U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

49–953 PDF 2009

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE 

NATIONAL COMMITTEE ON 

LEVEE SAFETY 

(111–34) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 19, 2009 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Vice 

Chair 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

PHIL HARE, Illinois 

JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio 

MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan 

BETSY MARKEY, Colorado 

PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman 

THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

PHIL HARE, Illinois 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizaon 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama 

BOB FILNER, California 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

VACANCY 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vi 

TESTIMONY 

Conrad, David, Senior Water Resources Specialist, National Wildlife Federation ........................................................................................................................ 117 

Fitzgerald, Steve, Chief Engineer, Harris County Flood Control District, Testifying on Behalf of the National Association of Flood and Stormwater 

Management Agencies ......................................................................................... 117 

Halpin, Eric, Special Assistant for Dam and Levee Safety, U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers .......................................................................................................... 117 

Haney, Andy, Public Works Director, City of Ottawa, Kansas ............................ 117 

Harder, Jr., Leslie F., Senior Water Resources Technical Advisor, Hdr, Inc., 

Testifying on Behalf of the American Council of Engineering Companies ..... 117 

Larson, Larry, Executive Director, Association of State Floodplain Managers .. 117 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri ......................................................................... 149 

Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona ....................................................................... 151 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Conrad, David .......................................................................................................... 152 

Fitzgerald, Steve ...................................................................................................... 180 

Halpin, Eric .............................................................................................................. 187 

Haney, Andy ............................................................................................................. 196 

Harder, Jr., Leslie F. ............................................................................................... 202 

Larson, Larry ........................................................................................................... 221 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Johnson, Hon. Eddie Bernice, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas, the Testimony of the American Society of Civil Engineers and 

the Association of State Dam Safety Officials ................................................... 3 

Johnson, Hon. Eddie Bernice, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas, ′′Recommendations for a National Levee Safety Program: A Report 

to Congress from the National Committee on Levee Safety′′ ........................... 13 

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

American Rivers, Rebecca W. Wodder, President, letter to Chairwoman Johnson and Ranking Member Boozman ................................................................... 236 

Karpowicz, Charles E., P.E., Water Resources Engineer, written statement .... 238 

vi 


Insert offset folio 1 here 49953.001
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 49953.002
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 49953.003
ix 


Insert offset folio 4 here 49953.004
x 


Insert offset folio 5 here 49953.005
xi 


Insert offset folio 6 here 49953.006
(1) 

HEARING ON RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE 

NATIONAL COMMITTEE ON LEVEE SAFETY 

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND

ENVIRONMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:00 p.m. in room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Eddie Bernice 

Johnson [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Ms. JOHNSON. I would like to welcome everyone here this afternoon for this hearing, which will address the recommendations of 

the National Committee on Levee Safety as contained in its report 

to Congress. 

I would like to thank all of our witnesses for joining us and we 

look forward to your testimony. 

In 2007, Congress enacted the Water Resources Development 

Act, overriding a veto by then-President George Bush. With this 

legislation, Congress expressed its overwhelming desire to upgrade 

and maintain our Nation’s crumbling water infrastructure. An important piece of the Water Resources Development Act is Title IX, 

the National Levee Safety Act of 2007. Title IX established the National Committee on Levee Safety and authorized the committee to 

develop recommendations and an implementation plan for a national levee safety program. 

Today’s hearing is only the first step in what needs to be a national conversation on how we address flood risk, not only in terms 

of expectations in our current flood control situation, but also in 

how we plan for and communicate flood risk in the future. Today’s 

hearing on the recommendations of the committee is a good place 

to begin the conversation, listening to recommendations of flood 

control experts and examining any challenges to their implementation. 

Hurricane Katrina, the costliest and most deadly hurricane in 

our Nation’s history, served as a wake-up call on the state of our 

Nation’s levees, but no in time to prevent over $100 billion in property damages and a devastating loss of life. 

More recently, last summer, breaching of levees and flooding 

throughout the Midwest resulted in billions more dollars in property damages and loss of several dozen lives. These events reinforce 

the dire need to address the state of our Nation’s levees and 

floodplains and to create a safety program that will protect the 

2 

public and hopefully reduce the risk of future losses in a more sustainable manner. 

The United States first began Federal construction of its levee 

systems after the great floods in the 1920s and 1930s along the 

Mississippi and Ohio Rivers. These devastating floods spurred Congress to pass the Flood Control Acts of 1928 and 1936 to fund the 

construction of thousands of miles of robust levees. Many of these 

systems protected against extreme flooding in the range of 500 to 

1,000-year floods. 

However, subsequent national policies have encouraged levee 

construction in the last 30 years to protect only against 100-year 

flood protection. The reality is that during the life of a typical 30- 

year mortgage, there is a 26 percent chance that flooding will 

occur. 

Increased development and urbanization have also caused greater risk to our flood control systems. In many areas, levees that 

were built decades ago to protect farmland are now relied upon to 

protect the millions of people who have moved into the area. Development in floodplains also increases urban runoff and decreases 

the flood-carrying capacity of surrounding waterways, placing existing systems under greater stress. 

Moreover, the effects of global climate change are likely to cause 

the sea level to rise and increase the size and intensity of storms 

which further jeopardize our current levels of flood protection. 

In the face of these concerns, it is necessary to reexamine how 

we protect our communities from flooding and implement more realistic and sustainable safety measures. By latest count, there are 

roughly 2,000 levee systems operated by the Corps, which amounts 

to approximately 14,000 miles of levee infrastructure. 

However, the quantity, location and condition of non-Federal levees in the United States is currently unknown, although it is estimated to account for an additional 100,000 miles of levee infrastructure. Establishing an inventory of these levees will be a crucial first step to creating a successful national levee safety plan. 

Beyond that, we must implement and encourage measures that 

will address the increased risk to our levee systems and better protect our communities against the devastating effects of flooding. We 

must create clear national standards, implement greater risk management from all levels of government, and institute adequate inspections and oversight so that we can ensure that the damage and 

destruction of Hurricane Katrina never occurs again. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about the development and implementation of a national levee safety plan that will 

live up to these goals. 

And before I ask Mr. Boozman for his remarks, I would like to 

ask unanimous consent that the testimony of American Society of 

Civil Engineers and the Association of State Dam Safety Officials 

be included as a part of the record. 

[The information follows:] 

3 


Insert offset folio 7 here 49953.007
4 


Insert offset folio 8 here 49953.008
5 


Insert offset folio 9 here 49953.009
6 


Insert offset folio 10 here 49953.010
7 


Insert offset folio 11 here 49953.011
8 


Insert offset folio 12 here 49953.012
9 


Insert offset folio 13 here 49953.013
10 


Insert offset folio 14 here 49953.014
11 


Insert offset folio 15 here 49953.015
12 

In addition, I would also like to enter into the record a copy of 

the report to Congress on the recommendations for a national levee 

safety program. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

13 


Insert offset folio 16 here 49953.016
14 


Insert offset folio 17 here 49953.017
15 


Insert offset folio 18 here 49953.018
16 


Insert offset folio 19 here 49953.019
17 


Insert offset folio 20 here 49953.020
18 


Insert offset folio 21 here 49953.021
19 


Insert offset folio 22 here 49953.022
20 


Insert offset folio 23 here 49953.023
21 


Insert offset folio 24 here 49953.024
22 


Insert offset folio 25 here 49953.025
23 


Insert offset folio 26 here 49953.026
24 


Insert offset folio 27 here 49953.027
25 


Insert offset folio 28 here 49953.028
26 


Insert offset folio 29 here 49953.029
27 


Insert offset folio 30 here 49953.030
28 


Insert offset folio 31 here 49953.031
29 


Insert offset folio 32 here 49953.032
30 


Insert offset folio 33 here 49953.033
31 


Insert offset folio 34 here 49953.034
32 


Insert offset folio 35 here 49953.035
33 


Insert offset folio 36 here 49953.036
34 


Insert offset folio 37 here 49953.037
35 


Insert offset folio 38 here 49953.038
36 


Insert offset folio 39 here 49953.039
37 


Insert offset folio 40 here 49953.040
38 


Insert offset folio 41 here 49953.041
39 


Insert offset folio 42 here 49953.042
40 


Insert offset folio 43 here 49953.043
41 


Insert offset folio 44 here 49953.044
42 


Insert offset folio 45 here 49953.045
43 


Insert offset folio 46 here 49953.046
44 


Insert offset folio 47 here 49953.047
45 


Insert offset folio 48 here 49953.048
46 


Insert offset folio 49 here 49953.049
47 


Insert offset folio 50 here 49953.050
48 


Insert offset folio 51 here 49953.051
49 


Insert offset folio 52 here 49953.052
50 


Insert offset folio 53 here 49953.053
51 


Insert offset folio 54 here 49953.054
52 


Insert offset folio 55 here 49953.055
53 


Insert offset folio 56 here 49953.056
54 


Insert offset folio 57 here 49953.057
55 


Insert offset folio 58 here 49953.058
56 


Insert offset folio 59 here 49953.059
57 


Insert offset folio 60 here 49953.060
58 


Insert offset folio 61 here 49953.061
59 


Insert offset folio 62 here 49953.062
60 


Insert offset folio 63 here 49953.063
61 


Insert offset folio 64 here 49953.064
62 


Insert offset folio 65 here 49953.065
63 


Insert offset folio 66 here 49953.066
64 


Insert offset folio 67 here 49953.067
65 


Insert offset folio 68 here 49953.068
66 


Insert offset folio 69 here 49953.069
67 


Insert offset folio 70 here 49953.070
68 


Insert offset folio 71 here 49953.071
69 


Insert offset folio 72 here 49953.072
70 


Insert offset folio 73 here 49953.073
71 


Insert offset folio 74 here 49953.074
72 


Insert offset folio 75 here 49953.075
73 


Insert offset folio 76 here 49953.076
74 


Insert offset folio 77 here 49953.077
75 


Insert offset folio 78 here 49953.078
76 


Insert offset folio 79 here 49953.079
77 


Insert offset folio 80 here 49953.080
78 


Insert offset folio 81 here 49953.081
79 


Insert offset folio 82 here 49953.082
80 


Insert offset folio 83 here 49953.083
81 


Insert offset folio 84 here 49953.084
82 


Insert offset folio 85 here 49953.085
83 


Insert offset folio 86 here 49953.086
84 


Insert offset folio 87 here 49953.087
85 


Insert offset folio 88 here 49953.088
86 


Insert offset folio 89 here 49953.089
87 


Insert offset folio 90 here 49953.090
88 


Insert offset folio 91 here 49953.091
89 


Insert offset folio 92 here 49953.092
90 


Insert offset folio 93 here 49953.093
91 


Insert offset folio 94 here 49953.094
92 


Insert offset folio 95 here 49953.095
93 


Insert offset folio 96 here 49953.096
94 


Insert offset folio 97 here 49953.097
95 


Insert offset folio 98 here 49953.098
96 


Insert offset folio 99 here 49953.099
97 


Insert offset folio 100 here 49953.100
98 


Insert offset folio 101 here 49953.101
99 


Insert offset folio 102 here 49953.102
100 


Insert offset folio 103 here 49953.103
101 


Insert offset folio 104 here 49953.104
102 


Insert offset folio 105 here 49953.105
103 


Insert offset folio 106 here 49953.106
104 


Insert offset folio 107 here 49953.107
105 


Insert offset folio 108 here 49953.108
106 


Insert offset folio 109 here 49953.109
107 


Insert offset folio 110 here 49953.110
108 


Insert offset folio 111 here 49953.111
109 


Insert offset folio 112 here 49953.112
110 


Insert offset folio 113 here 49953.113
111 


Insert offset folio 114 here 49953.114
112 


Insert offset folio 115 here 49953.115
113 


Insert offset folio 116 here 49953.116
114 


Insert offset folio 117 here 49953.117
115 


Insert offset folio 118 here 49953.118
116 


Insert offset folio 119 here 49953.119
117 


Insert offset folio 120 here 49953.120
118 


Insert offset folio 121 here 49953.121
119 


Insert offset folio 122 here 49953.122
120 


Insert offset folio 123 here 49953.123
121 


Insert offset folio 124 here 49953.124
122 


Insert offset folio 125 here 49953.125
123 

Ms. JOHNSON. I now recognize Mr. Boozman. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Today, the Subcommittee begins its review of Title IX of Water 

Resources Development Act of 2007, which established the National Committee on Levee Safety and charged it with developing 

recommendations for a national levee safety program to more adequately address risk in flood-prone areas. 

The National Committee on Levee Safety was challenged with 

coming up with recommendations within 180 days of enactment of 

a secondary piece of legislation clarifying the provision in the 

Water Resources Development Act. While this was a steep hill to 

climb, the committee delivered on its promise. 

Sadly, the Office of Management and Budget took longer to review the draft report than it took the National Committee on Levee 

Safety to actually write the report. Even with this review, OMB 

made no changes to the report. 

Congress asked for an unvarnished opinion and analysis from 

levee safety experts nationwide. While OMB at times may perform 

necessary functions of political analysis, analysis of the levee risk 

in a safety report required by law and intended for Congress is neither warranted nor welcome. This type of meddlesome behavior by 

OMB and its inattention to infrastructure has left the United 

States vulnerable to catastrophic flooding. 

Recent events have been all but ignored, and catastrophic loss of 

life could very well happen again. Uncertainty in location, lack of 

oversight, lack of technical standards, and an inability to effectively 

communicate risk has left America in a vulnerable state. The national inventory of dams shows that 45 percent of all Federal dams 

are at least 50 years old, and that 80 percent of them are at least 

30 years old. 

We know less about the status and capabilities of our levees. 

There has never been a national inventory of levees. Little is 

known about the current condition of both Federal and non-Federal 

levees, including whether these levees were designed to meet current conditions or whether they have been properly maintained by 

the non-Federal interest. 

Over the decades, levees have been built by different entities at 

different times and to different standards. They have been linked 

together to provide a protective system, but with such a mixture 

of conditions the true level of protection may be in doubt. 

Over time, development has taken place behind some of these 

levees so that today may be much more of a risk in terms of lives 

and economic resources than in the past. The Army Corps of Engineers has authority over more than 2,000 levee systems, comprising more than 14,000 miles of levee infrastructure. However, 

more than 100,000 miles of levees makes this nationwide. 

More people are moving to coastal and riverine areas where the 

risk is at its greatest. Because of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the 

Federal Government is augmenting State and local recovery efforts 

with billions of dollars of aid to the Gulf Coast. We do not know 

where the next hurricane or flood will hit, but we do know that 

many of our major cities, including parts of Washington, D.C., have 

a greater probability of flooding than did New Orleans. 

124 

For example, the city of Sacramento, California has almost twice 

as many people as New Orleans, yet it has less flood protection 

than any other major city in America. Cities like Houston, St. 

Louis, and Miami also are at risk. We cannot treat citizens of these 

cities differently unless we have a policy reason that we can explain and justify to our constituents. 

There is so much that we do not know about the levees in America that we cannot be sure how safe our cities and towns really are. 

The National Committee on Levee Safety did an excellent job on 

its report. While it had only a little time to scratch the surface on 

the issue of levee safety, the report has provided a great deal of 

education and enlightenment to the Congress and the Nation. 

The report reminds Congress and the Nation that just because 

people reside behind a levee or other flood damage reduction 

projects, they are not guaranteed safety, only that their risk of catastrophic loss has been reduced. An important reminder is how we 

define the 100-year flood event, that a resident has a 26 percent 

chance of a flood during the life of a 30-year mortgage. 

In the 1920s and 1930s, levees and flood structures were constructed to defend against the 500-year or 1,000-year flood event. 

In 1968, the National Flood Insurance Program established the 

100-year flood designation as its risk standard. This may have the 

unintended consequences of encouraging the construction of flood 

damage reduction projects to this arbitrary and relatively low 

threshold. Those living behind 100-year structures are not required 

to purchase national flood insurance. In fact, less than six million 

people hold flood insurance policies in more than 20,000 communities nationwide. 

Well-designed and well-constructed projects continue to be economically justified because they reduce risk to life and property. 

However, new projects may also attract development that otherwise would not be there. Effective flood risk management involves 

multiple layers of defense and governance, a shared responsibility. 

Levees by themselves are not an effective solution. Raising structures, reestablishing floodplains, providing insurance and building 

reservoirs are all potential ways of reducing flood risk. 

We cannot reduce risk over a few years. This crisis has been 

building for generations and it will take a combination of long-term 

and short-term measures to address the levee safety crisis. The 

American Society of Civil Engineers issued their report card on the 

Nation’s infrastructure a few weeks ago, giving levees the lowest 

grade of all infrastructure types. They point out that more than 85 

percent of the levees are locally owned and maintained, and their 

liability is uncertain. 

Because we do not fully know the scope of the problem, we do 

not know what it is going to cost to fix it. However, a rough estimate by ASCE is that it may cost more than $100 billion to repair 

and rehabilitate the Nation’s levees. 

The Nation has recently been forced to face the fact that some 

banks and some businesses are just too big to fail. Well, I would 

submit to you that the potential risk posed by unsafe levees is a 

risk too big to ignore. We must begin to get an understanding of 

the scope of the problem and begin to discuss strategies to reduce 

flood risk in America. 

125 

I would like to thank the National Committee on Levee Safety 

for providing to Congress a reasoned and thoughtful approach to 

initiate efforts on a national levee safety program. While we may 

not agree on all of the finer points of their recommendations, I 

want to congratulate the members of the National Committee on 

Levee Safety for meeting the challenge of producing an enlightening report. 

Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson, for holding this hearing. I look 

forward to the testimony of the witnesses. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Boozman. 

We have three votes. The first one is 15 minutes. It is already 

down to five minutes. And the other ones are five minutes apart. 

We will not be interrupted any more today for votes that are scheduled. So we are going to recess and come back and go straight to 

our witnesses. 

[Recess.] 

Ms. JOHNSON. The Committee will come to order. 

And we are going to begin with our witnesses. We have today 

Mr. Eric Halpin, Special Assistant for Dam and Levee Safety, U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, Washington; Mr. Larry Larson, Executive Director of the Association of State Floodplain Managers, 

Madison, Wisconsin; Mr. Steve Fitzgerald, Chief Engineer, Harris 

County Flood Control District, Houston, and he is also testifying on 

behalf of the National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies; and Mr. David Conrad, Senior Water Resources 

Specialist, National Wildlife Federation, Washington; Dr. Leslie 

Harder, Senior Water Resources Technical Advisor, HDR, Incorporated, Folsom, California, and testifying on behalf of the American Council of Engineering Companies; and Mr. Andy Haney, Public Works Director, City of Ottawa, Kansas, testifying on behalf of 

the American Public Works Association. 

I want to express my appreciation for your being here. We hope 

to have a very informational session. That is one of the reasons we 

put everybody on the same panel. We want to get the benefit of 

your knowledge as completely as we can. 

You will be called upon in the order that I introduced you. So 

now I will ask Mr. Eric Halpin to begin his testimony. 

Thank you. 

TESTIMONY OF ERIC HALPIN, SPECIAL ASSISTANT FOR DAM 

AND LEVEE SAFETY, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS; 

LARRY LARSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ASSOCIATION OF 

STATE FLOODPLAIN MANAGERS; STEVE FITZGERALD, CHIEF 

ENGINEER, HARRIS COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, 

TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION 

OF FLOOD AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AGENCIES; 

DAVID CONRAD, SENIOR WATER RESOURCES SPECIALIST, 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION; LESLIE F. HARDER, JR., 

SENIOR WATER RESOURCES TECHNICAL ADVISOR, HDR, 

INC., TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN COUNCIL 

OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES; AND ANDY HANEY, PUBLIC 

WORKS DIRECTOR, CITY OF OTTAWA, KANSAS 

Mr. HALPIN. Madam Chair and Members of the Subcommittee, I 

am Eric C. Halpin, Special Assistant for Dam and Levee Safety 

126 

with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and a registered professional engineer. I am pleased to be here today and have an opportunity to talk to you about my role as a Vice Chair of the National 

Committee on Levee Safety and our report to Congress on a national levee safety program. 

Although I am here today discuss the committee’s report, it must 

be clear that the committee’s recommendations do not represent an 

Administration position. In a letter dated May 7, 2009, the Army 

noted that an official policy review by the Administration would 

use the findings in the committee’s report to inform its final review. The Army also noted that the Administration expects to complete its review this fall. 

Our Nation has experienced an increase in risk to people and infrastructure as a result of aging infrastructure. The history of the 

United States is full of lessons, both successes and failures of levee 

systems and their maintenance. The devastating floods of the 

1920s and 1930s brought a long period of unregulated and poorly 

constructed levees into focus, resulting in the construction of more 

robust levee systems for the decades of the 1930s through the 

1960s. 

So the report from the National Committee on Levee Safety includes recommendations and a strategic plan on a national levee 

safety program. The committee is a diverse group of professionals, 

mainly from State, local and regional governments, private sector, 

including some from the Federal Government that have worked 

diligently at representing national interests in levee safety. 

I would like to preface the committee’s recommendations by recognizing a few comments up front. A, the need for a broader flood 

risk management approach in the Country; B, an opportunity to 

take the National Dam Safety Program and the emerging national 

levee safety program and integrate them, an opportunity for 

leveraging levee safety as a critical first step in the national infrastructure investment dialogue. 

The committee also recognizes that the levee systems commonly 

share the same space as water conveyance and critical ecosystems 

and habitats, and working with these interests is vital in effectively managing flood risk. The report for a national levee safety 

program embraces three main concepts: the need for new national 

leadership via a levee safety commission; the building of strong 

levee safety programs in and within each of the States; and the 

foundation of well-aligned Federal agency programs. 

In all, there are 20 specific recommendations in the report. In 

the interest of time, I would like to highlight just a few: Establish 

a National Levee Safety Program that would oversee an inventory 

and inspection of all levees; develop national levee safety standards 

and a comprehensive national public involvement and education 

awareness campaign to better communicate risk; forge collaborative studies for the environmental and safety issues; and establish a Levee Safety Grant Program to assist States and the local 

and regional governments. 

A second major point is to build and sustain strong levee safety 

programs in and within all States. Strong levee safety programs 

would initially be highly incentivized to qualifying States by providing technical assistance and training, critical data on levee inVerDate Aug 31 2005 17:30 Dec 20, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00138 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\49953.0 KAYLA
127 

spections and inventory, Federal grants for startup and 

sustainment of State levee safety programs; and a levee rehabilitation improvement and flood mitigation fund targeted at communities with high risk levees. 

The last major point is to align Federal programs that are associated with leveed areas by providing incentives to communities to 

exceed the minimum program requirements and benefit from lower 

risk flood insurance rates to policyholders who live in leveed areas. 

Another aspect of alignment is to require mandatory risk-based 

flood insurance. 

So a national levee safety program is not just a cost. It may be 

a long-term investment in public safety and economic prosperity. 

With the growing development and consequences in almost all 

areas behind levees, the benefits of a strong levee safety program 

are only going to increase over time. So not only does the concept 

of levee safety fit within the national infrastructure needs by protecting bridges and roads, but levee safety is also very much a 

State and local issue as levees protect so much local infrastructure 

such as homes, local businesses, schools, water and sewer treatment plants from frequent flooding. 

So we view the report as a beginning, not an end, to addressing 

the issue of levee safety, and we look forward to working with you 

and the other stakeholders while the Administration conducts its 

policy review. 

In the spirit of a good beginning, the committee will seek additional stakeholder and agency input through a series of national 

and regional listening sessions that are beyond the original accelerated pace of the report, but are an important part of moving forward with a national levee safety program. 

This concludes my statement, Madam Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on the ongoing efforts of the National 

Levee Safety program. I would be pleased to answer any questions 

you may have. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Larson? 

Mr. LARSON. Thank you, Madam Chair and the Committee. 

ASFPM is grateful to this Committee in fact for its leadership in 

exploring what we consider to be a very important issue in the Nation’s economic and sustainable future. 

ASFPM believes there are a few issues that contribute to our national levee problems. I will just briefly mention some of those. You 

have already seen them in the testimony. 

First of all, we think communities and States erroneously think 

that flooding is a Federal problem, and it is not. We don’t really 

know how many miles of levees there are and their condition. Current FEMA and Corps policies do not work together. In fact, they 

have increased our levee risk over the years. We have lost huge 

amounts to the Nation’s natural functions and resource because 

levees typically are on the edge of the river or our estuaries. Risks 

behind levees are increasing, as we have talked about and residual 

risk is not clearly understood. 

I put up on the PowerPoint chart that I would like to show you 

and talk about just briefly. What this shows, actually General 

O’Reilly from the Corps of Engineers helped develop this chart. It 

128 

his concept. What we are seeing on the left side of the chart, if you 

start out with all flood risk that you are facing, there are a number 

of measures that you can take to buy down that risk. As you can 

see, it talks about doing zoning, building codes, outreach, evacuation planning, flood insurance and levees. 

Flood insurance in fact does reduce that individual risk because 

it reduces consequences. When I talk about risk, I am not just talking about the probability of flooding. Risk is the probability times 

the consequences. So the more you have of consequences, the bigger 

your risk. 

Some of the best long-term solutions we like to advocate for reducing flood risk include avoiding flood risk areas, especially deep 

floodplains and coastal storm surge areas. Secondly, to use nonstructural approaches because they have smaller long-term costs. 

Third, if we use levees at all, set back those levees so that we protect some of those functions and we decrease the pressure on the 

levees. And if we are going to put Federal dollars in, we ought to 

be talking 500-year levees. 

Why hasn’t this happened in the Nation? Let’s talk about the two 

agencies I mentioned. FEMA has a policy, and Mr. Boozman talked 

about this, it says 100-year levee, now behind it you do nothing, 

no flood insurance, no regulations, no nothing. So even if the Corps 

had a positive benefit cost ratio, and typically the community opts 

for the low one because that buys them what they want. Ironically, 

we would fare better if the whole Nation had 99-year levees because then we would have essentially the same level of protection, 

but we would also have some of the other measures of insurance, 

regulations and some of the other things that would help give us 

backstop. 

From the Corps’ standpoint, this is where we get into what is 

currently a disincentive for good behavior. We use Federal taxpayer 

money to build 65 percent to build the levee. When the levee fails 

or over-tops, we use the taxpayers’ money to either rebuild it with 

80 percent or 100 percent Federal money. So I am the mayor of a 

local town. You are going to help me build this levee, and I am 

going to have this development behind the levee. I am getting all 

the tax benefits from that increased development, but when the 

levee over-tops and fails and when we have a disaster, you, the 

Federal taxpayer, are going to come in an bail me out. Gee, I wonder why I take those steps? 

With those kind of policies in place, we are not going to solve this 

problem. 

So before we can fix the levee problem, we need to change some 

other things, too, like some of these programs I just talked about: 

mandatory insurance behind levees; change the 100-year standard 

in FEMA; the Disaster Relief Act; the Corps’ Public Law 84-99 Program. 

From the standpoint of the committee report, we support a number of the recommendations that Eric just talked about. But also 

we would say on the commission that establishing a commission 

with a broader view of flood risk, and then with this levee 

sub##group that can proceed on some of these actions that Eric 

talked about would make more sense. If we only deal with levees, 

129 

and not with the broader issue of flood risk, we fear that we are 

going to be fiddling while Rome burns here. 

Eric talked about the incentive, the strong State programs, and 

those are all good things. These aren’t new ideas you are hearing 

from us. These have been in every report you can see about levees 

since 1982. 

So standing up these next steps, Congress may want to consider 

standing up a broad flood risk committee, having a levee sub-group 

that proceeds on some of these items we talked about, of State capability incentives, engineering standards and the rest. 

So that if we can move on those areas, and at the same time try 

to decrease those incentives that create bad behavior, I think we 

are going to make some progress. 

I thank the Committee again for the opportunity to testify. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Fitzgerald? 

Mr. FITZGERALD. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

NAFSMA represents 100 members, mostly large urban agencies, 

and about 76 million citizens. Our members are on the frontline 

every day reducing loss of life and property damage from floods. 

NAFSMA members also deal directly with increased populations in 

helping to guide design of low flood risk neighborhoods, many of 

which will be built behind existing or future levees. 

I am going to start with four general observations on the recommendations. 

First, Mr. Halpin, I applaud you and the entire Committee who 

represented the breadth and depth of levee experience in the 

United States from all levels of government and the private sector. 

It is especially important that Bob Turner from St. Bernard Parish 

is on the committee. He experienced first-hand the consequences of 

major flooding behind a levee system. Their parish was devastated 

by Hurricane Katrina, with only five buildings not flooded. 

Second, while this report focuses on levees, many of its ideas, approaches and recommendations are applicable to the broader issue 

of flood risk management. As stated in the report, improving levee 

safety will be most effective if it is conducted within the context of 

a national flood risk management program. 

And third, levee safety is a shared responsibility. Responsibilities 

lie at all levels of government, and with persons whose lives and 

property are located behind levees. 

And fourth, while everyone may not agree with all of the recommendations, it is paramount that implementation of the ones 

that we can agree on begin as soon as possible. 

Now, I would like to talk about the recommendations. We divided 

them into three groups: those that need to be implemented as soon 

as possible; those that will take longer and should be implemented 

next; and the ones that need further study. 

Thirteen of the recommendations should be implemented as soon 

as possible. They address expanding the levee inventory, adopting 

a hazard classification system and national levee safety standard, 

providing technical guidance, removing liability barriers, and delegating responsibilities to the States, augmenting existing FEMA 

programs, and funding. 

130 

One in this group is particularly important to the NAFSMA 

members who are currently trying to maintain the integrity of 

their existing levees. Conflicting regulatory and environmental 

agencies views are resulting in long delays or inability to perform 

the needed infrastructure maintenance, such as removing trees. 

NAFSMA concurs with the Levee Safety Committee recommendation that acceptable operation and maintenance practices need to 

be developed in coordination with environmental agencies so lives 

and property can be protected, and significant environmental resources are not impacted. 

There are five in the implement next group. They include developing tolerable risk guidelines, public education and awareness, 

levee safety training, research and development, and exploring incentives and disincentives. 

And finally, there are only two that we identified as needing further study. The first is the establishment of a National Levee Safety Commission. It would focus exclusively on levees, unlike the current situation where levee issues are spread between the Corps and 

FEMA. It is probably the smart thing to do to develop a strong national program. However, some NAFSMA members are skeptical of 

another layer of government. 

The other one is the mandatory purchase of flood insurance in 

leveed areas. Although NAFSMA agrees that participation in the 

National Flood Insurance Program helps reduce the impact of financial damages on individuals and businesses and raise awareness in the participating communities, it does not change their 

flood risk. 

We also understand that actuarial rates would be applied. We 

are interested in seeing how the formulas would be developed 

where levees can fail for various reasons and consequences can 

vary greatly. NASFMA believes that a thorough evaluation of the 

long-term impact that the mandatory purchase requirement would 

have on local communities is needed. NAFSMA agrees with the 

House approach in the bill approved last congressional session calling for a study of these impacts to be carried out before Congress 

mandates such a change. 

In closing, NAFSMA recommends continuing to utilize the experts and practitioners on a levee safety committee to ensure effective and timely implementation of the National Levee Safety Program, to reduce flood risk, loss of life, property damage, and recovery cost. 

Thank you for giving us this opportunity to make this statement. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Conrad? 

Mr. CONRAD. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member 

Boozman and Members of the Subcommittee. The National Wildlife 

Federation greatly appreciates the opportunity to share our views 

on the recommendations of the National Levee Safety Program. 

We also want to compliment the prodigious work of the committee in assembling this report on a quite compressed time schedule. This is a very broad subject. The report provides many important insights as to conditions confronted by the Nation, States and 

communities faced with reliance on aging and in some cases poorly 

constructed levees. Yet we are concerned that the report fails in 

131 

some fundamental ways to adequately approach current and future 

risks associated with levees. 

Madam Chairwoman, the report traces a history of an aging, constantly deteriorating, and often poorly designed, constructed and 

maintained stock of levees in environments that are in many cases 

facing growing flood risks, which has led us to the point of rapidly 

increasing risks and costs of flood-related damages. It begins to 

frame out how a series of often poorly coordinated Federal programs, combined with quite serious public misperceptions about 

risks involved, have driven to a dangerous over-reliance on levees, 

too often to the exclusion of other critical hazard mitigation approaches. 

When combined with the growing risks associated with global 

warming and climate change, changes in snow pack and runoff, 

more frequent and more severe storms, increasing sea levels and 

erosion along coasts and population increases, and major ongoing 

changes in intensifying land uses and urbanization that are increasing flood risks, it is clear that the risks and costs of flooding 

to many communities and society as a whole are rising alarmingly. 

Madam Chairwoman, a the broadest level, our concerns with the 

proposal fall into three categories. The scope of levee safety in the 

proposal is too narrowly defined to assure flood risk reduction over 

the long term. Protection and restoration of the environment and 

implications of climate change, sea level risk, and changes in watersheds are given too little recognition. 

And finally, too great an emphasis is placed on the Federal Government to resolve problems that should properly be led by State 

and local entities. 

As the Federation reads it, the committee has principally defined 

the focus of levee safety to assessing and managing the condition 

of the levees themselves, rather than placing them in the full context of the floodplains in which they are located. We believe it is 

unwise to approach the Nation’s levees as divorced from what is 

happening in their floodplains. The Federation believes that absent 

viewing levees in their full context, the narrow focus may lead to 

compounding costs and increasing risks, rather than the opposite. 

Another extremely critical concern is failure of the committee’s 

proposal to clearly include among responsibilities of the commission 

and States to identify and consider environmental factors in developing broad levee safety plans. Congress gave important new direction in WRDA 2007 in a new national water resources policy that 

added critical new criteria and considerations such as focusing on 

sustainable economic development, seeking to avoid the unwise use 

of floodplains and flood-prone areas, and protecting and restoring 

functions of natural systems. Yet these are essentially unreflected 

in the committee’s proposed levee safety program. 

Without question, enormous ecological damage has been caused 

by excessive reliance on levees as primary, and sometimes only 

flood damage control strategies in many areas. In some regions, 

millions of acres of riparian wetlands, riparian lands and floodplain 

lands have been cut off, drained and divorced by levees from their 

natural connection with rivers and estuaries. As a result, we are 

now witnessing not only enormous adverse environmental effects, 

but also growing flood risks and costs from the losses of natural 

132 

flood control systems, and the program needs to be revised to address that. 

We are concerned that the effectiveness of the Levee Safety Commission or a key agency assigned such leadership would be limited 

without the establishment of an overall strengthened and coordinated Federal approach to water resources that should be built on 

regional and watershed concepts. The committee recommended 

this, but offered no basic proposal to address it. 

There is a strong question whether the Levee Safety Commission 

or individual Federal agency could cause the called-for substantial 

alignments of Federal flood hazard mitigation and environmental 

programs sufficient to serve as a major motivator for States to develop strong levee safety programs. 

The Federation and a number of other members of the National 

Levee Safety Committee Review Team made strong recommendations that revitalization of a Cabinet level U.S. Water Resources 

Council could be the best means to help focus the resources of the 

numerous Federal water-related programs to convince States to actively engage not only in levee safety, but also in a desperately 

needed effort to reduce flood risks through a full range of tools and 

risk reduction means across the Nation. 

Finally, we want to say we are greatly concerned that the committee has recommended the Federal Government should essentially presume responsibility for much of rehabilitation costs for 

urban levees by flatly recommending a 65 percent Federal/35 percent non-Federal cost share. We believe it is entirely premature to 

make such a recommendation. At this stage, we do not know what 

the total costs may be and we have not fully explored the range of 

cost share and financing options that may be available. 

Again, we greatly appreciate the opportunity to present the views 

of the National Wildlife Federation regarding the recommendations 

of the National Levee Safety Committee. We believe that the committee, however, has fallen short in a number of key areas which 

if not addressed would greatly hamper the effectiveness of moving 

forward with levee safety. 

Thank you, and I would be happy to respond to any questions. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Leslie Harder? 

Mr. HARDER. Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Boozman 

and Members of the Subcommittee, I very much appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today about the importance of the 

National Levee Safety Program. 

My name is Leslie Harder, and I currently serve as the Senior 

Water Resource Technical Advisor for HDR, Incorporated, a national employee-owned architectural engineering consulting firm. 

I am also an active member of the American Council of Engineering Companies, ACEC, whose 6,000 member firms employ more 

than 500,000 engineering professionals across the Nation. And I 

am one of the members of the National Committee on Levee Safety 

whose recommendations you are now considering. 

In short, as the Chair and Ranking Member have very well summarized, we are at a critical juncture in our Nation’s history. The 

risk to people and infrastructure is growing at an alarming rate as 

a result of more than 100 years of neglect to our levee systems. 

133 

Now, I have a little handout that I made, hopefully you have it 

up there, to emphasize certain points. If I could turn to the second 

page, on the second page there is a photograph of a dredge taken 

about 100 years ago constructing one of the levee systems in California, which actually is part of the Federal flood control system 

today. This is the technology and the techniques that actually constructed many of the levees that now currently protect us across 

the Nation. And even though this may be 100 years old, even the 

more recent levee construction a few decades ago are not a lot better. They are basically long piles of loose dirt. 

Well, what do we know about these long piles of loose dirt? So 

on the next page, we do recognize they are integral to our communities. They are critical for the protection of people, property and 

other infrastructure. Now, the Chair and the Ranking Member did 

a great job of summarizing what we don’t know about all these levees, the over 100,000 miles that we don’t know exactly where they 

are at, their unknown integrity. We do know one thing: they are 

aging and they are deteriorating. 

We also know that there are no national standards or approaches, and there are liability issues. And these liability issues 

are burdening our current flood risk reduction efforts. 

On the next page are the 20 recommendations that the committee put together. On behalf of ACEC, the engineering community supports all of these recommendations. They are all important. 

Now, the ones in red I have chosen to highlight today in the following pages. 

So the first of these to highlight is the need to develop a common 

set of levee standards. We do not have common standards for criteria today. Different Federal agencies use different standards. The 

States use different ones. It will be necessary to base our future investments and priorities using common standards and common language. So the Committee has recommended the development of interim guidelines and eventually over a five-year period, a national 

levee safety code. 

On the next page is a recommendation for developing tolerable 

risk guidelines. These are basically the guidelines for target levels 

of protection of risk for different communities. Not every community needs the same level of protection. A small town in California 

does not need the same level of protection that New Orleans does, 

for instance. 

On the next page is mandatory risk-based flood insurance. I 

probably can’t say enough how much this is needed. There are so 

many reasons for this. First of all, it is probably the fastest way 

to speed financial assistance to flood victims. It will limit financial 

damages to public agencies and the taxpayers. It will improve understanding of flood risks and the need to take individual responsibility. Risk-based premiums will motivate the public to improve 

flood protection. And regardless of the level of protection any community has, everyone who lives behind a levee at some point will 

have a fair amount of risk. 

Next page is design and delegate State levee safety programs. 

The committee recommended such programs. It is clearly an intent 

of Congress to have them. States are uniquely positioned to oversee 

and coordinate such activities. And we believe that the primary imVerDate Aug 31 2005 17:30 Dec 20, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00145 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\49953.0 KAYLA
134 

plementation of a national program for non-Federal levees will be 

through State programs. 

On the next page, national levee rehabilitation and improvement 

mitigation fund. Most of our recommendations are associated with 

the basic due diligence of managing critical infrastructure. But 

after we begin looking at our levees, we are going to find lots of 

deficiencies and they will be pervasive. And so we need a fund to 

rehabilitate them, and this is what is intended as a cost shared 

grant program. Now, we are always concerned about costs, but if 

we don’t do something like this, our inaction will be that we as a 

Nation will be paying a lot more later. 

On the next page is the recommendation to replace the term ‘‘certification’’ as it is used with FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program. If we replace it with something like ‘‘compliance determination’’ or NFIP determination, it would avoid the misperception by 

policy makers, the general public and liability insurers that this is 

a warranty, which it is not. 

On the next page, addressing the liability issue. When Congress 

originally tasked the Corps of Engineers to begin constructing flood 

control projects, it recognized that it could not afford to build these 

projects and also be liable for them. So Federal immunity against 

liability was built into the process. And today, that Federal immunity is being challenged. But State agencies, local agencies and the 

private firms that serve them do not have any such protection at 

all. And as a result, both in the private sector and public sector, 

engineering organizations are reluctant or unable to provide engineering services because of the liability. 

And States and local agencies are reluctant or even refusing to 

sponsor new flood control projects for fear of acquiring new liability, which they cannot afford. The National Levee Safety Program 

cannot achieve success without resolving this issue. 

And then finally, we certainly endorse the need for a public involvement education and awareness campaign. 

In conclusion, on behalf of ACEC and the Nation’s engineering 

industry, I want to thank the Subcommittee once again for focusing 

attention on this important issue and for the opportunity to testify 

before it. We strongly urge you and the total Congress to take up 

legislation to create a National Levee Safety Program as soon as 

possible. 

And I, too, would be happy to answer any questions. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Haney? 

Mr. HANEY. Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Boozman, 

Members of the House Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony. 

I am Andy Haney. I am the Public Works Director for the City 

of Ottawa, Kansas. Ottawa has a population of approximately 

13,000 residents. It is protected on both banks of the Marais des 

Cygnes River by levees totaling approximately 4.6 miles in length. 

This levee system was constructed by the United States Army 

Corps of Engineers. Recently, I represented the American Public 

Works Association as a member of the review team for the National Committee on Levee Safety. 

135 

Flood control systems, which include levees, are among the infrastructure that APWA members plan, design, build, operate and 

maintain. I submit this statement today on behalf of the more than 

29,000 public works professionals who are members of the APWA. 

The recent recommendation to Congress by the National Committee on Levee Safety is to establish a National Levee Safety Program and to require mandatory risk-based flood insurance in 

leveed areas. The economic impact of these recommendations for 

the Federal Government has been under review by the Office of 

Management and Budget, but the economic impact on local governments and on our citizen taxpayers may not be receiving the attention that is necessary and warranted. 

While some issues brought forward by the public works community were addressed by the National Committee on Levee Safety, 

a significant portion of our feedback seems to have been overridden 

by other interests. 

APWA would like to offer the following recommendations which 

we believe would greatly improve the creation and implementation 

of the National Levee Safety Program. 

Initially, place a moratorium on the schedule relating to provisional accreditation letters now being taken on levees that are affected. This would provide for a reasonable period of time for elected and appointed officials nationwide to discuss this issue in depth 

with appropriate Federal agencies, their citizens, local businesses, 

and other stakeholders before initiating efforts towards levee compliance determination. 

Additionally, this would allow a more thorough understanding of 

the needs of the Federal Government to institute the policy change 

and for local governments to assess and address the impacts that 

may result. 

Next, publicize the anticipated cost to property owners for insuring properties against flood damage. Include information related to 

what cost reduction for that coverage may result if a property 

owner is, ‘‘protected by a compliant levee.’’ 

Next, we suggested to the National Committee on Levee Safety 

that the administration of the National Levee Safety Program 

should be retained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The 

Corps could promulgate rules related to when and if a program 

could or should be delegated below the Federal level based on reasonable criteria. The Corps should be augmented with the appropriate budget, staff and equipment to accomplish this as a routine 

function. 

To supplement the effort, the Corps could retain consultants to 

complete assessments and other work throughout the districts. We 

believe the results would be far more standardized and significantly reduce overall costs than if the project is undertaken by individual communities. 

Next, and significant, is to modify the threshold of lives at risk 

as a determinant of Federal financial aid availability. The focus on 

human safety is the highest priority stated in the report. We agree. 

And the report indicates the emphasis should be placed where 

there is a risk of 10,000 lives if a levee fails. That threshold of danger to human lives will likely exclude smaller communities with respect to receiving any Federal funding to improve levees. Even the 

136 

larger cities may have difficulty attaining that 10,000 lives threshold. 

However, inundation of the levee-protected area of our town, as 

just one example, will possibly affect that number of jobs due to the 

business center being within the levee-protected area. The economic loss could become devastating, and there should be some 

means of incorporating that economic loss in the formula. 

We also think that other associations should be brought in that 

have an interest, for instance, the National League of Cities, the 

National Association of Counties, and U.S. Conference of Mayors. 

Our levee system since it was built has been locally, not federally, funded. We have paid for all of the maintenance and we have 

maintained it religiously. As a member of this review committee, 

I have determined that not everybody has done that. But there 

needs to be some measure of that taken, and I think we need to 

take more time. 

Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Boozman and Members 

of the House Subcommittee, thank you for conducting the hearing 

and inviting us to present our concerns and our recommendations 

for the public works community. APWA stands ready to be a resource as this goes on. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

I would like to ask Mr. Halpin a couple of questions, then I will 

move it on to Mr. Boozman and some of the other Members. 

Mr. Halpin, in your testimony you state that this report will advise the Administration in its official policy review. Who is participating in this review? And has the policy review begun? 

Mr. HALPIN. Yes, Madam Chair. The Office of Management and 

Budget is conducting the clearance review of this and coordinating 

with other Federal agencies. That started in February and will continue, even though the report has been forwarded by the Army to 

Congress. They expect to finish that in the fall. 

Ms. JOHNSON. This was all Federal agencies involved in the 

floodplain or management development? 

Mr. HALPIN. Ma’am, I am not privy to all the agencies that have 

been coordinated with. 

Ms. JOHNSON. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. Boozman? 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Fitzgerald, what are your concerns about the recommendation for expanding the National Flood Insurance Program to require property owners and businesses in levee areas to buy the insurance? Is the insurance, if you can help me a little bit, is it the 

same if you have a 100-year levee versus a 500-year levee? How 

does that work? 

Mr. FITZGERALD. I think that is one of the unknowns is how 

would that work. There are a lot of questions about how those 

rates would be determined. In addition, you know, FEMA is in the 

flood insurance business and I think that has been their primary 

focus. With levees, you are going to get into other kinds of risk having to do with the structural integrity of the levee, consequences, 

the number of people behind it. There are more things involved in 

determining those rates and how that would be determined. So we 

137 

feel like we need to take a look at that and get an idea of what 

that would do in those areas. 

Also, there may be some areas that are at just as high of a risk 

than behind levees within our floodplains. And so there could be 

a consideration of looking at where are the highest risk in communities, not just behind leveed areas. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Right. Very good. 

Let me ask this of the panel. At the October 20th, 2005 Subcommittee hearing, the former head of the Dutch agency that 

builds flood control projects told the Subcommittee that in The 

Netherlands, the government made a political decision to provide 

a certain level of flood protection, and then directed the engineers 

to design projects to meet that level of protection. 

In the U.S., we instead ask the engineers to decide what is technically feasible, economically justified, and environmentally protective, and then we authorize the levels of protection to meet these 

criteria. 

Can you contrast? Can you comment on the Dutch system versus 

our system? Whoever wants to jump out. 

Mr. HALPIN. Sir, I will take a shot at that. 

One big difference between the Dutch system and the U.S. system is the majority of their country is in a very flood risk-prone 

area on the North Sea below sea level. It would be like having our 

Country look like New Orleans. So you would have to be careful 

about legislating a level of protection based on a Country that is 

much larger and much more diverse than The Netherlands. 

That being said, there is something to be said for the commitment of a nation to establish a level of flood protection in legislation that is essentially around an extreme event. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. But that really points out too the difficulty of kind 

of a one size fits all in our Country. 

Mr. Larson, only 10 States maintain a levee inventory and only 

23 States have an agency with levee safety responsibility. Why are 

the States unwilling or unable to address the public safety risks associated with the levees? 

Mr. LARSON. I think you will see that a number of States used 

to do more in both levee and dam safety. I used to run a dam safety and levee safety program and a floodplain management program 

in a State myself. 

As I pointed out earlier, we are seeing this evolution of people 

thinking the Federal Government is taking over floods and flood 

damages, and we are going to solve the problem at a Federal level. 

As a result, as governors and State legislators, come time for them 

to put money into their dam safety and levee safety programs, they 

are saying, well, this is a Federal problem; this is one thing we can 

cut because the Federal Government is taking care of it. 

I think that is leading us in the wrong direction, which is why 

the incentive scenario is to turn it around so that we start to reward those States that do a better job. The reality is they are going 

to have to be at the State level. The solutions to this really aren’t 

engineering. We know how to engineer a levee. We always did. We 

always do. But the reality is what is causing our flood risks to increase is the land use and the other uses associated with levees. 

And land use is really in our Constitution only the purview of the 

138 

States, not the Federal Government. So we have to get the States 

involved in this if we want to solve this problem in the long run. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. I am done, Madam Chair, but would you like to 

comment, Mr. Conrad? You were nodding. 

Mr. CONRAD. Yes, I was nodding. I think part of the point that 

I was trying to make in our testimony and in my summary is that 

risk is building up because there is an awful lot of perception that, 

oh, the Federal Government will somehow take care of me here, either with levees and then bigger levees and then bigger levees, or 

disaster assistance and insurance that I can purchase very cheaply 

even if the risks are very high. 

So I think that is really a fundamental problem that we have in 

this area. We have seen a huge amount of additional development 

over the last several decades in floodplains in rather dangerous locations. We are beginning to kind of catch up with that. We really 

need to stay on top of that. We need to do these inventories. We 

need to develop plans, and we need to engage the public in thinking through how to manage this risk. 

But fundamentally, we need much better floodplain management, and we need to do that with Federal incentives and disincentives, and work with the States and local governments to make 

that happen. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Mr. Hare? 

Mr. HARE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

My district covers West Central Illinois, and I go almost from the 

Wisconsin border with the Mississippi River down almost to St. 

Louis. So a number of levees and levee systems, and I have seen 

a number of them, particularly last year, fail. And you know, there 

is an Upper Mississippi River comprehensive plan that has been 

signed off on by the governors, et cetera. 

Part of the problem of what the levee people are telling me, for 

example, the Sny Levee District, is saying that when the levee 

fails, they have to go back to their levee district because the Corps 

isn’t, you know, the Corps can do only what the Corps can do, and 

then they have to come up with $1 million on their own. And these 

are people who have just been, you know, hit pretty hard and they 

have to try to figure out some way of being able to rebuild this 

levee system. 

I would like to know, you know, from the panel’s perspective. I 

understand that the comprehensive plan, if we did it, would run 

about $6 billion to bring it up to those type of levels where, Senator 

Durbin and I were sandbagging, and he said, Phil, either 200 years 

has gone by awful fast or we just did this eight years ago. 

And so I am trying to see what maybe the panel’s opinion is in 

terms of what do we do? Do we build these things back up? Because we are going to be spending a tremendous, and rightfully so, 

we are going to be spending a lot of money on flood relief for people 

who have been wiped out. I have the town of Gulf Port that is no 

longer a town. It is gone. You go down there and you look and it 

is basically been wiped out. 

And some farmers tell me, well, some people say that is only agriculture on the other side of that levee. When it breaches, that 

139 

farmer whose got thousands of, hundreds of thousands of dollars 

invested in equipment, it is his whole life, and it puts him at risk. 

So I would like to know from maybe your perspective what do we 

need to do here? Because these levees are going to fail. Some of 

them are going to be decertified. People can’t get insurance. I 

mean, you know, what do we need to do here? Do we need to rebuild these things? Or what are we going to do? Because this is an 

area, it is going to flood again. The question is not if, it is when. 

Are we going to have another 200-year flood next year? 

So I would be very interested just maybe to get opinions from 

you folks in terms of what, you know, where do we go? What do 

we do? And anybody is welcome because I am sort of stuck here 

and I am looking for some help. 

Mr. CONRAD. Well, I think the Country confronted this to some 

degree right after the Midwest flood, and we did something a little 

bit different. We, with my organization and I think some of the organizations represented here, recognized that there are a variety of 

solutions to deal with flood issues. And if we only focus on levees, 

that is not good, actually. 

After the Midwest flood, there were many, many buildings, 

10,000 buildings in the nine upper basin States that had been so 

badly damaged they were bought out using some Federal support, 

either 75 percent or 50 percent depending on which States you are 

talking about, support to do buy-outs and relocations. And buildings and people were relocated to higher ground. 

So I think that with cases like Sny Levee or others, I don’t know 

all the details there, but we need to think on the long term where 

we are going with this. What are those long-term costs likely to be 

if we continue to battle Mother Nature and lose? And so that is 

why a broader national flood risk management and environmental—these are environmental issues, too—about where we occupy and where we don’t, what we are doing with the land. There 

are number of farming activities that can go on as long as there 

aren’t residences there and an enormous amount of equipment, 

would still be productive. 

So there are a lot of things we can do like that. We just have 

to think of it on a much broader level than just levee or no levee 

kind of thing. 

Mr. HARE. Mr. Fitzgerald? 

Mr. FITZGERALD. Yes, and I am a civil engineer and I kind of 

think in more simple terms. I think it appears to me we are almost 

in a triage situation of, where is the next failure going to be? 

Where are we going to have the next flooding with the levees? So 

it seems like doing an evaluation and inventory of all the remaining levees that are not Federal would be a really good thing, so we 

can start anticipating where that next problem may be. Putting our 

resources toward those locations would be a good first step while 

we are working toward the longer term solutions like Mr. Conrad 

was saying. 

And we local sponsors or local entities also agree that flood risk 

management is really the bottom line. We need a really good flood 

risk management program, and levees are just part of that. A lot 

of us local areas, levees aren’t our first choice. They are our last 

140 

choice a lot of times. They are not our first choice. Some people 

think they are, but they aren’t. 

But I think doing the inventory and putting our resource to those 

areas that need the help most would be a good first step. 

Mr. HARE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Mr. Cao? 

Mr. CAO. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I represent the City of New Orleans, and in the last three years 

we have had Katrina, which is a 500 level storm; Gustav, which 

is a 100 level storm. And during both of those storms, my house 

got flooded. 

My question to you is, the people of my district constantly live 

under the threat of hurricanes and floods. And I want to know 

what would be the most effective and cost-effective means of protecting the New Orleans metropolitan area and whether or not The 

Netherlands model would be a feasible option. 

Mr. LARSON. I didn’t hear the last part of your statement. 

Whether what would be feasible? 

Mr. CAO. The Netherlands model. 

Mr. LARSON. Oh. Well, The Netherlands succeeded, well, I 

shouldn’t say they succeeded. So far, they have held back the sea. 

What they gave up, however, was a fishery. So in the Gulf, you 

have to ask yourself, do we want to protect the City of New Orleans at the expense of our seafood, which as I understand provides, 

what, 30 percent of the seafood to the Nation out of the Gulf Coast 

area? So it is a balancing act. Like we always do, we are balancing 

one set of economics and one set of social issues and the cultures 

for another. 

Can we rebuild all of New Orleans and maintain it there, at the 

same time we are losing the wetlands that protect it? If we build 

a levee around the entire Gulf, what do we give up instead in order 

for that to be accomplished? 

These are not easy issues and there are of course huge cost 

issues. No easy answers, and while everybody is working through 

this problem right now, those solutions are probably going to be 

very long term. 

At the same time, we see the climate change and the sea level 

rise, all those of things that end—of course, you have the added 

disadvantage of subsidence in New Orleans. So you are really 

caught between the rock and the hard place to ask yourself, what 

parts of this city can we help be here 100 years from now? What 

are the solutions so that we can still maintain what has to be here? 

Those are very difficult choices that are not going to be very easy 

despite how much money we throw at them. 

Mr. CAO. So basically you are saying that there is no cost-effective solution to protect the area? 

Mr. LARSON. Maybe if you say, are we going to put a wall around 

it and protect it, is it going to be safe. 

Mr. CAO. No. I am asking you a question of whether or not, what 

would be the most cost-effective and the most feasible way to protect the area. 

Mr. LARSON. Well, and that is what some of the studies are looking at now. And I think what we are hearing a lot of is at the same 

time we provide some levee protections for portions of the city, we 

141 

need to also do those things that will help rebuild the wetlands in 

front of New Orleans so that we have more natural protection— 

those sorts of things. We are going to have to figure out what does 

that mean in the climate change, sea level rise scenario. 

So I haven’t seen anybody showing me what the cost-effective solution is yet, and there are a lot of studies going on on it. So I don’t 

really know the answer, but it is not going to be easy. 

Mr. CAO. So I guess this is for the panel, in addressing the issue 

of the levees, obviously you have to work in conjunction with coastal restoration and other issues. And how are we going to come up 

with a plan that can comprehensively work in conjunction with the 

various issues in dealing with protection? Because it seems to me 

that we are just addressing one issue at a time, and that it might 

not provide the people with the adequate protection that they require, especially the many residents who live along the Gulf Coast. 

Mr. CONRAD. Congressman, this has been a situation that has 

been developing for a long time nationally, that our water decisions 

are being done in a sort of stove-piped way. You are right. We are 

just kind of focusing on one thing at a time and not the whole system. I think that there are efforts now being made to see the Louisiana coast as a system, as very natural. It is a dynamic system. 

It was literally levees for navigation that wound up cutting off the 

sediments for the coastal Louisiana wetlands that have been the 

principal cause of damage to the wetlands, which are part of nature’s protection for coastal Louisiana. 

So we need to look at this as a system, and I think we would 

recommend on a national level that we find some mechanisms to 

look at water resources among multi-departmental ways. I made 

the recommendation of a reestablishing a Water Resources Council 

that we used to have and we don’t have now, that would bring the 

agencies together to talk about these things in that much broader 

frame. 

Mr. CAO. Yes, sir? 

Mr. HARDER. I support a lot of what was just said. At the end 

of the day, as you well very much know, the Corps of Engineers 

is currently spending many billions of dollars to repair previous 

damage and also upgrade the system around New Orleans. In total, 

I believe it is probably on the order of $15 billion just for this one 

city. And so that will certainly lead to improved flood protection 

compared to what it was prior to Katrina. 

And perhaps all these other endeavors associated with environmental restoration will also provide some long-term benefits as 

well and they ought to be pursued. But at the end of the day, the 

city will remain vulnerable to some extent, and there needs to be 

probably recognition of that and by the community, and that individuals are prepared for that either through emergency action 

plans, evacuations to reduce the potential for loss of life, purchase 

of flood insurance for speedy recovery when such a thing happens, 

and communication of risks so that people understand really the 

nature of the environment they live in. 

Mr. CAO. Thank you. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Titus? 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

142 

If you addressed this while I was out of the room, I apologize. 

But I would like to shift the geography a little bit to the west. As 

you know, levee breaches can happen even in the desert. About a 

year and a half ago, a 30-foot section of a levee broke in an irrigation canal out from Fernley, Nevada. That is 30 miles from Reno. 

Eight hundred houses were flooded; 3,500 people had to be evacuated. It was kind of a disaster for the State to deal with. 

Now, I know that a lot of desert States are kind of like Nevada, 

but I haven’t heard much about what is being done there to look 

at levees. There is an article that was in the New York Times on 

the 29th of March and it discusses how the United States Bureau 

of Reclamation owns that canal and they rented it out, or it is 

under contract with the Truckee-Carson Irrigation District. After 

the flood and after it was determined that the district had been defrauding the Federal Government, getting more water than they 

were entitled to, which they are now under indictment for, the Bureau shut down the canal for inspections and has broadened the review to include other systems it owns throughout the west. 

I would ask you if you know where that is today? If you know 

about the review of other systems in the west, starting with Mr. 

Halpin, and maybe Mr. Larson. And if you don’t know about it, 

why not? And what can we do to have better cooperation among 

agencies as we move towards a national inventory and a plan, 

which you all seem to advocate? And maybe Mr. Conrad could add 

to that in light of what he has suggested about the Water Resources Council. 

Mr. HALPIN. Ma’am, this is Eric Halpin. The legislation, called 

the National Levee Safety Act, specifically called us to look at this 

issue of what would be included as a levee and what wouldn’t be. 

And it did guide us in the direction that structures along canals 

were something we need to look at. We did look at that closely. We 

understand the sensitivities of that issue, and the committee decided that structures along canals that might be used for irrigation 

or other purposes should be covered under the National Levee Safety Program. 

So the structures along canals share many of the common characteristics of levees, not all of them, so not all of the recommendations apply to such structures, but you will see them included 

under the definition. And until such time, because of the public 

safety mandate, until such time that other safety programs cover 

such structures, we believe they belong under the National Levee 

Safety Program. 

Ms. TITUS. Do you know where that review is of the systems 

throughout the west? Is that moving forward? Or do you have any 

results yet? 

Mr. HALPIN. We have no results. I am not familiar with the review you are talking about other than what we covered under the 

committee. 

Ms. TITUS. Okay. 

Mr. LARSON. I think the Bureau of Rec is undertaking that review, Madam. At the same time, I want to move to your other 

question because until they respond, we won’t know what they 

found out in that review. But your question kind of is why don’t 

the Federal agencies talk to each other. This is a common problem. 

143 

It is not only Federal. You will find the same thing at State, even 

at larger local communities. As we see reduced budgets, one of the 

first things you cut out is the ability to talk to somebody else because you are worried about your own stovepipe. 

This is why we think that some flood risk group that is almost 

a Cabinet-level type of thing is necessary so that we do get the 

buy-in from agency to agency, because despite what Eric or the 

Corps of Engineers might want to do in this area, they need the 

cooperation of the Bureau of Rec, and if the Bureau of Rec says we 

are not going to do it, somehow Congress needs to say, yes, you are; 

we will all work together on this, and here is an oversight structure that will allow you do to that. 

That is why we think that is extremely important. 

Mr. HARDER. I am Leslie Harder. Just to extend or add to Eric 

Halpin’s testimony, the committee did agree with Congress that 

embankment structures along canals should be included as Congress intended as a definition of levee. There are important differences of how they are operated and maintained, but there is no 

other regulatory environment that is available at this point in 

time. And the extended inventory and database that the committee 

has recommended also would extend to include such structures, 

and it is part of our recommendation. 

Ms. TITUS. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. CONRAD. I think it has been said here. The National Wildlife 

Federation agrees that there is a need for a regulatory scheme to 

look at irrigation canals. It does seem to fit with this kind of framework. And I completely agree with what Larry Larson said about 

the need for an overarching communications system to be set up 

among agencies. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Mrs. Napolitano? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

There are many questions. I will probably have to submit some 

in writing. 

But Mr. Halpin, the stability and protection of the California 

delta, you know, I am a California Representative, is crucial to 

maintaining the California water supply. And the Army Corps has 

focused its work on securing the levees for the safety of the population, especially in the floodplain area, which also needs to be secured to prevent seawater from mixing with the fresh water. 

But what are they doing to protect the Bay Delta and strengthen 

these important levees, given that some of them are private and 

some are Federal, for the safe drinking water and protection of the 

breadbasket, the farmland that is there? 

Mr. HALPIN. Ma’am, we recognize that is a critically important 

area of the Country, for the whole Country, but some of the issues 

in the delta levees have to do with our authorities, where we have 

them and where we don’t have them. So I think some of the nonFederal levees that you are talking about down in the delta are not 

ones we currently have authorities for. The State of California has 

one of the most robust levee safety programs of any State, so I 

think you are seeing some very positive actions there in regard to 

those levees. 

144 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, but given the State budget, I don’t think 

that is going to be coming to fruition real soon. So do you have any 

suggestions? 

Mr. HALPIN. I don’t think you can see the Corps of Engineers activities change very much without a change in authorities. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Do you work in concert with your California 

counterpart? 

Mr. HALPIN. Yes, we do. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Okay. I would love to have a kind of conversation with you because I am very interested in what their governance issues are going to be. 

To Mr. Harder, what would be your recommendations for retrofitting the Bay Delta, the levee which is really, well, it is critical. 

Mr. HARDER. Thank you for the question. In my former life I 

used to be Deputy Director for the California Department of Water 

Resources. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I thought I recognized you. 

Mr. HARDER. And was intimately involved with some of those 

issues. As you very much well know and have alluded to, over 

1,000 miles of levees in around the San Joaquin Delta are very vulnerable. Only a small portion of them are actually Federal levees. 

The vast majority are non-Federal. 

California’s drinking supply, California’s economy depends on 

those levees. And basically, most of California’s drinking water 

goes through that delta. So those levees are not just for flood control. They are actually for California’s economy and the Nation’s 

economy. So they are critically important, as you have drawn attention to it. 

They are very vulnerable. They are very weak. They have failed 

probably 170 times over the last 100 years or so. And of course, 

they are very vulnerable to a future earthquake. 

The current operation of the delta and maintenance of those levees is not sustainable either for the environment or for water demands. And as you know, there is an effort underway to try and 

basically come up with a more sustainable system for both of them. 

Over time, probably they are going to have to be able to sustain 

only part of the delta in the future. And I think this points to not 

only a governance structure for the delta, but also the importance 

of a State program, a State levee safety program that takes into 

consideration not just, you know, inundation flood control, but all 

the other aspects as well, whether it is water supply or the environment. 

And that has been part of the recommendations by the National 

Committee on Levee Safety, is to develop strong State programs. 

Much of the work that needs to be done, while all of it is shared, 

a lot of it has to be done at the State level. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Is that in conjunction with the Governor’s 

Task Force? 

Mr. HARDER. Yes, and the Bay Delta Conservation Plan efforts 

and other efforts that are going on there. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, the sad part is that those levees, if they 

were to fail, it would contaminate a lot of the valley, which feeds 

quite a bit of the Nation with fruits, vegetables, et cetera. And so 

it is critical for us. 

145 

Given the unpredictability of Mother Nature, as one of you stated 

just a minute ago, is that the 200, 500, 100-year flood, whatever, 

might happen tomorrow. Again, the flood insurance question is 

something that bothers me because when we went to Louisiana 

after Katrina and there were signs all over the insurance companies were negating claims to help some of the homeowners. Never 

mind the flood insurance, these are the actual residents of the affected homes. 

Is there anything being done to be able to ensure that they don’t 

cherry-pick or that they do have insurance aside from flood insurance? 

Mr. CONRAD. Well, pretty much the only game in town across the 

Nation for flood insurance is through FEMA’s NFIP program. Very 

few insurers want to offer flood insurance and almost all that is 

sold is through the FEMA program. 

FEMA currently offers a variety of rates. They have a mandatory 

rate if you are mapped into the 100-year floodplain. You can also 

buy flood insurance if you are outside the mapped 100-year floodplain and in that case you get a preferred rate which is about one 

quarter of what you would have to pay if you were mapped within 

the 100-year floodplain - called the Special Flood Hazard Area. 

So there is already a procedure in place through FEMA to have 

variable rates. And if we built on that and go forward so that everybody living behind the levee takes the responsibility, and purchases flood insurance, they will be better off in the long run. They 

will get speedier, faster financial assistance in case of a flood. It 

will relieve some of the taxpayer burden and it will better communicate risks. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, thank you. 

Madam Chair, I totally agree that we need to consider having a 

Water Resources Council so that the agencies can speak to each 

other—or Mr. Chair—and be able to come to some understanding 

of what is necessary and how the funding is going to have to be 

provided to ensure the protection of those areas. 

Thank you. 

Mr. BAIRD. [Presiding] I thank the gentlelady. 

I will recognize myself for five minutes. 

Thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony today. I am sorry my 

colleague from Louisiana is not here. The reason is that, as many 

of us voted for billions and billions of dollars for levees in New Orleans, I was chagrined when the Governor of Louisiana earlier this 

year took it upon himself to challenge the legitimacy of funding for 

volcano observatories. Well, if one lives in New Orleans, levees 

matter. They matter to my district. But we live below a volcano 

that has killed more than 60 people, the only one that has done so 

in the continental U.S. ever. And so observatories matter to us. 

How much has been spent on levees in the New Orleans area? 

Does anybody have a sense of that? 

Mr. HALPIN. Sir, I can’t give you an up to date current total right 

now. We could get back to you with that exact answer. But the 

overall program for the Corps of Engineers in restoring the levees 

down there right now to their currently authorized level is about 

$15 billion. 

Mr. BAIRD. Fifteen billion, with a B? 

146 

Mr. HALPIN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BAIRD. Let the record show that the disputed amount for vol- cano observatories is about $18 million, with an M, million versus 

$15 billion. And as important as those levees are to New Orleans, 

observatories are rather important to our area. 

When we build levees, the Corps constructs them, to what extent 

is the maintenance of the levee factors into future budgets? In 

other words, you know, we estimate the cost, but do we then say, 

okay, so we are now burdening either the Federals or the locals 

with some anticipated maintenance fee for the foreseeable future? 

How does that get sorted out? 

Mr. HALPIN. Sir, the cost for maintenance and operation of the 

levees right now, since the Water Resources Development Act of 

1986, said that was a local sponsor responsibility. So that is recognized in the development of the project and development of operations and maintenance and manual plant, but that is a responsibility of local governments. 

Mr. BAIRD. But the local governments tend to come to us, quite 

understandably, and say can you get an earmark in the next 

WRDA or the appropriations bill to repair our levees. Is that a fair 

assessment? I can tell you existentially and phenomenologically it 

is for me. What is it for you? 

Mr. HALPIN. It varies quite a bit across the Country, sir. 

Mr. BAIRD. But it is not uncommon for local folks who maybe 

perhaps have the obligation to maintain levees to—yes? 

Mr. HANEY. If I may, sir, I am one of those. And we have since 

the levee was built approximately in 1960 in our town, there hasn’t 

been a Federal maintenance dollar spent, earmark or otherwise, on 

our levee. 

Mr. BAIRD. Good for you. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. HANEY. Not that we didn’t ask. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BAIRD. Yes, please, Mr. Fitzgerald? 

Mr. FITZGERALD. Yes, I just wanted to say that the local sponsors 

in the NAFSMA organization understand their obligations. We all 

understand the obligations, and we do work with the Corps of Engineers when they are developing their economics analysis for levees and provide feedback on what some of those operation and 

maintenance costs are. 

But I think over time through the deterioration or aging of these 

levees, as was mentioned earlier, as we know sometimes the costs 

can outweigh what the locals can come up with sometimes. And so 

we come asking for help at the State or the Federal level. So I 

think that is just probably more systemic of the older systems, and 

not maybe the newer systems. 

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Larson? 

Mr. LARSON. I think what Steve has talked about in Kansas is 

that there are good levee districts and communities that take care 

of their levee. On the other hand, there are lots of them that don’t. 

I think it is important that we all back up and say that building 

a levee to begin with was the community option. There are other 

options: relocate people out of the flood plain; elevate; the rest. But 

that community chose to have a levee, and committed when the 

147 

Corps of Engineers built it that we will undertake the operation 

and maintenance. 

We are all seeing now when we do build the levees, we need to 

make sure that those obligations on the part of the local sponsor 

are a lot more, and maybe even bonded ahead of time, those sorts 

of things, so that we know that there is assurance that that operation and maintenance will occur, so that the Federal taxpayer is 

not once again asked to do the same thing over and over and over 

again. 

We talk in the flood insurance program about repetitive flood 

claims for structures. We also in the Nation have repetitive levee 

claims. We have levees that fail over and over and over, and the 

Federal taxpayer is rebuilding them. So it is important that we try 

to tighten that scenario so that those who make that option, choose 

that option have the opportunity to do what they said they would 

do. 

Mr. BAIRD. Well said. I would concur with that. 

Please, Dr. Harder? 

Mr. HARDER. I would concur that most local agencies understand 

that when they support a Federal flood control project and accept 

it from the Federal Government, they have agreed that they will 

maintain it to Federal standards on their dollar. Many of these 

agreements go back decades, if not 50 years, with the completion 

of various projects. 

The complexity of maintaining these levees has become more 

challenging with time. Many of these levees are deteriorating more. 

They have more than just routine maintenance that is needed. 

They have all sorts of deficiencies that have to be done. 

And also, and this is not a hit against my buddy here, but the 

Endangered Species Act has made complying with the requirements associated with those regulations a lot more challenging for 

a local government or a local maintaining organization, which 

sometimes is just like a handful of people. And as a result, one 

thing ends up giving. Either the environment ends up giving, or 

the maintenance ends up giving. 

This is a conversation we need to have in terms of what is the 

proper maintenance level. And then when we formulate future 

projects, is to better incorporate those things in what the actual 

maintenance is going to have to end up being like. 

Mr. BAIRD. A point well taken, Dr. Harder. 

I think one of the things we need to do is better provide that informed consent up front. Where it is very frustrating is the levee 

gets constructed. Once the levee is there, then houses and business 

property gets sold that is now protected by the levee. So people 

build there. And they build with some anticipation that somebody 

else has to then foot the cost of protecting the land that they 

bought in, knowing they bought in what would otherwise be a flood 

area. And to some extent, then boucing it back to Uncle Sam and 

saying, okay, now the Feds have to somehow pay for this, while the 

locals have benefitted, but have not incorporated that into their 

property tax, somehow needs to change, in my judgment. 

If the Feds are going to build a levee with the local sponsor assumption that it is their maintenance responsibility, then it is their 

maintenance responsibility and those who choose to build in that 

148 

area protected by the levee ought to have some surcharge in some 

fashion, it seems to me, to cover that, if that is the terms of the 

agreement. 

If we want to change that, okay, but we shouldn’t be building 

levees with a false assumption. I would hope in some way in the 

future we can—and that includes, by the way, the City of New Orleans, Louisiana, in my judgment. And if we want to change that 

rule, okay, but let’s at least be honest about where that funding 

will come from and who is benefitting and who is paying for that 

cost. 

So Mr. Boozman, do you have any comments or questions? 

Mr. BOOZMAN. No. Thank you, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Thanks to the panel. This has been a very interesting and I 

think a very informative day, and we appreciate your taking the 

time to be here. Thank you. 

Mr. BAIRD. I thank the panelists. 

And with that, the record will remain open for the customary two 

weeks for people to offer additional comments. 

With that, the hearing stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:12 p.m. the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

149 


Insert offset folio 126 here 49953.126
150 


Insert offset folio 127 here 49953.127
151 


Insert offset folio 128 here 49953.128
152 


Insert offset folio 129 here 49953.129
153 


Insert offset folio 130 here 49953.130
154 


Insert offset folio 131 here 49953.131
155 


Insert offset folio 132 here 49953.132
156 


Insert offset folio 133 here 49953.133
157 


Insert offset folio 134 here 49953.134
158 


Insert offset folio 135 here 49953.135
159 


Insert offset folio 136 here 49953.136
160 


Insert offset folio 137 here 49953.137
161 


Insert offset folio 138 here 49953.138
162 


Insert offset folio 139 here 49953.139
163 


Insert offset folio 140 here 49953.140
164 


Insert offset folio 141 here 49953.141
165 


Insert offset folio 142 here 49953.142
166 


Insert offset folio 143 here 49953.143
167 


Insert offset folio 144 here 49953.144
168 


Insert offset folio 145 here 49953.145
169 


Insert offset folio 146 here 49953.146
170 


Insert offset folio 147 here 49953.147
171 


Insert offset folio 148 here 49953.148
172 


Insert offset folio 149 here 49953.149
173 


Insert offset folio 150 here 49953.150
174 


Insert offset folio 151 here 49953.151
175 


Insert offset folio 152 here 49953.152
176 


Insert offset folio 153 here 49953.153
177 


Insert offset folio 154 here 49953.154
178 


Insert offset folio 155 here 49953.155
179 


Insert offset folio 156 here 49953.156
180 


Insert offset folio 157 here 49953.157
181 


Insert offset folio 158 here 49953.158
182 


Insert offset folio 159 here 49953.159
183 


Insert offset folio 160 here 49953.160
184 


Insert offset folio 161 here 49953.161
185 


Insert offset folio 162 here 49953.162
186 


Insert offset folio 163 here 49953.163
187 


Insert offset folio 164 here 49953.164
188 


Insert offset folio 165 here 49953.165
189 


Insert offset folio 166 here 49953.166
190 


Insert offset folio 167 here 49953.167
191 


Insert offset folio 168 here 49953.168
192 


Insert offset folio 169 here 49953.169
193 


Insert offset folio 170 here 49953.170
194 


Insert offset folio 171 here 49953.171
195 


Insert offset folio 172 here 49953.172
196 


Insert offset folio 173 here 49953.173
197 


Insert offset folio 174 here 49953.174
198 


Insert offset folio 175 here 49953.175
199 


Insert offset folio 176 here 49953.176
200 


Insert offset folio 177 here 49953.177
201 


Insert offset folio 178 here 49953.178
202 


Insert offset folio 179 here 49953.179
203 


Insert offset folio 180 here 49953.180
204 


Insert offset folio 181 here 49953.181
205 


Insert offset folio 182 here 49953.182
206 


Insert offset folio 183 here 49953.183
207 


Insert offset folio 184 here 49953.184
208 


Insert offset folio 185 here 49953.185
209 


Insert offset folio 186 here 49953.186
210 


Insert offset folio 187 here 49953.187
211 


Insert offset folio 188 here 49953.188
212 


Insert offset folio 189 here 49953.189
213 


Insert offset folio 190 here 49953.190
214 


Insert offset folio 191 here 49953.191
215 


Insert offset folio 192 here 49953.192
216 


Insert offset folio 193 here 49953.193
217 


Insert offset folio 194 here 49953.194
218 


Insert offset folio 195 here 49953.195
219 


Insert offset folio 196 here 49953.196
220 


Insert offset folio 197 here 49953.197
221 


Insert offset folio 198 here 49953.198
222 


Insert offset folio 199 here 49953.199
223 


Insert offset folio 200 here 49953.200
224 


Insert offset folio 201 here 49953.201
225 


Insert offset folio 202 here 49953.202
226 


Insert offset folio 203 here 49953.203
227 


Insert offset folio 204 here 49953.204
228 


Insert offset folio 205 here 49953.205
229 


Insert offset folio 206 here 49953.206
230 


Insert offset folio 207 here 49953.207
231 


Insert offset folio 208 here 49953.208
232 


Insert offset folio 209 here 49953.209
233 


Insert offset folio 210 here 49953.210
234 


Insert offset folio 211 here 49953.211
235 


Insert offset folio 212 here 49953.212
236 


Insert offset folio 213 here 49953.213
237 


Insert offset folio 214 here 49953.214
238 


Insert offset folio 215 here 49953.215
239 


Insert offset folio 216 here 49953.216
240 


Insert offset folio 217 here 49953.217
241 


Insert offset folio 218 here 49953.218
242 


Insert offset folio 219 here 49953.219
243 


Insert offset folio 220 here 49953.220
244 


Insert offset folio 221 here 49953.221
245 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 222 here 49953.222