in 

the way in which they can approach things. The topographical data 

is one element, and it is certainly an important element. It is one 

of the—and the flatter the terrain, the more important it is that 

that be accurate because the smaller gradations affect the way that 

the water runs. 

So it is sort of a complex process in terms of how you put it together. But it is also true that, as I said in my oral statement, that 

you want the most accurate maps that you can get that are necessary to identify the floodplains for people, and the topographical 

data, good topographical data, is a key component of that. 

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I see my time has elapsed. As we 

are dealing with the problem that governance is the problem in 

mapping, I am not sure that Mr. Jenkins is suggesting—I am not 

sure I would suggest it, but it sounds like a PATRIOT act for 

floodplains is needed. 

Chairman NEY. Mr. Fitzpatrick. 

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Mr. Jenkins, I want to follow up on a question 

Mr. Pearce was pursuing earlier about repetitive loss properties. 

You testified today that FEMA doesn’t have the ability to control 

local building codes and local land development decisions. 

Mr. JENKINS. No, it does have the ability to do that, and that is 

the principal way in which it does that, and the other way is to 

buy out the property itself. 

Mr. FITZPATRICK. We talked a little bit about incentives to local 

governments. How about disincentives to building within the floodplain? Once flood insurance, FEMA comes in and maps a particular 

community, and that community then—and I have seen this happen in Pennsylvania communities—will go in—when I was county 

commissioner—buy out properties, elevate other properties while 

the local government was approving building permits for the empty 

lot next door. While we are buying one property and removing it, 

you know, a modular structure is being placed in the flood fringe 

or in the floodplain next door. And we contacted FEMA about that. 

Within FEMA, what—my understanding is FEMA can go in and 

basically tell a local government, we are going to take you out of 

the National Flood Insurance Program if you continue that. What 

is the experience of FEMA in actually pursuing that in policing 

their floodplains and actually coming down hard on local governments that violate. 

Mr. JENKINS. Well, you are absolutely correct. They can basically 

say, if you are not enforcing your codes, you know, the codes that 

you have to adapt once the floodplains are identified, you can be 

taken out of the program. But we haven’t actually looked at the experience of how often they do that or what happens, you know, if 

a community is not enforcing or is inconsistently enforcing those 

regulations. So I don’t really have a good sense of what the experience has actually been. 

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Are you aware of FEMA receiving complaints 

about local governments? This program costs us a lot of money. 

Mr. JENKINS. Very often they receive complaints simply by citizens saying, I can’t believe they are letting Joe do this. 

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Exactly. But presently FEMA does not have a 

sort of strategy of coming down hard on local governments? Since 

43

this is costing us money, we don’t have enough money to adequately map what we have in part because we are spending so 

much in bailing out properties that are just flooded on a repetitive 

basis. 

Mr. JENKINS. To tell you the truth, because we haven’t really 

looked at this systematically, I really don’t have a good sense of exactly how they approach this, what their strategy is, what the enforcement policy is. You get something like three strikes and you 

are out kind of approach, and we just haven’t done enough work 

on that for me to give you a good answer. 

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Thank you. 

Chairman NEY. Thank you. Question: I want to get back to costs. 

Well, I want to get back, first of all, to the minimum standards and 

Great Britain. Now, if Intermap, and Mr. Edelman, you said also 

your company, Watershed Concepts, has worked with Intermap before on some mapping. 

If you or in conjunction with other companies have basically like 

the most up-to-date data, and if you showed what you showed us, 

the map of Great Britain, and that is state of the art, is that correct? Mr. Bullock. 

Mr. BULLOCK. Yes. 

Chairman NEY. So Great Britain’s standards are less than ours? 

We are requiring more state of the art? Or can you comment on 

the minimum standards required by the United States? 

Mr. BULLOCK. Well, I would say on a nationwide basis they have 

the most accurate topography and the most accurate flood maps on 

a nationwide basis. 

Chairman NEY. Great Britain? 

Mr. BULLOCK. Yes. Here in the United States when we do detail 

studies, that accuracy can very well surpass what they have on a 

national, a nationwide. But they saw the value of just studying certain communities and doing lesser studies for the rest of the country was not the right approach for them. And that is the approach 

they have taken. 

And I would like to add one more point. Mr. Williams made a 

very important comment earlier when he said that to take the 

USGS data, whether it be 40 years old or 25 years old, it still requires efforts in terms of digitizing or correcting blunders or whatever in terms of engineering work. And in many cases that cost can 

be higher than the cost of using new technology to collect new data 

that is already in a digital form. 

Chairman NEY. I want to get back to—Mr. Pearce has asked I 

think some very good questions. I want to get back to the question 

he had asked earlier about the proprietary rights. You had answered that question. I want to ask a question of GAO—actually 

not, Mr. Bullock. The question Mr. Pearce had asked was about the 

proprietary rights, and I understand from Mr. Bullock that his 

company people could, you know, click in and buy forever or until 

it is updated again for X amount of dollars. And I think the comparison was like 12,000 community, for about 5,000 or something. 

And asking GAO, has anybody looked at that? Because right away 

when the question was asked, it was like, okay, well, yours is not 

available, although FEMA would say use your mapping, but it is 

only available to communities if they pay a certain amount of 

44

money for the proprietary rights, I guess, or copyright is the right 

word. Having said that, rather than communities developing their 

own whole plans of spending all this money or county spending 

money, has anybody—this is a question for GAO—has anybody 

looked at what this company or companies can do, and maybe it 

is cheaper at the end of the day if we would utilize that and people 

get the copyrighted material through incentives or if we save a lot 

of money through the United States Government through incentives? Has anybody looked at that, how they copyright it, and utilizing it, and would it be maybe cheaper at the end of the day, or 

maybe it wouldn’t or maybe it would be a wash. Has anybody 

looked at that versus recreating the wheel in all these counties? 

Mr. JENKINS. Not that I know of. I don’t know that anybody has 

looked at that specifically and the actual costs. The information 

that Intermap provided to us is that they would provide FEMA a 

national subscription for $15 million, which is about $4.90 a square 

mile. 

Chairman NEY. Could a community buy the maps and then 

FEMA utilize them? Would that be possible, a community would do 

that? 

Mr. JENKINS. It might. Acually it depends on how, you know, the 

Intermap prices it. But as they point out in the material they provided to us, it is usually less expensive to provide it—to purchase 

it for large areas. And so it may be less expensive for FEMA to 

purchase it and then—if this information is correct than for localities to purchase it for small pieces. 

Chairman NEY. Obviously, that would be a lot of numbers 

scratched out here, et cetera. I am trying to get a concept has anybody looked at the cost, and you are answering no. But Mr. Williams, do you have any comment on all of this? Or anybody else, 

frankly, on the panel. But start with Mr. Williams. If we would 

look at that type of concept of communities, you know, would it be 

worth it to look at the costs of communities clicking in and purchasing the upgraded or state of the art material? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I think I have one major comment in regard to 

the licensing issue. We have looked at it closely in our department. 

We don’t have a problem with the license. It is the way software 

is sold. It is the way songs and movies are now being sold. So a 

particular license, as long as everybody understands what the license is about and how it limits it, we would be perfectly happy 

with it. In fact, we like Intermap’s licensing agreement because it 

allows anybody in our department to use it for any purpose, even 

though it would be originally purchased for floodplain mapping. 

Having said that, and to expound upon what I earlier said to Ms. 

Waters, I think a nationwide topographic program would be important, and it would be the most efficient way to handle this. However, there are areas where LIDAR, or advanced photogrammetric 

techniques, are perhaps more useful than the IFSAR technology. 

There are vast areas of this country where the IFSAR technology 

is important. And we need to look at both limitations on the technology, vegetation, for instance, as well as the necessary accuracy. 

For example, in Nebraska we need to achieve very high accuracy 

in our very flat areas next to the Platte River. So those are all 

45

things that come into this. But a nationwide strategy would be very 

useful. 

Chairman NEY. Anyone else? 

Mr. BULLOCK. Mr. Chairman, if I might just add, in regard to the 

issue of data licensing, the National Academy of Sciences generated 

a report last year in regard to licensing of geospatial data, and we 

would be happy to forward a copy to the committee to look at that. 

But in summary, they found that data licensing can be beneficial, 

reducing costs to the users. It doesn’t work for everybody, but it 

can be a very beneficial approach to getting accurate geospatial 

data out there at a lower cost. 

Chairman NEY. My time has expired, and Mr. Pearce has another question. I will be glad to entertain it. Take a generic question to ask of anybody on the panel. I think we have got a lot of 

valuable information here. From what I am hearing it is not all apples and apples and oranges and oranges. There are certain technologies used for certain things, and I think I hear basically everybody agree to that, and other technologies are appropriate. 

Where should the next step be for this committee getting this information? Does anybody have an idea what the next step would 

be in interacting with FEMA or with the groups and the people 

that are concerned about this issue? Anybody have any ideas on 

that? 

Mr. EDELMAN. What I have witnessed FEMA doing in the past 

is when they are about to go into a study, they meet with the local 

officials. They meet with the local people. Before they decide how 

they are going to do anything, they sit down and they have a detailed scoping meeting. At that point in time, that community tells 

them what their needs are. Those needs are prioritized, and based 

on that the scope of work done is tailored towards that individual 

community to work going through there. So that is the time to buy 

the information, when you need it. 

For instance, we have some counties in the United States that 

had a population of 2,000 people in 1980. It has dropped to 1,500 

people in 1990. Okay? The cost of doing the study in that particular 

county would probably exceed FEMA just buying flood insurance 

policies for everybody who remained within that county. Okay? So 

there is a balance that you have to have between utilizing the best 

data. And as an engineer, I would always want to use the best data 

available, but you have to balance that with where would the information be used or the dollars or the resources be put to the best 

use to have the biggest impact on the Nation. 

Whereas, a lot of talk has been talked about Great Britain here, 

the technology that is used by Great Britain. I would probably submit that FEMA’s program is superior to Great Britain’s because in 

all the medium and high risk zone areas, the information that was 

developed in Great Britain would not meet standard. The elevations would have a higher degree of uncertainty than they do in 

the United States. 

Mr. BULLOCK. I would like to offer that I believe that a national 

strategy is needed for collecting a new and accurate topographic 

base layer for the entire country, just as was done in Great Britain, 

which would benefit FEMA and other Federal agencies. 

46

As a company, we are going out, and we are doing it. We are 

doing it right now. We are flying in Texas today, and in the next 

4 or 5 years we will have a topographic database for the entire 

country. 

Chairman NEY. Let me ask you something about that. Are you 

doing that on your own, or is this another branch of the Government? 

Mr. BULLOCK. We are doing it based on our investor funds just 

like we did in Great Britain. We will create this database, and then 

we license the data to multiple users. So far we have three U.S. 

Federal Government agencies that have indicated they are going to 

use this data, and it is somewhat ironic that we don’t have FEMA 

on board for this where they could directly benefit more than just 

about any of the other Federal agencies. 

Chairman NEY. So what you are saying is within 4 years you are 

going to be sitting here and you will say here it is. If you want to 

click in and pay the fee you can have it. And if the United States 

Government—well, FEMA I should say—if FEMA has not caught 

up to pace, it is irrelevant; it will be here? 

Mr. BULLOCK. It will be here. And if FEMA goes in the present 

course, doing it county by county, then there is a very good risk 

that they won’t be able to utilize this data to the extent that they 

could. 

We are going to have the entire State of California done in about 

2 months, mapped to one meter vertical accuracy, and I would believe that for much of that State that is going to be superior to the 

USGS data that is available and may be used for some of these 

flood map programs. 

Chairman NEY. Gentleman from New Mexico. 

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Bullock, do you have any comment when Mr. 

Edelman says that your standards would not be suitable for the 

high and medium risk areas? 

Mr. BULLOCK. Well, he is the expert. I focus on the data. He does 

the engineering, and he is correct that there is a difference in 

terms of the engineering approach that was used in Britain and 

what is being used here in the U.S. Remember, in Britain this was 

done by Norwich Union. It was not a Government program, and so 

they did what they felt was the appropriate level of engineering to 

meet the application. And it was still far superior than the Government provided flood maps that existed in Britain. But the same 

techniques that Mr. Edelman uses here under FEMA of course can 

be adopted and used on this data just like they did in the pilot 

project in Region 6, and I think he would say that that produces 

very good results. 

So it is not a failing in the data. It is just a difference in technical approaches that was used in Britain versus in the U.S. 

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Jenkins, you had talked about the costs of some 

of the mapping and some of the relative costs. Do you know if the 

FEMA process ever counts the opportunities lost? For instance, 

there is about $20 million worth of development back in the community of Carlsbad that I was talking about that was delayed for 

10 or 15 years. And when Mr. Edelman suggests that we need to 

prioritize and get to those low population areas last, is there any 

47

way to assess the cost to communities when are drawn incorrectly 

and the cost to not be able to develop? 

And by the way, I have lived my whole life in that area. One 

bank of the river was developed and the other one wasn’t. And 

when they got the map somewhat redrawn last year or the year before, the development was just blowing down the one side; it has 

never been developed. 

Mr. JENKINS. I would say that in what we looked at, we certainly 

didn’t look the sort of opportunity costs lost. They looked at cost 

of—at the time they started the process, what did they think they 

would be gathering and what it would cost to do that. So they 

weren’t really looking at, if you will, what you are talking about, 

which is the cost of delays and delays to the community. So not to 

my knowledge was that taken into account. 

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman NEY. Yes, Mr. Williams? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I wanted to go back and address your question of 

what to do about this topographic situation. I think that it is important to recognize at this point that the $1 billion for Map Mod 

is not going to be enough, that we need the 3 billion. If we are just 

going to spend 1 billion, of which we have another 450 million left, 

then we might as well blindly carry on as we have been carrying 

on. But if we know we have got another 5 to 10 years at similar 

funding levels so we can do the whole thing right, that is the point 

at which we need to create a national strategy. 

I would suggest that we direct FEMA to come up with a cost and 

strategy, and I think their way of doing it would be to put together 

a committee with their national service provider, State and local officials, probably team up with other Federal agencies such as the 

USGS. We would need a topographic inventory. We need to know 

what data is out there, what exists, come up with a needs assessment and a strategy to deal with this perhaps as soon as the 2006 

funding. 

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Williams, with your permission, you said we 

need to do this right. If you were to evaluate from your perspective 

the $550 million worth of investment so far in whatever 1,000 or 

2,000 areas that were remapped, on a scale of 0 to 100, what is the 

accuracy and the completeness of the data in those remapped 

areas, of those digitized areas where we were taking data? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I would give it about a 75 percent effort to date. 

Mr. PEARCE. So those are areas that are pretty well completed. 

You are saying with more money we can make it, but we assume 

we have reached the highest level of capacity that we can and you 

are encouraging us to spend another $2 billion on top of 1, and we 

are reaching 75 percent accuracy? 

I am not sure I want to reinvest. Thank you. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I would like to emphasize that FEMA’s guidelines 

and specifications create accurate maps. My big fear, as was stated 

earlier, is that not all the reaches that should be studied are being 

studied, and that is the problem. 

Mr. PEARCE. You are sure it is the process. Whether or not their 

standards are set high enough is not the complete question. Whether or not they thoroughly and adequately address all of the areas—

and it is still a question of process and still a question if you invest 

48

1 billion and you get 75 percent performance, you still have some 

loss. And if you get 3 billion, you have proportionately more loss. 

So I don’t know. That 75 percent seems a very low rating score for 

me. 

Thanks. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I would like to emphasize that I think Map Mod 

is a fantastic program, and it has done an awful lot of good. 

Chairman NEY. I want to thank you very much. I think this has 

been an extremely informative panel on a very important issue in 

the country, and we want to take it from here somehow, maybe 

looking at price costs, working with GAO, or working with the people that are interested in this issue. 

So I want to thank you and thank the members for your time. 

The Chair notes that some members may have additional questions for this panel which they may want to submit in writing. 

Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 30 days 

for members to submit written questions to these witnesses and to 

place their response in the record. 

The hearing is adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(49)

A P P E N D I X

July 12, 2005

50


26042.001
51


26042.002
52


26042.003
53


26042.004
54


26042.005
55


26042.006
56


26042.007
57


26042.008
58


26042.009
59


26042.010
60


26042.011
61


26042.012
62


26042.013
63


26042.014
64


26042.015
65


26042.016
66


26042.017
67


26042.018
68


26042.019
69


26042.020
70


26042.021
71


26042.022
72


26042.023
73


26042.024
74


26042.025
75


26042.026
76


26042.027
77


26042.028
78


26042.029
79


26042.030
80


26042.031
81


26042.032
82


26042.033
83


26042.034
84


26042.035
85


26042.036
86


26042.037
87


26042.038
88


26042.039
89


26042.040
90


26042.041
91


26042.042
92


26042.043
93


26042.044
94


26042.045
95


26042.046
96


26042.047
97


26042.048
98


26042.049
99


26042.050
100


26042.051
101


26042.052
102


26042.053
103


26042.054
104


26042.055
105


26042.056
106


26042.057
107


26042.058
108


26042.059
109


26042.060
110


26042.061
111


26042.062
112


26042.063
113


26042.064
114


26042.065
115


26042.066
116


26042.067
117


26042.068
118


26042.069
119


26042.070
120


26042.071
121


26042.072
122


26042.073
123


26042.074
124


26042.075
125


26042.076
126


26042.077
127


26042.078
128


26042.079
129


26042.080
130


26042.081
131


26042.082
132


26042.083
133


26042.084
134


26042.085
135


26042.086
136


26042.087
137


26042.088
138


26042.089
139


26042.090
140


26042.091
141


26042.092
142


26042.093
143


26042.094
144


26042.095
145


26042.096
146


26042.097
147


26042.098
148


26042.099
149


26042.100
150


26042.101
151


26042.102
152


26042.103
153


26042.104
154


26042.105
155


26042.106
156


26042.107
157


26042.108
158


26042.109
159


26042.110
160


26042.111
161


26042.112
162


26042.113
163


26042.114
164


26042.115
165


26042.116
166


26042.117
167


26042.118
168


26042.119
169


26042.120
170


26042.121
171


26042.122
172


26042.123
173


26042.124
174


26042.125
175


26042.132
176


26042.133
177


26042.134
178


26042.135
179


26042.136
180


26042.137
181


26042.138
182


26042.126
183


26042.127
184


26042.128
185


26042.129
186


26042.130
187


26042.131