Testimony 

Before the Committee on Appropriations, 

U.S. Senate

United States General Accounting Office 

GAO

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 8:30 a.m. AKDT 

Tuesday, June 29, 2004 ALASKA NATIVE 

VILLAGES 

Villages Affected by 

Flooding and Erosion Have 

Difficulty Qualifying for 

Federal Assistance 

Statement of Robert A. Robinson, Managing Director 

Natural Resources and Environment 

GAO-04-895T 
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-895T.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Anu Mittal at 

(202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-04-895T, a testimony 

before the Committee on Appropriations, 

United States Senate 

June 29, 2004

ALASKA NATIVE VILLAGES 

Villages Affected by Flooding and 

Erosion Have Difficulty Qualifying for 

Federal Assistance 

Flooding and erosion affects 184 out of 213, or 86 percent, of Alaska Native 

villages to some extent. While many of the problems are long-standing, 

various studies indicate that coastal villages are becoming more susceptible 

to flooding and erosion caused in part by rising temperatures. 

Small and remote Alaska Native villages have generally not received federal 

assistance under federal flooding and erosion programs largely because they 

do not meet program eligibility criteria. Even villages that do meet the 

eligibility criteria may still not receive assistance if they cannot meet the 

cost-share requirements for the project. 

Of the nine villages that GAO reviewed, four—Kivalina, Koyukuk, Newtok, 

and Shishmaref—are in imminent danger from flooding and erosion and are 

planning to relocate, while the remaining five are in various stages of 

responding to these problems. Costs for relocating are expected to be high.

GAO, other federal and state officials, and village representatives identified 

alternatives that could increase service delivery for Alaska Native villages. 

These alternatives include 

• expanding the role of the Denali Commission, 

• directing federal agencies to consider social and environmental 

factors in analyzing project costs and benefits, 

• waiving the federal cost-sharing requirement for these projects, and 

• authorizing the “bundling” of funds from various federal agencies. 

Although the Denali Commission and two federal agencies raised questions 

about expanding the role of the Denali Commission in commenting on GAO’s

report, GAO still believes it continues to be a possible alternative for helping 

to mitigate the barriers that villages face in obtaining federal services. 

Bluff Erosion at the Native Village of Shishmaref (June 2003) 

Approximately 6,600 miles of 

Alaska’s coastline and many of the 

low-lying areas along the state’s 

rivers are subject to severe 

flooding and erosion. Most of 

Alaska’s Native villages are located 

on the coast or on riverbanks. In 

addition to the many federal and 

Alaska state agencies that respond 

to flooding and erosion, Congress 

established the Denali Commission 

in 1998 to, among other things, 

provide economic development 

services and meet infrastructure 

needs in rural Alaska communities. 

This testimony is based on GAO’s 

report, Alaska Native Villages: 

Most Are Affected by Flooding and 

Erosion, but Few Qualify for 

Federal Assistance (GAO-04-142, 

December 12, 2003). Specifically, 

GAO identified (1) the number of 

Alaska Native villages affected by 

flooding and erosion, (2) the extent 

to which federal assistance has 

been provided to those villages, (3) 

the efforts of nine villages to 

respond to flooding and erosion, 

and (4) alternatives that Congress 

may wish to consider when 

providing assistance for flooding 

and erosion. 

GAO’s December 2003 report 

suggested that Congress consider 

directing the relevant federal 

agencies and the Denali 

Commission to assess the 

feasibility of alternatives for 

responding to flooding and erosion. 
Page 1 GAO-04-895T Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our work on Alaska Native 

villages affected by flooding and erosion. As you know, Alaska’s shorelines 

and riverbanks serve as home to over 200 Native villages whose 

inhabitants generally hunt and fish for subsistence. However, these 

shorelines and riverbanks can be subject to periodic, yet severe flooding 

and erosion. Coastal and river flooding and erosion cause millions of 

dollars of property damage in Alaska Native villages, damaging or 

destroying homes, public buildings, and airport runways. Several federal 

and state agencies are directly or indirectly involved in providing 

assistance for flooding and erosion in Alaska. In addition to government 

agencies, the Denali Commission, created by Congress in 1998, is charged 

with addressing crucial needs of rural Alaska communities, particularly 

isolated Alaska Native villages, although it is not directly responsible for 

responding to flooding and erosion.1

The fiscal year 2003 Conference Report for the military construction 

appropriation bill directed GAO to study Alaska Native villages affected by 

flooding and erosion.2

 In December 2003, we reported on Alaska Native 

villages’ access to federal flooding and erosion programs.3

 These programs 

are administered by several federal agencies, but principally by the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers and the Agriculture Department’s Natural 

Resources Conservation Service. Our report discussed four alternatives 

that could help mitigate the barriers that villages face in obtaining federal 

services. Our testimony today is based on that report and focuses on (1) 

the number of Alaska Native villages affected by flooding and erosion, (2) 

the extent to which federal assistance has been provided to those villages, 

(3) the efforts of nine villages to respond to flooding and erosion, and (4) 

alternatives that Congress may wish to consider when providing 

assistance for flooding and erosion of Alaska Native villages. 

To meet these objectives, we reviewed federal and state flooding and 

erosion studies and project documents and interviewed federal and state 

agency officials and representatives from nine Alaska Native villages. We 

 1

Pub. L. No. 105-277, tit. III, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998). 

2

H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 107-731, at 15 (2002). 

3

U.S. General Accounting Office, Alaska Native Villages: Most Are Affected by Flooding 

and Erosion, but Few Qualify for Federal Assistance, GAO-04-142 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 

12, 2003). 
Page 2 GAO-04-895T Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages 

also visited four of the nine villages. While the conference report directed 

us to include at least six villages in our study—Barrow, Bethel, Kaktovik, 

Kivalina, Point Hope, and Unalakleet—we added three more—Koyukuk, 

Newtok, and Shishmaref—based on discussions with congressional staff 

and with federal and state officials familiar with flooding and erosion 

problems. Our December 2003 report, on which this testimony is based, 

was prepared in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. 

In summary, we reported the following: 

• First, 184 out of 213, or 86 percent of Alaska Native villages experience 

some level of flooding and erosion, according to federal and state 

officials in Alaska. Native villages on the coast or along rivers have long 

been subject to both annual and episodic flooding and erosion. Various 

studies and reports indicate that coastal villages in Alaska are 

becoming more susceptible to flooding and erosion in part because 

rising temperatures delay formation of protective shore ice, leaving the 

villages vulnerable to fall storms. For example, the barrier island village 

of Shishmaref, which is less than 1,320 feet wide, lost 125 feet of beach 

to erosion during an October 1997 storm. In addition, villages in lowlying areas along riverbanks or in river deltas are susceptible to 

flooding and erosion caused by ice jams, snow and glacial melts, rising 

sea levels, and heavy rainfall. 

• Second, small and remote Alaska Native villages often fail to qualify for 

assistance under federal flooding and erosion programs because they 

do not meet program eligibility criteria. For example, according to the 

Corps’ guidelines for evaluating water resource projects, the Corps 

generally cannot undertake a project when the economic costs exceed 

the expected benefits. With few exceptions, Alaska Native villages’ 

requests for assistance under this program are denied because the 

project costs usually outweigh expected economic benefits as currently 

defined. Even villages that meet the Corps’ cost/benefit criteria may 

still fail to qualify if they cannot meet cost-share requirements for the 

project. The Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Watershed 

Protection and Flood Prevention Program also requires a cost/benefit 

analysis similar to that of the Corps. As a result, few Alaska Native 

villages qualify for assistance under this program. However, the Natural 

Resources Conservation Service has other programs that have provided 

limited assistance to these villages—in part because these programs 

consider additional social and environmental factors in developing 

their cost/benefit analysis. 
Page 3 GAO-04-895T Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages 

• Third, of the nine villages that we reviewed, four—Kivalina, Koyukuk, 

Newtok, and Shishmaref—are in imminent danger from flooding and 

erosion and are making plans to relocate; the remaining villages are 

taking other actions. Kivalina, Newtok, and Shishmaref are working 

with relevant federal agencies to determine the suitability of possible 

relocation sites, while Koyukuk is in the early stages of planning for 

relocation. Because of the high cost of materials and transportation in 

remote parts of Alaska, the cost of relocation for these villages is 

expected to be high. The five villages not currently planning to 

relocate—Barrow, Bethel, Kaktovik, Point Hope, and Unalakleet—are 

in various stages of responding to their flooding and erosion problems. 

For example, two of these villages, Kaktovik and Point Hope, are 

studying ways to prevent flooding of specific infrastructure, such as the 

airport runway. 

• Fourth, federal and Alaska state officials and Alaska Native village 

representatives that we spoke with identified the following three 

alternatives that could help mitigate barriers to villages’ obtaining 

federal services: (1) expand the role of the Denali Commission to 

include responsibility for managing a new flooding and erosion 

assistance program, (2) direct the federal agencies to consider social 

and environmental factors in their cost benefit analyses for these 

projects, and (3) waive the federal cost-sharing requirement for 

flooding and erosion programs for Alaska Native villages. In addition, 

we identified as a fourth alternative the bundling of funds from various 

agencies to address flooding and erosion problems in Alaska Native 

villages. While we did not determine the cost or the national policy 

implications associated with any of these alternatives, these costs and 

implications are important considerations in determining the 

appropriate level of federal services that should be available to respond 

to flooding and erosion in Alaska Native villages. Consequently, in our 

report we suggested the Congress consider directing relevant federal 

agencies and the Denali Commission to assess the feasibility of each of 

the alternatives, as appropriate. In commenting on our report, the 

Denali Commission and two federal agencies raised questions about 

expanding the Denali Commission’s role to cover flooding and erosion. 

While each of these entities recognized the need for improved 

coordination of federal efforts to address flooding and erosion in 

Alaska Native villages, none of them provided any specific suggestions 

on how this should be accomplished or by whom. As a result, we 

continue to believe that expanding the role of the commission is a 

viable alternative. 
Page 4 GAO-04-895T Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages 

Alaska encompasses an area of about 365 million acres—more than the 

combined area of the next three largest states of Texas, California, and 

Montana. The state is bound on three sides by water, and its coastline, 

which stretches about 6,600 miles (excluding island shorelines, bays and 

fjords) and accounts for more than half of the entire U.S. coastline, varies 

from rocky shores, sandy beaches, and high cliffs to river deltas, mud flats, 

and barrier islands. The coastline constantly changes through wave action, 

ocean currents, storms, and river deposits and is subject to periodic, yet 

often severe, erosion. Alaska also has more than 12,000 rivers, including 

three of the ten largest in the country: the Yukon, Kuskokwim, and Copper 

Rivers.4

 (See fig. 1.) While these and other rivers provide food, 

transportation, and recreation for people, as well as habitat for fish and 

wildlife, their waters also shape the landscape. In particular, ice jams on 

rivers and flooding of riverbanks during spring breakup change the 

contour of valleys, wetlands, and human settlements. 

 4

The size is determined by the average rate of flow (discharge at the mouth). 

Background 
Page 5 GAO-04-895T Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages 

Figure 1: Map of Alaska Showing Major Rivers, Oceans, and Mountain Ranges 

Permafrost (permanently frozen subsoil) is found over approximately 80 

percent of Alaska. It is deepest and most extensive on the Arctic Coastal 

Plain and decreases in depth further south, eventually becoming 

discontinuous. In northern Alaska, where the permafrost is virtually 

everywhere, most buildings are elevated to minimize the amount of heat 

transferred to the ground to avoid melting the permafrost. However, rising 

temperatures in recent years have led to widespread thawing of the 

permafrost, causing serious damage. As permafrost melts, land slumps and 

erodes, buildings and runways sink, and bulk fuel tank areas are 

threatened. (See fig. 2.) 
Page 6 GAO-04-895T Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages 

Figure 2: Sea Erosion at Shishmaref (June 2003) 

Rising temperatures have also affected the thickness, extent, and duration 

of sea ice that forms along the western and northern coasts. Loss of sea 

ice leaves coasts more vulnerable to waves, storm surges, and erosion. 

When combined with the thawing of permafrost along the coast, loss of 

sea ice seriously threatens coastal Alaska Native villages. Furthermore, 

loss of sea ice alters the habitat and accessibility of many of the marine 

mammals that Alaska Natives depend upon for subsistence. As the ice 

melts or moves away early, walruses, seals, and polar bears move with it, 

taking themselves too far away to be hunted. 

Federal, state, and local government agencies share responsibility for 

controlling and responding to flooding and erosion. The U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers has responsibility for planning and constructing streambank 

and shoreline erosion protection and flood control structures under a 

specific set of requirements.5

 The Department of Agriculture’s Natural 

 5

The Corps may study and construct erosion protection and flood control structures, 

provided it receives authority and appropriations from Congress to do so. In addition to 

building structures, the Corps may also consider and implement non-structural and 

relocation alternatives. 
Page 7 GAO-04-895T Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages 

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is responsible for protecting 

small watersheds. The Continuing Authorities Program, administered by 

the Corps, and the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program, 

administered by NRCS, are the principal programs available to prevent 

flooding and control erosion. Table 1 below lists and describes the five 

authorities under the Corps’ Continuing Authorities Program that address 

flooding and erosion, while table 2 identifies the main NRCS programs that 

provide assistance for flooding and erosion. 

Table 1: Authorities that Address Flooding and Erosion Under the Corps’ 

Continuing Authorities Program 

Program authority Description 

Section 14 of the Flood Control 

Act of 1946 

For emergency streambank and shoreline 

erosion protection for public facilities 

Section 205 of the Flood Control 

Act of 1948 

Authorizes flood control projects 

Section 208 of the Flood Control 

Act of 1954 

Authorizes flood control activities 

Section 103 of the River and Harbor 

Act of 1962 

Protect shores of publicly owned property from 

hurricane and storm damage 

Section 111 of the River and Harbor 

Act of 1968 

Mitigate shoreline erosion damage caused by 

federal navigation projects 

Source: GAO analysis of Corps program information. 

In addition to the Corps’ Continuing Authorities Program, other Corps 

authorities that may address problems related to flooding and erosion 

include the following: 

• Section 22 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974, which 

provides authority for the Corps to assist states in the preparation of 

comprehensive plans for the development, utilization, and conservation 

of water and related resources of drainage basins. 

• Section 206 of the Flood Control Act of 1960, which allows the Corps’ 

Flood Plain Management Services’ Program to provide states and local 

governments technical services and planning guidance that is needed 

to support effective flood plain management. 
Page 8 GAO-04-895T Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages 

Table 2: NRCS Programs That Respond to Flooding and Erosion 

Program Description 

Watershed Protection and Flood 

Prevention Program 

Provides funding for projects that control 

erosion and prevent flooding. Limited to 

watersheds that are less than 250,000 acres. 

Emergency Watershed Protection 

Program 

Provides assistance where there is some 

imminent threat—usually from some sort of 

erosion caused by river flooding. 

Conservation Technical Assistance 

Program 

Provides technical assistance to communities 

and individuals to solve natural resource 

problems including reducing erosion, improving 

air and water quality, and maintaining or 

restoring wetlands and habitat. 

Source: GAO analysis of NRCS program information. 

A number of other federal agencies, such as the Departments of 

Transportation, Homeland Security (Federal Emergency Management 

Agency), and Housing and Urban Development, also have programs that 

can assist Alaska Native villages in responding to the consequences of 

flooding by funding tasks such as moving homes, repairing roads and 

boardwalks, or rebuilding airport runways. In additional to government 

agencies, the Denali Commission, created by Congress in 1998, while not 

directly responsible for responding to flooding and erosion, is charged 

with addressing crucial needs of rural Alaska communities, particularly 

isolated Alaska Native villages. 

On the state side, Alaska’s Division of Emergency Services responds to 

state disaster declarations dealing with flooding and erosion when local 

communities request assistance. The Alaska Department of Community 

and Economic Development helps communities reduce losses and damage 

from flooding and erosion. The Alaska Department of Transportation and 

Public Facilities funds work to protect runways from erosion. Local 

governments such as the North Slope Borough have also funded erosion 

control and flood protection projects. 

Flooding and erosion affects 184 out of 213, or 86 percent, of Alaska 

Native villages to some extent, according to studies and information 

provided to us by federal and Alaska state officials. The 184 affected 

villages consist of coastal and river villages throughout the state. (See fig. 

3.) Villages on the coast are affected by flooding and erosion from the sea. 

For example, when these villages are not protected by sea ice, they are at 

risk of flooding and erosion from storm surges. In the case of Kivalina, the 

Most Alaska Native 

Villages Are Affected 

to Some Extent by 

Flooding and Erosion 
Page 9 GAO-04-895T Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages 

community has experienced frequent erosion from sea storms, particularly 

in late summer or fall. These storms can result in a sea level rise of 10 feet 

or more, and when combined with high tide, the storm surge becomes 

even greater and can be accompanied by waves containing ice. 

Communities in low-lying areas along riverbanks or in river deltas are 

susceptible to flooding and erosion caused by ice jams, snow and glacial 

melts, rising sea levels and heavy rainfall. 

Figure 3: Locations of 184 Alaska Native Villages Affected by Flooding and Erosion 

Flooding and erosion are long-standing problems in Alaska. In Bethel, 

Unalakleet, and Shishmaref for example, these problems have been well 

documented dating back to the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s, respectively. The 

state has made several efforts to identify communities affected by flooding 

and erosion over the past 30 years. In 1982, a state contractor developed a 
Page 10 GAO-04-895T Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages 

list of Alaska communities affected by flooding and erosion.6 This list 

identified 169 of the 213 Alaska Native villages, virtually the same villages 

identified by federal and state officials that we consulted in 2003. In 

addition, the state appointed an Erosion Control Task Force in 1983 to 

investigate and inventory potential erosion problems and to prioritize 

erosion sites by severity and need. In its January 1984 final report, the task 

force identified a total of 30 priority communities with erosion problems. 

Of these 30 communities, 28 are Alaska Native villages. Federal and state 

officials that we spoke with in 2003 also identified almost all of the Native 

communities given priority in the 1984 report as still needing assistance. 

While most Alaska Native villages are affected to some extent by flooding 

and erosion, quantifiable data are not available to fully assess the severity 

of the problem. Federal and Alaska state agency officials that we 

contacted could agree on which three or four villages experience the most 

flooding and erosion, but they could not rank flooding and erosion in the 

remaining villages by high, medium, or low severity. These agency officials 

said that determining the extent to which villages have been affected by 

flooding and erosion is difficult because Alaska has significant data gaps. 

These gaps occur because remote locations lack monitoring equipment. 

The officials noted that about 400 to 500 gauging stations would have to be 

added in Alaska to attain the same level of gauging as in the Pacific 

Northwest. 

While flooding and erosion has been documented in Alaska for decades, 

various studies and reports indicate that coastal villages in Alaska are 

becoming more susceptible. This increasing susceptibility is due in part to 

rising temperatures that cause protective shore ice to form later in the 

year, leaving the villages vulnerable to storms. According to the Alaska 

Climate Research Center, mean annual temperatures have risen for the 

period from 1971 to 2000, although changes varied from one climate zone 

to another and were dependent on the temperature station selected. For 

example, Barrow experienced an average temperature increase of 4.16 

degrees Fahrenheit for the 30-year period from 1971 to 2000, while Bethel 

experienced an increase of 3.08 degrees Fahrenheit for the same time 

period. 

 6

This report was prepared for the Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, 

the predecessor of the Alaska Department of Community and Economic Development. 
Page 11 GAO-04-895T Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages 

Alaska Native villages have difficulty qualifying for assistance under the 

key federal flooding and erosion programs, largely because of program 

requirements that the project costs not exceed economic benefits, or 

because of cost-sharing requirements. For example, according to the 

Corps’ guidelines for evaluating water resource projects, the Corps 

generally cannot undertake a project whose costs exceed its expected 

economic benefits as currently defined.7

 With few exceptions, Alaska 

Native villages’ requests for the Corps’ assistance are denied because of 

the Corps’ determination that project costs outweigh the expected 

economic benefits. Alaska Native villages have difficulty meeting the 

cost/benefit requirement because many are not developed to the extent 

that the value of their infrastructure is high enough to equal the cost of a 

proposed erosion or flood control project. For example, the Alaska Native 

village of Kongiganak, with a population of about 360 people, experiences 

severe erosion from the Kongnignanohk River. However, the Corps 

decided not to fund an erosion project for this village because the cost of 

the project exceeded the expected benefits and because many of the 

structures threatened are private property, which are not eligible for 

protection under a Section 14 Emergency Streambank Protection project. 

Meeting the cost/benefit requirement is especially difficult for remote 

Alaska Native villages because the cost of construction is high—largely 

because labor, equipment, and materials have to be brought in from 

distant locations. 

Even villages that do meet the Corps’ cost/benefit criteria may still not 

receive assistance if they cannot provide or find sufficient funding to meet 

the cost-share requirements for the project. By law, the Corps generally 

requires local communities to fund between 25 and 50 percent of project 

planning and construction costs for flood prevention and erosion control 

projects.8

 According to village leaders we spoke to, they may need to pay 

hundreds of thousands of dollars or more under these cost-share 

 7

The Corps’ guidelines are based on the Flood Control Act of 1936, which provides that “the 

Federal Government should improve or participate in the improvement of navigable waters 

or their tributaries . . . if the benefits . . . are in excess of the estimated costs.” 33 U.S.C. § 

701a. 

8

The Corps has the authority to make cost-sharing adjustments based upon a community’s 

ability to pay under section 103 (m) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, as 

amended. 33 U.S.C. §2213 (m). 

Alaska Native Villages 

Have Difficulty 

Qualifying for Federal 

Assistance 
Page 12 GAO-04-895T Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages 

requirements to fund their portion of a project—funding many of them do 

not have.9

NRCS has three key programs that can provide assistance to villages to 

protect against flooding and erosion. One program—the Watershed 

Protection and Flood Prevention Program—has a cost/benefit requirement 

similar to the Corps program and as a result, few projects for Alaska 

Native villages have been funded under this program. In contrast, some 

villages have been able to qualify for assistance from NRCS’s two other 

programs—the Emergency Watershed Protection Program and the 

Conservation Technical Assistance Program. For example, under its 

Emergency Watershed Protection Program, NRCS allows consideration of 

additional factors in the cost/benefit analysis.10 Specifically, NRCS 

considers social or environmental factors when calculating the potential 

benefits of a proposed project, and the importance of protecting the 

subsistence lifestyle of an Alaska Native village can be included as one of 

these factors. In addition, while NRCS encourages cost sharing by local 

communities, this requirement can be waived when the local community 

cannot afford to pay for a project under this program. Such was the case in 

Unalakleet, where the community had petitioned federal and state 

agencies to fund its local cost-share of an erosion protection project and 

was not successful. Eventually, NRCS waived the cost-share requirement 

for the village and covered the total cost of the project itself. (See fig. 4.) 

Another NRCS official in Alaska estimated that about 25 villages requested 

assistance under this program during the last 5 years, and of these 25 

villages, 6 received some assistance from NRCS and 19 were turned 

down—mostly because there were either no feasible solutions or because 

the problems they wished to address were recurring ones and therefore 

ineligible for the program. 

 9

According to state of Alaska officials, historically the state has provided the nonfederal 

matching funds for most Corps of Engineers (and other federal) projects, but with the 

extreme budget deficits currently faced by the state of Alaska, matching funds have been 

severely limited. 

10The Emergency Watershed Protection program was authorized under the Flood Control 

Act of 1950, Pub. L. No. 81-516 (1950). 
Page 13 GAO-04-895T Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages 

Figure 4: NRCS Seawall Erosion Protection Project at Unalakleet (c. 2000) 

Source: NRCS. 

Unlike any of the Corps’ or NRCS’s other programs, NRCS’s Conservation 

Technical Assistance Program does not require any cost-benefit analysis 

for projects to qualify for assistance.11 An NRCS official in Alaska 

estimated that during the last 2 years, NRCS provided assistance to about 

25 villages under this program. The program is designed to help 

communities and individuals solve natural resource problems, improve the 

health of the watershed, reduce erosion, improve air and water quality, or 

maintain or improve wetlands and habitat. The technical assistance 

provided can range from advice or consultation to developing planning, 

design, and/or engineering documents. The program does not fund 

construction or implementation of projects. 

 11The Conservation Technical Assistance Program was authorized under the Soil 

Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of 1935, Pub. L. No. 74-46 (1935). 
Page 14 GAO-04-895T Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages 

Four of the nine villages we reviewed are in imminent danger from 

flooding and erosion and are making plans to relocate, while the remaining 

five are taking other actions. Of the four villages relocating, Kivalina, 

Newtok, and Shishmaref are working with relevant federal agencies to 

locate suitable new sites, while Koyukuk is just beginning the planning 

process for relocation. Because of the high cost of construction in remote 

parts of Alaska, the cost of relocation for these villages is expected to be 

high. For example, the Corps estimates that the cost to relocate Kivalina 

could range from $100 million for design and construction of 

infrastructure, including a gravel pad, at one site and up to $400 million for 

just the cost of building a gravel pad at another site. Cost estimates for 

relocating the other three villages are not yet available. Of the five villages 

not currently planning to relocate, Barrow, Kaktovik, Point Hope, and 

Unalakleet each have studies under way that target specific infrastructure 

that is vulnerable to flooding and erosion. The fifth village, Bethel, is 

planning to repair and extend an existing seawall to protect the village’s 

dock from river erosion. In fiscal year 2003, the Senate Committee on 

Appropriations directed the Corps to perform an analysis of costs 

associated with continued erosion of six of these nine villages, potential 

costs of relocating the villages, and to identify the expected timeline for 

complete failure of useable land associated with each community.12 Table 

3 summarizes the status of the nine villages’ efforts to respond to their 

specific flooding and erosion problems. 

 12The Senate report for the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2003, Pub. 

L. No. 108-7 (2003), directed the Corps to study the following communities in Alaska: 

Bethel, Dillingham, Shishmaref, Kaktovik, Kivalina, Unalakleet, and Newtok. S. Rep. No. 

107-220 at 23-24 (2002). The Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2004 

further provided that the $2 million previously provided in the 2003 appropriations was “to 

be used to provide technical assistance at full Federal expense, to Alaskan communities to 

address the serious impacts of coastal erosion.” Pub. L. No. 108-137, §112, 117 Stat. 1827, 

1835-36 (2003). 

Four Villages in 

Imminent Danger Are 

Planning to Relocate, 

and the Remaining 

Five Villages Are 

Taking Other Actions 
Page 15 GAO-04-895T Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages 

Table 3: Nine Alaska Native Villages’ Efforts to Address Flooding and Erosion 

Alaska Native village Populationa Status of efforts 

Villages planning to relocate 

 Kivalina 388 Located on a barrier island that is both overcrowded and shrinking. Cost estimates to 

relocate range from $100 million to over $400 million. The Corps is currently negotiating 

a scope of work for relocation alternatives under both the Planning Assistance to States 

Program and the Alaska Villages Erosion Technical Assistance Program. 

 Shishmaref 594 Located on a barrier island and experiencing chronic erosion. Recently selected a 

relocation site. In the meantime, a Bureau of Indian Affairs funded seawall was recently 

completed to temporarily protect a road project and the Corps is starting a Section 14 

project to extend this seawall to protect the school as well. 

 Newtok 329 Suffers chronic erosion along its riverbank. Legislation for a land exchange with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service became law in November 2003 (Pub. L. No. 108-129). Interim 

Conveyance No. 1876 signed in April 2004. Relocation studies are continuing under the 

Corps’ Planning Assistance to States Program and the Alaska Villages Erosion 

Technical Assistance Program. 

Villages taking other actions 

 Kaktovik 295 Airport runway is subject to annual flooding. The Federal Aviation Administration funded 

a study to determine least-cost alternative, but consensus on a site for a new airport has 

not been reached. 

 Point Hope 725 Airport runway experiences flooding and is at risk of erosion. The North Slope Borough 

is analyzing construction alternatives for an evacuation road. 

 Barrow 4,417 The Corps is currently conducting a 5-year feasibility study of storm damage reduction 

measures. The underlying authority for this study is the “Rivers and Harbors in Alaska” 

study resolution adopted by the House of Representatives Committee on Public Works 

on December 2, 1970. 

 Unalakleet 741 Coastal and river flooding and erosion have combined to create a chronic problem at 

the harbor. The Corps has begun a study on improving navigational access. 

 Bethel 5,899 Spring break-up ice jams on the Kuskokwim River cause both periodic flooding and 

severe erosion along the riverbank. A Corps project to repair and extend the seawall to 

protect the dock and small boat harbor is stalled over land easements. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

a

Populations for the villages are based on 2003 Alaska State Demographer estimates. 

The unique circumstances of Alaska Native villages and their inability to 

qualify for assistance under a variety of federal flooding and erosion 

programs may require special measures to ensure that the villages receive 

certain needed services. Alaska Native villages, which are predominately 

remote and small, often face barriers not commonly found in other areas 

of the United States, such as harsh climate, limited access and 

infrastructure, high fuel and shipping prices, short construction seasons, 

and ice-rich permafrost soils. In addition, many of the federal programs to 

prevent and control flooding and erosion are not a good fit for the Alaska 

Alternatives for 

Addressing Barriers 

That Villages Face in 

Obtaining Federal 

Services 
Page 16 GAO-04-895T Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages 

Native villages because of the requirement that project costs not exceed 

the economic benefits. Federal and Alaska state officials and Alaska 

Native village representatives that we spoke with identified several 

alternatives for Congress that could help mitigate the barriers that villages 

face in obtaining federal services. 

These alternatives include (1) expanding the role of the Denali 

Commission to include responsibilities for managing a new flooding and 

erosion assistance program, (2) directing the Corps and NRCS to include 

social and environmental factors in their cost/benefit analyses for projects 

requested by Alaska Native villages, and (3) waiving the federal costsharing requirement for flooding and erosion projects for Alaska Native 

villages. In addition, we identified a fourth alternative—authorizing the 

bundling of funds from various agencies to address flooding and erosion 

problems in these villages. Each of these alternatives has the potential to 

increase the level of federal services to Alaska Native villages and can be 

considered individually or in any combination. However, adopting some of 

these alternatives will require consideration of a number of important 

factors, including the potential to set a precedent for other communities 

and programs as well as resulting budgetary implications. While we did 

not determine the cost or the national policy implications associated with 

any of the alternatives, these are important considerations when 

determining appropriate federal action. 

In conclusion, Alaska Native villages are being increasingly affected by 

flooding and erosion problems being worsened at least to some degree by 

climatological changes. They must nonetheless find ways to respond to 

these problems. Many Alaska Native villages that are small, remote, and 

have a subsistence lifestyle, lack the resources to address the problems on 

their own. Yet villages have difficulty finding assistance under several 

federal programs, because as currently defined the economic costs of the 

proposed project to control flooding and erosion exceed the expected 

economic benefits. As a result, many private homes and other 

infrastructure continue to be threatened. Given the unique circumstances 

of Alaska Native villages, special measures may be required to ensure that 

these communities receive the assistance they need to respond to 

problems that could continue to increase. 

Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to 

respond to any questions you or other Members of the Committee my have 

at this time. 
Page 17 GAO-04-895T Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages 

For further information, please contact Anu Mittal on (202) 512-3841. 

Individuals making key contributions to this testimony and the report on 

which it was based were José Alfredo Gómez, Jeffery Malcolm, Cynthia 

Norris, Amy Webbink, and Judith Williams. 

Contact and 

Acknowledgments 

(360495) 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of 

Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities 

and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal 

government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; 

evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail 

this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to e-mail 

alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading. 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A 

check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. 

GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a 

single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. General Accounting Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Public Affairs