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

41–772 PDF 2008

NATIONAL FLOOD PLAIN REMAPPING: 

THE PRACTICAL IMPACT 

(110–108) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 2, 2008 

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 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

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 

TED POE, Texas 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of Columbia, Chairwoman 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania, 

Vice Chair 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

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

TESTIMONY 

Boozman, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the State of Arkansas .......................................................................................................................... 5

Ehlers, Hon. Vernon J., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Michigan ............................................................................................................... 5 

Hall, Hon. John J., a Representative in Congress from the State of New 

York ....................................................................................................................... 5 

Larson, Larry A., Executive Director, National Association of State Flood 

Plain Managers .................................................................................................... 37 

Matsui, Hon. Doris O., a Representative in Congress from the State of California ..................................................................................................................... 5 

Maurstad, David, Assistant Administrator, Mitigation Directorate, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency ........................................................................ 17 

Miller, Hon. Candice S., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Michigan ............................................................................................................... 5 

Sterman, Les, Executive Director, East-West Gateway Coordinating Council, 

St. Louis, Missouri ............................................................................................... 37 

Stockton, Steven, Deputy Director of Civil Works, United States Army Corps 

of Engineers .......................................................................................................... 17 

PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Altmire, Hon. Jason, of Pennsylvania .................................................................... 45 

Hall, Hon. John J., of New York ............................................................................ 46 

Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes, of the District of Columbia ................................. 48 

Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota ................................................................. 51 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Larson, Larry A. ...................................................................................................... 55 

Maurstad, David I. .................................................................................................. 63 

Sterman, Les ............................................................................................................ 68 

Stockton, Steven L. .................................................................................................. 71 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Maurstad, David, Assistant Administrator, Mitigation Directorate, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, responses to questions from Rep. Arcuri ... 25 

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

County of Merced, California, Paul Fillebrown, Director of Public Works, 

written statement ................................................................................................. 80 

vi 


41772.001
vii 


41772.002
viii 


41772.003
ix 


41772.004
(1) 

HEARING ON NATIONAL FLOOD PLAIN 

REMAPPING: THE PRACTICAL IMPACT 

Wednesday, April 2, 2008 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC

BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:00 a.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Eleanor 

Holmes Norton [Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Ms. NORTON. Good morning. The Subcommittee welcomes all of 

our witnesses this morning. We extend special greetings to our colleagues from the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 

who will testify. They have been deputized, as it were, by their 

local communities to bring us straight-from-the-field the information the Subcommittee needs to evaluate just how the new Federal 

flood mapping will work on the ground. 

The need to engage in hazard prevention cannot be doubted; 

floods are the most common hazards in the United States. Right 

now Midwest communities are being ravaged by floods. Flood effects can be local, affecting a neighborhood or community, or they 

can ravage entire river basins and multiple States. The flooding 

produced by Hurricane Katrina alerted the Nation to the possibility 

of unanticipated devastation, even in areas accustomed to severe 

flooding. 

Flood hazards exist in all 50 States and here in the District of 

Columbia. They are especially common in low-lying areas, near 

water or down stream from a dam. It is not uncommon to see small 

streams or low-lying ground that appear harmless in dry weather 

become flooded after a heavy rain or significant snow fall. Nevertheless, many raise the legitimate question whether wholesale national remapping based on essentially a one percent chance of severe flooding is worth the time and expense. This is one of the 

questions we will raise in this hearing this morning. 

However, the remapping function certainly did not originate with 

Hurricane Katrina. The National Flood Insurance Program, or the 

NFIP, began in 1968, with the National Flood Insurance Act to 

control devastation incurred from floods nationally. Although the 

program started in HUD, the Federal Insurance Administration 

moved to FEMA when it was created in 1979. The program is now 

part of the Mitigation Division at FEMA. FEMA is the natural and 

appropriate home for this program because floods are the greatest 

natural hazard faced annually by communities. 

2 

The NFIP works hand-in-glove with FEMA’S efforts in disaster 

preparedness, recovery response, and mitigation. The program offers incentives to help communities identify and reduce flooding 

hazards, and to take steps to mitigate the damage to property and 

the risk of loss of life. When a community agrees to adopt and enforce floodplain management ordinances, particularly for new construction, the Federal Government makes flood insurance available 

to homeowners and to business owners. 

FEMA estimates that floodplain management measures prevent 

$1.4 billion in property losses annually, and today 98 percent of the 

Country, including up to 20,000 communities, is covered by the 

flood insurance program. The program provides about 5.5 million 

policies with over a $1 trillion dollars in coverage. Approximately 

90 companies sell flood insurance policies on behalf of FEMA. The 

point of all of this is to reduce the need for Federal disaster assistance under the Stafford Act. 

The Subcommittee is well aware that flood hazards change with 

time because of physical changes in topography caused by wildfire, 

erosion, and infrastructure construction and the like. We also are 

painfully aware that floods can cause levees to fail. Hurricane 

Katrina all but bequeathed the current flood mapping effort to the 

Nation. We do not doubt that the FEMA remapping is timely or 

that the Corps of Engineers effort is essential. However, necessity 

is not always the mother of invention. Communities must be convinced of both the risks and the benefits. 

Time for communities to do the necessary work must be realistically assessed and granted. The question concerning expense and 

whether the remapping requirements constitute an unfunded mandate must be answered. The actual effect on Federal-backed mortgages and on eligibility for Federal disaster assistance must be described. Requiring the costs mandated by flood remapping in the 

midst of the most serious downturn in the economy in years must 

be justified. Not only explaining the remapping process itself, but 

answering questions such as these are what hearings are for. 

The Subcommittee has much to learn from the Members whose 

districts are affected by the new remapping effort who will testify 

today; from FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers officials who 

will explain the how and why of the process; from experts; and 

from witnesses who can express the views of local communities and 

business. The Subcommittee greatly appreciates the testimony of 

all of the witnesses who will testify this morning. 

Thank you, and I am pleased to ask the Ranking Member, Mr. 

Graves, if he has any opening remarks this morning. 

Mr. GRAVES. Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me also thank our 

witnesses for being here today. I look forward to hearing the testimony on obviously the modernization of FEMA’S flood hazard mapping program. In particular, I want to thank the distinguished colleagues on our first panel for taking the time out of their busy 

schedules, obviously, to be here today. You are providing testimony 

on the practical impact of FEMA’S flood hazard mapping program, 

what it has on your congressional districts, and I think this is an 

important issue to our constituents and, for that matter, to all 

property owners. 

3 

I have personally seen the impact of flooding and the impact it 

has on lives and property due to the recent floods in Missouri and 

other parts of the Midwest. Over 70 counties in Southern and Central Missouri were affected by the flooding that occurred just at the 

end of March. This is only the most recent flood event to impact 

the State. Over the past three months, flooding has taken a great 

toll on the State of Missouri, resulting in three Federal disaster 

declarations. 

Floods are one of the most common hazards in the United States, 

and currently the United States averages about $2.4 billion in annual flood losses. Recognizing the impact floods have taken on lives 

and property, Congress created the National Flood Insurance Program in 1968. The program was intended to make insurance available to cover flood damages and promote sound land use by minimizing exposure to flood losses and to get people out of harm’s way. 

To carry out this program, the Federal Government worked with 

local governments to identify and map flood hazards. Today, 20,000 

communities participate in the program and 100,000 hazard flood 

map panels have been created. 

Since fiscal year 2003, FEMA has undertaken an effort to modernize these 40-year-old flood maps because of physical changes to 

topography such as erosion or new development, updated data such 

as rainfall records, and better technology. The accuracy of flood 

maps is of the utmost importance to the communities affected. Accurate maps are needed to strike a balance between protecting 

communities from the devastation caused by flooding and ensure 

that community growth and development is not overly constrained. 

Without accurate flood maps, some homeowners may be paying too 

much for flood insurance, while others may not purchase flood insurance at all because an inaccurate map shows that their property 

is obviously outside of the floodplain. 

Because of the great impact on communities covered by the 

maps, FEMA must be responsible to community concerns. Additionally, FEMA must provide a quick and effective way to appeal mapping determinations in order to strike balance and ensure accuracy. 

I know FEMA is trying to get it right. This is too important not 

to be able to get it right. 

Again, I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today. 

Your testimony is going to help us better understand the practical 

impact of FEMA’S map modernization program and determine 

whether FEMA has attained the proper balance in implementing 

the program. 

Thanks, Madam Chair. 

Ms. NORTON. I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Costello and Mr. 

Higgins be allowed to sit with the Subcommittee. Without objection, so ordered. 

May I ask if any of the Members have statements of their own? 

Mr. Costello? 

Mr. COSTELLO. Madam Chair, thank you. And I thank you for 

calling this important hearing today. I see that we have a distinguished panel of members before us, so I will only make brief comments and ask unanimous consent that my full statement be entered into the record. 

4 

Madam Chair, thank you for calling the hearing today. I welcome 

our witnesses and I am pleased that one of our witnesses on the 

next panel is Les Sterman, from the Regional Council of Governments in the St. Louis Metropolitan Area. I think you will hear testimony from him that relates to my concerns with the program. 

As you know, in 2004, FEMA embarked on a map modernization 

program. It is an important program; it allows us to take advantage of revised data to help local officials and citizens have the 

ability to better plan for flood-related disasters, so I support the 

program. However, I have grave concerns with the piecemeal approach that FEMA is using and pursuing at this time. 

For example, in the St. Louis Metropolitan Area, preliminary 

maps will be available for review this summer for the Illinois side 

of the Mississippi River. But it may be three years before the maps 

are available on the Missouri side of the River, even though both 

sides of the River share the same floodplain and the same watershed. Why? Because FEMA, the regional office, for instance, covering Illinois is pursuing the matter of the mapping process much 

sooner than the regional office that covers the State of Missouri. 

While I support the map modernization program, I oppose this 

piecemeal approach. I believe that the flood modernization map for 

a floodplain or a watershed should be implemented for the entire 

floodplain or watershed at the same time. 

The Corps of Engineers follows watershed boundaries, not State 

boundaries. I offered an amendment to H.R. 3121, the Flood Insurance Modernization Act, when it passed the House. And let me say 

that that amendment basically says to FEMA they would be required to implement maps for the entire floodplain and watershed, 

as opposed to the piecemeal approach that is currently being followed. 

Again, Madam Chair, I thank you for calling this hearing today, 

and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Higgins. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you, Chairwoman Norton and Ranking 

Member Graves, for allowing me to speak today. 

The National Flood Insurance Program is, both in its design and 

execution, the worst Federal program that I have encountered in 

my time at the United States House of Representatives. The once 

vibrant neighborhoods in Buffalo and Lackawanna, New York, in 

which flood insurance is mandated are effectively economic dead 

zones because this program provides perverse disincentives to 

home ownership and to home improvement which, over decades, 

have effectively turned whole swaths of formerly vibrant urban 

neighborhoods into virtual ghost towns. 

It is my contention that the financial basis of this program is 

unsustainable and unjustifiable. It has a payer-payee structure in 

which many communities across America pay this mandatory flood 

tax and see no benefit, with just a few communities realizing assistance. In order to demonstrate this payer-payee relationship, I 

am, today, submitting to Acting Administrator Maurstad a request 

for a national county-by-county breakdown of the amount paid into 

and out of the program in the past 10 years. 

Unfortunately, the map modernization process being undertaken 

by FEMA, which is the subject of this hearing, only tinkers at the 

5 

edges of this program, instead of addressing its fundamental flaws. 

In Buffalo, while some communities received relief from the map 

modernization, FEMA now proposes to include the historic old First 

Ward neighborhood in this economic dead zone for the first time, 

a neighborhood which has stood since the Civil War, which has 

never seen the type of flooding that would result in payments from 

the Flood Insurance Program. 

After I have received the data from FEMA regarding the payerpayee relationship, I will forward it to the Committee for your review and consideration. And I thank you once again, Chairwoman 

Norton, for allowing me to participate in this hearing. 

[Information available, as submitted for the record by FEMA, 

through Subcommittee office.] 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Higgins. 

Now we will proceed to our Congressional witnesses. I will just 

go from left to right. 

Mr. Hall? 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JOHN J. HALL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW 

YORK; THE HONORABLE DORIS O. MATSUI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; THE 

HONORABLE VERNON J. EHLERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN; THE HONORABLE JOHN BOOZMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 

FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; AND THE HONORABLE 

CANDICE S. MILLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 

FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member Graves, 

Members of the Committee, for holding this hearing and for inviting me to testify about an issue of vital importance to towns and 

cities throughout the Country. 

I would like to begin by noting specifically that I am glad the 

Committee has chosen to title this hearing National Floodplain Remapping: The Practical Impact, because if there is one point that 

my testimony would make to the Committee today, I hope that it 

is that this process will have a real and significant impact on the 

daily lives of people in my district and elsewhere. 

The results of this process will impact the value of people’s 

homes, the cost to maintain them, and the fate of homes and businesses unfortunate enough to be affected by future floods. 

As we have seen in recent years, extreme weather events are occurring with alarming frequency. Too often, these events create 

flooding that leaves homes battered, businesses reeling, infrastructure broken, and communities devastated. 

My district in New York’s Hudson Valley has been far from immune. Floods have had an incredibly destructive impact in the 

Hudson Valley, and in recent years the flooding has become so frequent the town supervisors, farmers, and homeowners have every 

reason to look over their shoulders or up at the skies every time 

it drizzles. 

The region has experienced three 50-year floods in this decade 

alone. That rate of activity strains the ability of emergency services 

6 

to respond, communities to recover, and local resource managers to 

prepare. 

The full force of flooding impacts became evident a year ago, during last April’s nor’easter. The rains only lasted a weekend, but the 

damage is still being repaired. Roads were washed out, fields submerged, homes and businesses were damaged. After those storms, 

FEMA made a disaster declaration, opening the way for assistance. 

But it is clear that we need more than an ad-hoc approach to prevention, mitigation, and recovery. 

Unfortunately, recent history and the forces of climate change 

leave us with too much uncertainty to simply hope that these 

events are anomalies that will soon be rendered only as historical 

quirks or Weather Channel trivia. It is clear that our Government 

must take steps to be prepared for future events. 

One of the most challenging consequences will be the modernization of the National Flood Insurance Program and the update of 

the National Floodplain Map. As FEMA moves forward with this 

process, it must take a methodical, comprehensive approach that 

will be effective, fair, and avoid undue costs to taxpaying homeowners. 

A large part of this process should be the provision of avenues 

for communities, particularly those that will be newly included in 

the floodplains, to voice their concerns or their protest with FEMA 

without undue burden. 

Several communities in Orange County, New York would be included in the floodplain map and forced to purchase insurance for 

the first time under the preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map regarding Base Flood Elevations within Orange County, New York. 

The data needed for the appeal of a draft would require hydrologic 

and hydraulic studies that must be paid for by individual homeowners or local governments. 

Despite the highly technical and costly nature of these studies, 

FEMA allows only a 90-day comment period. Now, 90 days might 

be a standard window here in Washington, D.C. for Federal officials, but for homeowners in my district who are already struggling 

with property taxes and small towns with limited expertise, that is 

a fast turnaround. 

Although FEMA has since informed my office that the review 

process in one of my cities will allow other communities to register 

protests until late May, these procedures are hard to navigate and 

need to be made more accessible to the stakeholders who will have 

to live with the impact of the new floodplain map on a day-to-day 

basis. In either instance, it would not be feasible to finance and 

conduct these studies before the current public comment deadline. 

I am not suggesting that towns and cities should be able to skirt 

inclusion in the floodplain if it is truly warranted, but if there are 

local concerns that inclusion is unjustified or detrimental, it should 

be easier for communities to make their case to FEMA directly. 

Efforts to update the National Flood Insurance Program are 

right to account for changing circumstances, and the new maps 

should take prospective factors into account. Specifically, the 

human factor of local growth and the environmental factor of climate change must be taken into account. Both will directly impact 

flood activity in the my district. 

7 

Orange County, New York is one of the fastest growing areas in 

New York State. We are proud that more people are choosing to 

make the county their home and are working hard to manage the 

development that their presence requires. The region is also 

blessed with abundant streams and rivers that may exhibit changing characteristics as sea levels, precipitation activity, and other 

factors relating to our changing climate develop. 

As FEMA moves forward, it needs to find ways for the new flood 

map to recognize the need for growth and extend protection to vulnerable communities in order to prevent the blessing of our water 

resources from becoming a curse. 

I thank the Committee and the Chair for examining this issue 

and look forward to working with my colleagues, FEMA, and the 

Army Corps of Engineers to ensure that FEMA has updated the 

National Floodplain Map as responsible, effective, and in the national interest. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. NORTON. Ms. Matsui. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member 

Graves, for convening this hearing. Since coming to Congress, flood 

protection has been one of my top priorities. 

My district sits at the confluence of two great rivers. Sacramento 

is considered to have the highest flood risk of any major metropolitan city in the United States. More than 440,000 people, 110,000 

structures, the capital of the State of California, and up to $58 billion are at risk. 

Yet, my district has truly been a positive poster child in its efforts to bolster our flood control system since our near-catastrophic 

flood in 1986. We have investigated our levees, planned our 

projects, assessed ourselves millions of dollars, pushed our State to 

be a full partner, and begun to build projects that would get us to 

a greater than 200 year level of protection. In fact, our latest assessment commits over $400 million of local dollars to this effort. 

We are fully committed to flood protection. 

I am very proud of the flood control work we have accomplished. 

We know we still have a long way to go, but what we don’t need 

at this point is to have the rug pulled from under us. That leads 

me to why we are here today: to discuss where our national flood 

control policy is and where it is headed. 

Specifically, I would like to discuss what the Corps of Engineers 

has proposed to use as its new standard for levees, as written 

about in the Draft Engineers’ Technical Letter first published or released in 2007. 

I think we can all agree that it is important to set robust standards when it comes to public safety. I am concerned, though, with 

the Corps proposed levee standard. Not because I don’t want greater public safety for everyone who lives in the floodplain, but because we may not be addressing our biggest problem when it comes 

to flooding. This new standard creates a goal for us that is so far 

off the chart it is unobtainable. We must maintain the trust of our 

local communities, communities that are investing their hardearned dollars, their time, and their future goals. We cannot put 

the brass ring out of reach. 

I understand that the historical data of a floodplain is not 

enough. In order to compute a watershed’s flood frequency analysis 

8 

to estimate the risk it faces, you must also use probabilities. And 

depending on what probability theory you use, a watershed could 

have greatly different flood threats. So if you are proposing a 

change to methodology being used for levee standards nationwide, 

we must be extremely careful to get it right. 

The problem I see is that we are setting the bar for communities 

in the floodplain and leaving it up to them to best figure out how 

to mitigate for that risk. I am not a flood engineer, but I understand that the Corps is proposing to use a method of analysis often 

referred to as a Monte Carlo simulation. It may just be a name, 

but any method with a label like that needs to be greatly scrutinized. 

I am also concerned that by using this new standard we may, in 

actuality, be holding communities to different standards. The Midwest communities that contend with the wide and massive Mississippi River have very different watersheds than in the West; 

their levees are set back, their floodplains are much larger, they 

often have days of warning when a flood is coming. In Sacramento’s watershed, we have a Sierra snow pack that can melt 

quickly and, in some cases, give floodplain residents only a couple 

hours warning of a flood. Our levees are a result of the gold rush 

and are built immediately adjacent to the river. And then we have 

the warm coast that can make our weather patterns change rapidly. So I am concerned that a universal approach will not recognize these very significant regional differences. 

If getting communities the highest level of protection in the 

quickest time possible is our goal, we also need to localize some of 

this policy. Specifically, the 408 permit process. By allowing the 

local core districts to approach 408 permits so that work can be 

done quickly to upgrade levees, a commitment to public safety will 

also be demonstrated. 

We need to get Federal flood control policy right because communities such as mine are paying a huge price. I know FEMA’S goal 

in remapping is to make communities safe. We can all agree that 

public safety is the number one priority. But unless we accurately 

estimate the threat, our communities will pay huge economic consequences without getting additional safety. Also, I worry about 

people on fixed incomes and their ability to meet flood insurance 

requirements. Even if the annual payment could be broken up in 

two installments, it would be much easier. My point is we need 

flexibility and we need to get it right. 

The good news is that we know how to fix our flood protection 

problems and make the city safer, from strengthening our levees to 

the Joint Federal Project at Folsom Dam. 

I don’t want all good work we are doing to be wasted. We must 

have obtainable standards, standards that recognize regional differences in flood protection and floodplain analysis. Public safety 

needs to take precedence across the Country and new standards 

must allow communities to actually achieve measures that will 

allow them to be safe. 

I want to thank the Subcommittee for allowing me to be here and 

looking into this important issue. I thank you very much. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Ms. Matsui. 

Mrs. Miller. 

9 

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member 

Graves and Members of the Subcommittee. I certainly appreciate 

the opportunity to come here and testify on this very important 

hearing, I believe, on FEMA’S flood mapping program, and actually 

for many of the same reasons that other areas of the Country are 

expressing concern. This issue has also impacted my constituents 

in a very negative, I think, and unfair, unjust way. 

FEMA, of course, is currently doing what the Congress has directed them to do, and that is to update and modernize the flood 

maps across the entire Nation. We all recognize that with new 

technology we can and we should update the maps to reflect our 

very best science and to convert existing outdated maps into userfriendly digital format which will account for property development 

and growth over the past several decades, as well as changes that 

we find in the topography. And I want to make it clear that I absolutely do support this very important work. 

However, property owners in the Great Lakes area are being 

treated very unfairly by these new maps, which have taken effect 

in my district, actually, in the past several years. The net impact 

is that we can show how these property owners all throughout the 

Great Lakes Basin, actually, whose properties very rarely flood, nor 

have the potential to flood, are being treated unfairly. In fact, they 

are being abused by the National Flood Insurance Program. My 

constituents are paying very, very high flood insurance premiums, 

and yet we very rarely receive claims. 

Let me just give you an example of the disparity that I am trying 

to address. In regards to FEMA’S proposal for remapping in the 

Great Lakes region, they are basing raising the base flood elevation 

an additional 14 inches, they say, FEMA says, to accurately reflect 

the risk of flooding. This is predicated, however, on data from 1988, 

which was two years after the highest lake levels ever recorded in 

the Great Lakes. 

In Lake St. Clair alone, which is a small lake between Lake 

Huron and Lake Erie, the lake levels have dropped over three feet 

since then and are now five and a half feet below the current base 

flood elevation. In fact, over the past 20 years, the lakes’ average 

have dropped 11 times and, most importantly, if you really want 

to look at historic averages, the lake level has only changed an average depth of about six inches a year. In spite of all of this, 

FEMA’S new base flood elevation is now six and a half feet above 

the current lake level. 

While FEMA has gone about implementing these new maps, the 

International Joint Commission, also known as the IJC, which is 

an independent binational organization established to help prevent 

and resolve disputes relating to the Great Lakes, has undertaken 

a five year study examining issues that affect water levels on the 

Upper Great Lakes. This is going to be the most comprehensive 

and advanced lake level study ever completed. 

While certainly we can all agree that using sound science in very 

important, in this instance, when hundreds of millions of dollars 

are going to be assessed against property owners, the most prudent 

course of action, I believe, is to wait until the IJC has an opportunity to complete this study. In fact, let me mention that another 

Subcommittee of the T&I Committee, the Water Resources, is going 

10 

to be holding a field hearing in several weeks in Green Bay to 

study the low lake levels in the Great Lakes. 

However, my constituents currently are paying much higher premiums for an insurance plan that they will likely never ever file 

a claim on. And the practical impact of these new maps on my constituents has been to simply raise their flood insurance premiums, 

costing them literally millions of dollars, again, at a time when the 

lake levels are at a historical all-time low. This means that they 

are not going to be making claims, but they will be subsidizing 

other parts of the Country, because what is happening is that 

many States and their property owners, with little risk of flooding, 

who have experienced little or no flooding, are funding the National 

Flood Insurance Program at very, very high rates. 

Between 1978, the year the National Flood Insurance Program 

began, and 2002, there were 10 States that received more in claims 

than what they paid in policies, in fact, over $1.5 billion more, and 

the average premium for policyholders in those States was $223. 

Michigan, on the other hand, paid almost $120 million more into 

the program than it received back in claims, and yet the average 

premium for people in Michigan was $257. This is a very common 

element throughout the Great Lakes States: higher premiums and 

lower claims than the States who, year after year, are taking advantage of the floor insurance program. 

And I believe that what is going on is that Michigan and other 

States are sort of being forced to subsidize those who live in other 

States that have repeated floods, and, really, if this is what we are 

going to do as a Nation, we should call it what it is, I think, because we are always going to step up as a Congress and help areas 

that are having natural disasters. Then we should have a national 

catastrophic fund, as opposed to what we have right now, where 

you have some States subsidizing others. In fact, if the situation 

continues as it is, it is my intention to contact our governor and 

our insurance commissioner and suggest that Michigan should opt 

out of the National Flood Insurance Program and actually self-insure. 

And one thing I will say, in Michigan, we actually look down at 

the water; we do not look up at the water. Let me just close by giving you one experience of one county in my district, St. Clair County. This is a small county. They have actually subsidized this program to the tune of $8.5 million. So you can interpolate that across 

the entire State. At the same time, this is a county that has about 

a 15 percent unemployment rate at this current time. So here we 

are with all of these higher flood insurance premiums that is happening. 

But I really appreciate the Committee allowing me to testify on 

this. I certainly look forward to continuing to work with all of my 

colleagues to bring both fairness and reasonableness, as well, back 

to the National Flood Insurance Program. Thank you very much. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mrs. Miller. 

Mr. Boozman. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Ms. Norton, Mr. Graves for your leadership and holding this very important hearing on the National 

Flood Plain Remapping process. 

11 

I believe as strongly as anyone that FEMA flood maps should be 

modernized and accurate. However, communities in my district 

have been exposed to a confusing and unclear process that has 

failed to address their questions and concerns in a clear and consistent manner. Also, they have been subjected to a timetable for 

compliance that seems both arbitrary and unrealistic, given the circumstances. 

These failures are not for a lack of effort or communications from 

the dedicated folks at the relevant Federal agencies. Rather, the 

process is problematic because our communities are traveling 

through uncharted territory as they navigate this process. While 

there are several aspects of this process that are challenging for 

our communities, I will focus my brief remarks on just one relevant 

issue: the assessment of flood protection provided by levees and 

how levees are certified for inclusion on the modernized FEMA 

flood maps. 

Let me provide you one example of such a challenge from my 

congressional district. Crawford County and the City of Van Buren 

own and maintain a 23 mile-long levee on the Arkansas River. 

When the map modernization process began for Crawford County, the County and the City of Van Buren were told by FEMA that 

one of their options was to work with the Corps of Engineers to 

have their levee certified. As a result, Crawford County and the 

City of Van Buren have been proactive in formally enlisting the assistance of the Corps of Engineers. However, challenges and barriers have been encountered that were not anticipated when FEMA 

advised the County and the City to work with the Corps. 

Specifically, as the Corps has looked for legal authorization to 

perform levee certification work, they have encountered several 

hurdles that will most likely delay assistance, and probably prevent assistance. For example, in 2000, Congress enacted the Thomas Amendment, which permits the Corps to provide commercially 

available engineering services only if these are ‘‘not reasonable and 

quickly available through ordinary business channels’’ and if the 

Corps is ‘‘uniquely equipped to perform such services.’’ 

As a strong proponent of the private sector, I support the Thomas Amendment, but I believe the Corps should take into consideration, in this specific instance, whether the private sector is willing 

and able to take on the liability that could be involved in levee certification at a cost that levee owners, such as my constituent communities, can afford. 

Now, the City of Van Buren and Crawford County are facing an 

April 2009 FEMA-imposed deadline to complete their levee certification work, or else the citizens and businesses, including the local 

industrial park, will face mandatory increased flood insurance 

costs. Even if the Corps can find legal justification to do the certification work, the evaluation would take five to six months. Also, 

any deficiencies with the levee would have to be addressed before 

certification. Deficiencies could result in the need to generate significant pay for the levee modification, including engineering, design, and construction costs, which nobody is disputing; that is 

something that needs to be done. 

In short, it is highly unlikely that the April 2009 FEMA deadline 

will be achievable, despite the best efforts of my communities, who 

12 

have been very proactive to try and get ahead of this thing to work 

with our Federal agencies in a good faith manner. As a result, 

without a change, much of Van Buren’s industrial zone is likely to 

be reclassified as a high-risk flood zone and the cost of doing business there will be dramatically increased next spring. 

In conclusion, as the Ranking Member on the Subcommittee on 

Water Resources and the Environment, I hope our Subcommittee 

and this Subcommittee can work together with both the Corps of 

Engineers and FEMA to produce a solution that will provide reasonable accommodation for levee owners who are making their best 

effort to get their levees certified as quickly as possible. As an initial step, I would suggest that we engage in dialogue with FEMA 

to see whether an extension of the deadline for provisionally accredited levees, such as those in Crawford County, would be possible. 

Again, you know, I have a situation where I encouraged my city, 

my county to get ahead of this, to do the right things. They contacted the appropriate agencies, were told to move in a certain direction; now, though, have been given a time line that is unattainable, and it is ironic because much of the delay that is going to be 

caused in reaching that time line will be from the agencies themselves and their inability to make a decision and move forward. So 

it is a problem right now. Like I say, most of our communities now 

are struggling with this, as you hear from the testimony. They 

need guidance, but we really do need to look at these very unrealistic timetables. Thank you very much. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Boozman. 

Mr. Ehlers? 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Madam Chair and Mr. Graves. I appreciate the opportunity to testify. As you know, I have spent many, 

many hours in the seats where you are in now. This is my first 

time here, and I must assure you the view is quite different from 

here. You look very imposing at this point. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee 

today. I have been a strong supporter of the Flood Insurance Program ever since it began. I think it is a great idea. But we also 

have to recognize it has to be properly administered. 

My hometown of Grand Rapids, Michigan is facing severe negative economic impacts as a result of FEMA’S floodplain remapping 

initiative. I appreciate the opportunity to explain this to the Subcommittee precisely what is happening here. I have a longer written statement that I will submit for the record. 

Grand Rapids is a city of 200,000 people, settled along the Grand 

River. It is the second largest city in Michigan and the center of 

a metropolitan area of over 1 million people. 

The current story of flood mapping in Grand Rapids is one of bad 

timing and bureaucratic closed-mindedness, as well as disagreements between different Federal and State government agencies. 

The City was first notified about the FEMA Flood Plain Remapping 

initiative in the fall of 2003. This was right around the same time 

that the city had just completed a 17-year, $12.4 million project to 

improve the flood walls and embankments along the Grand River. 

In other words, an urban area with not a lot of money took it upon 

themselves to develop a major flood wall and embankment project. 

13 

They raised the flood walls to one foot above the 100-foot elevation, 

which at that time was deemed by the Corps of Engineers as adequate, cost-effective, and contact-sensitive. 

Two years later, after that major project was finished, which 

really strained the city’s resources, in August 2005, FEMA issued 

a procedural memo which required that levees be constructed to 

three feet above the 100-year flood elevation in order to be considered during mapping revisions or updates. In other words, the 

mammoth project the city had done, following guidelines of various 

government agencies, both State and local, were now two feet 

below the required level. Apparently, the FEMA design standards 

were in place since 1986, but it was more of a guideline than an 

enforced rule, and Grand Rapids City officials were told in July 

2006 that their flood walls and embankments were not adequate, 

would not be considered in FEMA’S remapping. 

Once the appeals are resolved and a new map is finalized and 

published, it will trigger the flood insurance requirements for those 

properties located in the newly identified floodplain. According to 

a draft report from the local engineering firm, the new regulations 

are estimated to impact over 6,000 parcels in the City of Grand 

Rapids, with a potential for a total annual insurance premium of 

somewhere between $6 million and $22 million. This is particularly 

unwelcome news to a city and a State facing troubling economic 

times and high unemployment. Many of the affected properties are 

in low-and moderate-income neighborhoods. 

I strongly encourage this Subcommittee to work with FEMA on 

a more reasonable approach. FEMA should discard its all-or-nothing policy on levee certification and should take existing flood protection into consideration when revising its maps and calculating 

flood risk, particularly when a city, a modern city with typical modern city financial problems, has taken it upon itself to really improve the protection within the city. I understand that FEMA has 

a job to do in warning and ensuring against flood risk. 

However, arbitrarily disregarding existing flood protection, ignoring contact-sensitive design, and requiring property owners to insure themselves against imaginary flood risks that will likely never 

be realized has economic impacts on communities and property 

owners that are inappropriate and unfair. We have heard rough estimates that the new standards will likely provide protection for a 

500-year floodplain, which is certainly longer than the age of the 

city. 

Finally, I encourage the Subcommittee to ensure that FEMA is 

utilizing the best and most appropriate geologic, hydrologic, and climate data, and the flood modeling available. It is my understanding that there is some question about the accuracy and consistency of the modeling used in mapping Kent County and the 

City of Grand Rapids. The effective implementation of a reasonable 

flood insurance program depends on accurate science. 

Let me add one quick note, and that is even if we simply raise 

the current levees by the two feet that are required by FEMA, that 

would not meet the standards of FEMA because there are a number of river crossings and bridges that would not meet the standard. Reconstructing all the bridges would be a back-breaking monetary task for the City of Grand Rapids. So I am asking that you 

14 

help us develop a better plan that can meet the actual needs of the 

floodplain and not break the bank for the City of Grand Rapids. 

I thank you very much for your listening and I hope we can work 

this out. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Ehlers. 

I must say I found the testimony of the members very compelling, and you have added to our questions for the next panel. I 

think I ought to reserve my questions mostly for them, but I do 

have a few questions to ask you. 

I noticed that Mr. Hall, Mr. Boozman, and Mrs. Miller, who 

spoke about the study, have raised questions that go to the need 

for more time. I wonder if your communities have asked for extensions and whether those extensions have been granted, if any of 

you have had that experience. 

Mrs. MILLER. None of my communities, that I am aware of, have 

had any success in getting extensions. The flood maps, as they 

have come out, have been implemented and the premiums have 

gone up substantially and the people are paying these premiums; 

of course, if you have a mortgage. If you don’t have a mortgage, you 

don’t have to pay the premiums. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, the flood maps are out. The extension would 

have to do with your response or your differences with the map, 

and I am trying to get some sense of whether or not there is the 

kind of communication you might expect between the Federal agency and the community to work out differences between communities and FEMA. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. In our case, Ms. Norton, the community is very 

supportive with going forward with the levee certification project. 

They don’t dispute that it needs to be done; I don’t dispute that at 

all either. I think Katrina, the events of the past have shown us 

that we need to be doing this work. But the reality is, you know, 

for the agencies to require an April 2009 deadline, when we all 

have experiences with these agencies, it is difficult for them to 

make the decisions to allow the community to go forward with the 

project, so they are not getting the answers to the question whether or not the Corps can provide this or the 2000 law will preclude 

them. Those decisions aren’t being made. And then if the Corps 

does get involved, it will take them several months to figure out 

what is going on, and then the construction. So the deadline is unrealistic by any standard, and we have not had any success in getting the deadline extended. 

Now, part of it is that this truly is uncharted water. I mean, people are trying to figure out who can do what, who is responsible 

for what, and I think that is the biggest. The agencies have been 

great to work with and stuff, but we haven’t had any success in extending the deadline. 

Ms. NORTON. That certainly gives us some reasons to question 

the time frame when we speak to the next panel. 

I wondered, Ms. Matsui, what you meant when you said that the 

new standard was unobtainable. 

Ms. MATSUI. Madam Chair, we are on the leading edge of some 

new standards being imposed upon us, and the Corps has started 

to implement, apparently, these new standards which were apparently in existence using a new probability theory. So, therefore, for 

15 

us, we have always been the good citizen, in essence, and being 

very proactive. We had been certified for 100-year and we were 

going for 200-year, and during that process we discovered that we 

had some under-seepage, so, therefore, we moved forward to address this. In the meantime, with this remapping, we understood 

now, because of the new Corps standards, that we are now in the 

floodplain. So we are moving forward with our own assessment to 

advance-fund this because we need to do this. 

But, quite frankly, the question I bring up is that if the Corps 

goes forward with these new standards that are imposed upon us 

without regional differences, my concern is when are going to reach 

the standard we need? Because it seems like they are changing all 

the time. So we reach 100-year or 200-year, then all of a sudden 

we are not there yet. So that is my concern here. 

Mr. HALL. Madam Chair? 

Ms. NORTON. Yes, Mr. Hall. 

Mr. HALL. May I respond to your first question, which is, I believe, whether we got a response back from FEMA. In our case, we 

did request a 180-day extension of the period and were told, in a 

response letter from David Maurstad, the Assistant Administrator 

for Mitigation, that FEMA is only allowed by statute to provide a 

90-day appeal period. And they told us, in fact, that the length of 

the appeal period is ‘‘regulated by statute and FEMA is unable to 

extend it.’’ 

However, they will not issue a county-wide flood insurance rate 

map until all communities within the affected area have provided 

their results and completed their appeal period. So it is sort of a 

de facto extension, but it is haphazard, and I believe that the Committee might consider making that an option for FEMA to legally 

extend that to 180 days. 

I should add that in my home county of Dutchess, which I didn’t 

mention in my formal statement, we have also had flooding of both 

the 10-mile river, which the Corps of Engineers is currently engaged in a feasibility study on Wappingers Creek, which has had 

catastrophic flooding that took out two-plus megawatt—funny that 

a hydroelectric power plant would be taken out by too much water, 

but there was so much water coming down the Wappingers that it 

went over the top of the hydroelectric plant building, and they had 

to shut down the generators because they were full of water and 

silt. And then in Orange County we had the Wallkill River, the 

Minnesink River, and the Delaware River all flooding at the same 

time, and right now the Corps is looking at studies in that area, 

both at my request and at Congressman Hinchey’s request. 

Things are changing very rapidly because not only of increased 

storm frequency and increased storm strength, which fit the models 

of climate change, but also because of development, which means 

more impermeable surfaces like parking lots and roofs and driveways and roads, where there used to be natural plains, wetlands, 

and forests which could retain water and hold it, instead of releasing it immediately into storm drains and into the storms. And, as 

a result, what used to be a normal rain event now seems to 

produce a flood in our area much more quickly. 

So I thank you again for the work that you do and I encourage 

you to, if you can, give FEMA the option of going to a longer appeal 

16 

period for communities like those that we all represent who have 

to deal with varying factors and with the costs that is borne by the 

property taxpayer and by homeowners. Thank you very much, 

Madam Chair. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Hall. The Subcommittee will look 

at this 90-day period. It is a pre-Katrina, obviously, statutory mandate. There are new areas in the floodplain and lots of complaints, 

so we certainly will take a look at that. 

I want to quickly move along, but I do want to ask Mrs. Miller, 

who has raised a very interesting notion of self-insurance. Do you 

believe that would be less expensive if Michigan or your county did 

that? 

Mrs. MILLER. Yes, I absolutely do believe it. I have had some preliminary discussions. In fact, I have told our State insurance commissioner, I said, you know, if you had AAA or any of these regular 

private insurance companies doing this kind of thing, reaping all 

of this additional money based on the claim rate, you would be up 

in arms. And this is what is happening to us as a State, and we 

can demonstrate it over and over and over in so many of these various counties, as I have said and others have said. We have literally thousands and thousands of property owners that have never 

had to pay flood insurance. All of a sudden, with the new maps, 

they are now in the floodplain and they are paying these very high 

premiums. 

And this is where I say, as a Nation, a compassionate Nation, 

which I believe we are, when we see what happened with Hurricane Katrina or Rita, or the various hurricanes that happened in 

Florida, or we see what happens in Mr. Graves’ State, we see what 

happens along the Mississippi, as a Nation, we are never going to 

say we are not going to help our fellow Americans. And that is why 

I say I think we should have a national catastrophic fund or something so we are able to move very quickly, rather than what we feel 

we are literally funding other States. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, then somebody would have to fund the national catastrophic fund, and your taxpayers and mine would end 

up putting money in that too. 

Mrs. MILLER. At least it would be spread out evenly, rather than 

States like Michigan, who are paying very high premiums and not 

getting the claims back. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, I am not sure it would be spread out evenly. 

Mrs. MILLER. But, yes, I do intend to pursue this with an idea 

towards self-insuring. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, I think FEMA has to take that into account, 

that people may be driven to other forms—of course, there are penalties for that, because one qualifies for disaster assistance, there 

is a lot of quid pro quo in here. But we do need to look at the basis 

here. This is an insurance program, people. Insurance programs 

usually mean that some people put in—everybody puts in, some get 

out most. That is the whole nature of insurance, whether it is 

health insurance or flood insurance. Whether or not that fits this 

post-Katrina period is very much worthy of real examination. I 

promise you, Mrs. Miller, we will look at it, because if a lot of communities decided to self-insure, then where would—— 

17 

Mrs. MILLER. Where would it go, that is exactly right. And it 

does sound like a rather Draconian idea, I understand that, which 

I think speaks to how frustrated we all are with looking at the 

numbers on this type of thing. 

Ms. NORTON. I very much appreciate all of this testimony, and 

I assure you we will take every bit of it into account not only in 

our questions to the next panel, but in statutory changes and other 

changes we may request. Thank you very much for coming, especially for coming early. 

Could I ask the next panel to come? Steven Stockton, Deputy Director of Civil Works, United States Army Corps of Engineers; 

David Maurstad, Assistant Administrator, Mitigation Directorate, 

FEMA. Could I ask you to stand and be sworn? 

Raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony you will 

give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you, 

God? 

[Witnesses answer in the affirmative.] 

Ms. NORTON. We are going to proceed rapidly. I think we should 

begin with FEMA. So I will ask Mr. Maurstad to start, followed by 

Mr. Stockton. 

TESTIMONY OF DAVID MAURSTAD, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, MITIGATION DIRECTORATE, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY; AND STEVEN STOCKTON, 

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CIVIL WORKS, UNITED STATES ARMY 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS; 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Good morning, Chairwoman Norton, Ranking 

Member Graves, and Members of the Subcommittee. I am David 

Maurstad, Assistant Administrator for Mitigation and Federal Insurance Administrator for FEMA. Thank you for allowing me to 

update you on three items: FEMA’S progress in meeting Congressional intent that the Nation’s flood map inventory be updated and 

modernized; the importance of accurately depicting levees on community flood maps; and to discuss the status of flood maps right 

here in our Nation’s capital. 

A collaborative effort among FEMA and its partners, the Flood 

Map Modernization Initiative uses state of the art technology to replace paper FIRM panels with modern digital maps. For the majority of flooding sources, the floodplain boundary lines are updated 

and in some areas the flood elevations are revised. Recognize, 

though, that the flood maps only depict the one percent annual 

chance flood, a flood with a 1 in 100 chance of occurring in any 

given years. It is a widely accepted, though minimum, standard. 

For FEMA, the modernized maps allow us to establish and maintain a fair and accurate insurance rating mechanism for the National Flood Insurance Program. For the over 20,000 communities 

participating in the NFIP, they are much more. The digital data 

and maps serve as a vital foundation for local flood hazard awareness, land-use planning, floodplain management, evacuation planning, and reducing vulnerability from future flood events. FIRMs 

are used more than 30 million times a year by builders, lenders, 

realtors, insurance agents, community planners, local government 

officials, homeowners, and others. 

18 

Map Mod’s objective—to map 65 percent of the Nation’s land 

area, where 92 percent of the population lives—is within reach. 

FEMA has over 1400 county-wide mapping projects underway currently in every region of the Nation. In fact, at the close of fiscal 

year 2007, we had produced modernized maps for over 60 percent 

of the Nation’s population. 

Accurately depicting flood hazards near levees is critical. FEMA 

is encountering levees which communities know do not provide the 

flood protection once thought, like here in Washington, D.C. In 

other areas, we are finding that the level of protection provided has 

not been established or is not known. In cases where we know a 

levee does not provide protection against the one percent annual 

chance flood, we are compelled to ensure that the public is aware 

of the threat and arm them with the facts that will allow them to 

reduce their risk. And even in cases where levees meet FEMA’S 

standard, we must let them know that a chance exists that a greater flood could still overtop the levee, which is why we show areas 

protected by levees on our maps. 

While flood insurance is not required for these areas, FEMA recommends that property owners consider insurance at a reduced 

rate. As we know, we can’t be too careful when it comes to ensuring 

people are aware and take steps to reduce their risks. In the last 

two weeks, in Missouri and Arkansas, levees have been breached, 

flooding hundreds of homes and businesses. 

Let me conclude by providing a brief update on the status of the 

Washington, D.C. Flood Insurance Rate Map. In March of 2007, 

due to new information provided by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that outlined significant levee deficiencies in the D.C.-Potomac Park system, FEMA notified the District of Columbia by letter 

that it issued revised preliminary flood maps depicting the levee 

system as not providing adequate flood protection. 

On March 25 of this year, FEMA articulated its continued commitment to inform citizens, businesses, and institutions about the 

flood hazard, while expressing FEMA’S optimism in working together with the District in outlining a collaborative solution for this 

unique situation. At this point, there is agreement that the D.C.- 

Potomac Park levee does not meet current NFIP levee requirements. Nonetheless, we have agreed to meet with city officials over 

the next 30 days to discuss how identified deficiencies might be 

remedied. 

FEMA will continue working with the Corps and our other Federal, State, and local government partners to communicate the true 

and current flood hazard for Americans in their homes and their 

places of education, work, worship, and gathering. We have both a 

legal and moral responsibility to depict the risk accurately, and we 

are committed to upholding our responsibilities. We understand 

that our work is not always popular, but if we choose to look the 

other way when it comes to flood hazards, the tools that people 

need to make informed decisions will not be available, putting 

many families and businesses at risk. FEMA is taking a monumental first step in reducing the Nation’s flood risk. We are providing the data needed to make sound decisions, but data isn’t 

enough. As a Nation, we also need a collective will to ensure the 

right decisions are made. 

19 

Madam Chair, on a side note, I want to observe that the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program is up for reauthorization this year, 

and I look forward to working with the Subcommittee to reauthorize this very valuable mitigation program. 

Thank you, and I look forward to responding to any questions or 

comments. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Maurstad. 

Mr. Stockton of the Corps of Engineers. 

Mr. STOCKTON. Thank you, Chairwoman Norton and Ranking 

Member Graves and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. 

I am Steve Stockton, Deputy Director of Civil Works of the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers. With your permission, I would like to 

make a short statement and submit a complete written statement 

for the record. 

The Corps of Engineers has served our Nation since its birth. We 

have partnered with local and State governments since 1917 on 

public safety projects to reduce the damaging and sometimes catastrophic effects of flooding. These projects, primarily designed and 

built by the Federal Government, are then transferred to the nonFederal sponsor for ongoing maintenance and operation. The Corps 

of Engineers shares with the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency the expertise and mandate to address the Nation’s 

vulnerabilities to flooding. However, responsibility for managing 

the Nation’s flood risks is also shared among Federal, State, and 

local governments, private citizens, and enterprises such as banks, 

insurance companies, and developers. 

The Corps and FEMA have programs to assist States and communities to promote sound flood risk management. However, a critical element of successful flood risk management is land use. Authority to determine how land is used within floodplains and to enforce flood-wise requirements is the responsibility primarily of 

State and local government. 

FEMA has embarked on a Map Modernization Program to update and improve the Nation’s flood insurance rate maps. In some 

instances, the Corps is being asked to conduct or support levee certifications for these maps. Certification is a technical finding for 

the National Flood Insurance Program that there is reasonable certainty that a levee will contain a flood within a one percent annual 

chance of occurring. This finding is only for flood insurance purposes and should not be interpreted that the public living behind 

the levee is safe from all flooding. 

While the Corps does not have authority that specifically addresses levee certification for National Flood Insurance Program 

purposes, it has authorities to perform certifications, when requested, on levees that the Corps operates and maintains; levees 

that are part of an ongoing project or study; levees designed and 

built by the Corps but operated by a local, non-Federal sponsor; 

levees in the Corps Rehabilitation and Inspection Program; and 

levees constructed by other Federal agencies. Except for levees 

owned and operated by the Corps, funding is the responsibility of 

the entity desiring certification. 

Finally, the Corps is pursing effective combinations of tools to ensure a safe and informed public. Our intent is to educate citizens 

20 

about their risks so that they can become responsible for their safety by knowing what actions to take to lower those risks. 

Madam Chairwoman, thank you for the opportunity to testify 

today on the Corps roles and responsibilities in FEMA’S remapping 

program and our broader mission of assisting in the reduction of 

flood risk for the Nation. I will be pleased to answer any questions 

you may have. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you both for that testimony. Could I ask 

how we got to the one percent risk, the 100-year threshold? Was 

that the threshold before in prior mapping? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Yes, Madam Chair. Actually, the one percent 

standard, I believe, has been in place since the early 1970s, very 

near to the inception of the program that started in 1968, and it 

was at that time and has since been reviewed and discussed at 

quite some length as to what the minimum Federal standard ought 

to be. So it goes back literally to the start of the program, has been 

looked at at Congress’s request a couple of different times. Most recently, the Association of Floodplain Managers Foundation held a 

symposium on whether or not the one percent annual chance was 

still relevant and received comments from experts in the field 

across all disciplines. That was accomplished about two years ago. 

They produced a lengthy document summarizing their findings, 

and you have a panelist in your next panel from ASFPM that can 

better articulate this. I believe the finding of that summary was 

that it was still the most appropriate standard, although it may be 

time to look at it again. 

Ms. NORTON. Do you think that there should be a universal 

standard, that you should have the same standard throughout the 

Nation, the same one percent standard throughout the Nation? You 

heard Members perhaps speak about communities that have never 

seen a flood. You heard testimony about how—perhaps because of 

climate change, who knows—there has been some lowering of the 

water level. And, yet, throughout the Country you have the same 

standard. How do you justify that? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. I do believe there does need to be a standard, 

and it needs to be uniform across the Country because the standard is that in a particular area of the Country there is a one percent chance every year that a flood could happen there. There certainly are going to be areas in the short period, just the 40 

years—— 

Ms. NORTON. Yes, a flood, but a flood of the kind that requires 

the kinds of changes that communities are now being required to 

make? Sure, there will be a flood. 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Ma’am, I do believe that there does need to be 

a minimum Federal standard, and I think that is part of the difficulty as we communicate with communities and the public, to get 

them to understand that the Federal standard is a minimum 

standard. We have events every year that are less than our minimum standard that cause significant damage. It is not a eitheror circumstance. People that are right outside the special flood hazard area, the highest risk area of our Country, have one-third of 

the losses in the national flood program every year. So you can see 

that the minimum standard is just that. 

21 

We have a program in the National Flood Insurance Program, 

the Community Rating System, where we encourage communities 

to take actions beyond the minimum Federal standards. As of May 

1st, there will be 1089 communities that choose voluntarily to do 

so. They receive discounts on their flood insurance premium for accepting that additional responsibility, which affects about twothirds of our policyholders. So I think we get people to understand 

that this is a minimum standard, there are going to be events 

every year that exceed this minimum standard, and we need to 

prepare for those also. 

Ms. NORTON. There have been complaints, for example, that communities make changes. There were complaints about a $17 million 

change invested in levees; now they don’t meet the standards, they 

can’t be grandfathered in any way. How would you deal with a 

community that just finished work of that kind? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. The National Flood Insurance Program is a program that depends upon its partnerships. The over 20,000 communities that participate in the program do so voluntarily because of 

the benefits that they believe they receive from joining the Program: the floodplain management requirements that they adopt at 

the local level in their ordinances, the availability of insurance, 

making their communities stronger and safer. It is those partnerships that really make the Program successful. Whenever we are 

doing a remapping, as we have been doing very vigorously as a result of the Map Mod initiative that was started in 2004, we reach 

out through our regional offices with the communities and work 

with them as we go through the mapping process. 

Ms. NORTON. I am asking a very specific question. I have given 

you a hypothetical. I would like an answer to my hypothetical. 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Okay. 

Ms. NORTON. Somebody just finishes putting in $17 million 

worth of work. 

Mr. MAURSTAD. The regulation—— 

Ms. NORTON. Can that be taken into consideration or not? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Very specific answer to your question. The regulation since 1986 has required three foot of freeboard for levees. 

Since 1986, not one foot, three foot. 

Ms. NORTON. Part of what you are meeting when people complain to you are statutory requirements. Why haven’t you asked for 

more flexibility if more flexibility is needed? Is 90 days sufficient? 

Do you need changes in the statute? Are there other kinds of flexibility that Congress could give you so that you could work in better 

partnership with local communities? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. We are always willing to work with the Subcommittee on looking at potential—— 

Ms. NORTON. Well, I am asking you specifically. You have heard 

the time frame discussion. 

Mr. MAURSTAD. We have got over 1400, as the map over here depicts, 1400 ongoing flood studies. In most cases, the current statutory requirements and the process that we use go along without a 

hitch. We certainly have circumstances where there are unique situations with communities, and we do our best in working with the 

communities to work with them—— 

22 

Ms. NORTON. If somebody needs more than 90 days, what would 

you do? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. We can always revise the maps, first of all. The 

90 days starts the statutorily required comment period. At the end 

of that, there is another six-month appeal and adoption process at 

the community level. And once the community adopts the final 

maps, the maps can always be revised through a Letter of Map 

Condition or a Letter of Map Revision. So the maps can be revised 

when new and better data is available or, in the case of levees, 

where projects start and are completed. 

Ms. NORTON. So you don’t believe you need any more flexibility. 

You think you have all the flexibility and you do not see the time 

frames, for example, as a particular problem? I just need these answers. Because if you need changes, then I don’t know why you 

wouldn’t ask for them so that you would have a better relationship—otherwise, we are going to have people coming to the appropriators, we are going to have people coming to Congress saying my 

community just can’t do this within that time frame or they want 

this or that ad-hoc change included for them. 

We are trying to avoid that, and if we can do so, then we will 

do so. We just went through a period when we had a post-Katrina, 

where we gave FEMA more flexibility than it had under the statute. I am simply trying to find, as part of our oversight, whether 

or not the statute is 100 percent exactly as you would have it with 

respect to your ability to communicate in time, get feedback, get 

the additional time that communities need. You think it is okay? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. I believe it is. 

Ms. NORTON. Okay. You heard one Member, Representative Miller, testify about the unfairness she perceives to property owners, 

so much so she said they never get a flood, or so seldom, that she 

is going to recommend, if she is not able to do something about it, 

self-insurance. What is your answer to that? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. A couple of points I would make, and I think 

that you, quite frankly, hit the nail on the head in that we are 

talking—we can’t predict when an event is going to happen to us. 

The maps attempt to provide information within a realm of probability. Quite frankly, I think that the communities in any State 

already can self-insure; they can already opt out. 

Ms. NORTON. Of course they can. 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Sure. 

Ms. NORTON. What is the effect of self-insuring, one, on the program and, two, on the eligibility for disaster assistance, et cetera? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Well, exactly, they would not be eligible for disaster assistance and the citizens in those communities would not 

be eligible for flood insurance through the program. There are consequences, of course. 

Ms. NORTON. And you regard the program as quite adequately 

funded now through this insurance mechanism, I take it? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Well, the program is adequately funded, as all 

Federal Government programs are adequately funded. 

Ms. NORTON. Is that the only way in which it is adequately—you 

have never had problems? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. The program is currently $17.3 billion in debt. 

We had, through Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, paid out 

23 

more in claims in those three events than the program had paid 

out in the first 38 years of its existence. So a catastrophic—— 

Ms. NORTON. So it is because of Katrina that you are in debt, or 

was it—— 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Yes. 

Ms. NORTON. It is Katrina that did it? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. From 1986 until 2004, the program was self-suf- ficient from the policyholder premiums, while providing $1.3 billion 

of benefit in avoided losses every year. 

Ms. NORTON. Has there been any increase in premiums or the 

like? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Not specifically because of Katrina. We have 

been increasing the premiums to the program because 75 percent 

of the policies are risk-based, actuarially-based premiums. Twentyfive percent of the policies are discounted for those people that had 

properties that were mapped into the special flood hazard area, so 

Congress said provide them discounts. So we have had—and because of the fiscal financial need to make sure that we have funds 

for catastrophic years, we have been increasing the premiums over 

the course of the last five years. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much. I am going to go to the 

Ranking Member at this point. 

Mr. GRAVES. Is there any help for small communities—and I am 

particularly thinking about the unincorporated communities—for 

certification? Is there any Federal assistance for those communities? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. There is not from FEMA. 

Mr. STOCKTON. Nor from the Corps, sir. 

Mr. GRAVES. What are those small communities—some of those 

communities, I imagine, it is going to be pretty tough, or it is pretty tough. And I am thinking about those ones that—and my district is full of them in floodplains. 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Well, that is part of the reason why we issued 

the procedure memo that allowed for those communities where the 

chief executive officer will sign that they believe that the levee continues to provide the one percent annual chance protection, that we 

provide them two years to provide us with the necessary information to be able to accredit that levee on their maps, one of the reasons why. So at least they had some period of time, as the owners 

of the levees and those that benefit from the levees, to be able to 

put together the resources to provide that necessary documentation. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Arcuri. 

Mr. ARCURI. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Gentlemen, thank you very much for being here. I have two 

questions, one very specific to the counties in my congressional district and one more general with respect to the State of New York. 

FEMA has informed the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation that fiscal year 2008 flood map modernization 

funds will be used for Chemung, Schenectady, Oneida, and Oswego 

Counties, although they have also informed the DEC that no fiscal 

year 2008 dollars will be used to update detailed map studies only 

to overlay the old detail studies on new topographical layer. Updated maps are critically important to ensuring that the developVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:11 Mar 11, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\41772 JASON
24 

ment can be placed appropriately, as well to ensuring that people 

who live in the real flood-prone areas have adequate insurance. 

Isn’t this contrary to the mission stated in the map modernization mid-course adjustment, of producing new updated maps for 

communities with greater population, greater flood risk, and greater potential flood growth development? Why would you merely do 

an overlay for counties like Oneida and Schenectady that have 

those characteristics which you say warrant updated mapping? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. If you would excuse me to provide a general answer to you, and then I will provide a more specific answer for the 

record. 

Mr. ARCURI. That would be great, yes. 

Mr. MAURSTAD. I believe we are being consistent with the midcourse adjustment, but it still boils down to what resources that we 

have available and working through the regions and the States, 

where they identify the highest risk areas are, and that is, as funds 

are available, where new engineering studies are done. Now, we, 

through the President’s 2009 budget, are requesting an additional 

$248 million for ongoing mapping activities with an emphasis on 

new engineering studies in high risk areas, so we are hopeful to be 

able to get to more of those areas that you mentioned. 

Mr. ARCURI. Well, I can understand that, but, as I understand 

it, for instance, sections of the Adirondack Mountains in New York 

State, where population density is very low, have obviously been 

left out of that, and that is understandable; the population is low. 

But in the two counties that I referred to, there is flooding and the 

population density is high. Shouldn’t they be given a higher priority? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Again, without knowing the specifics, I would 

say yes. But I would also say that these decisions have been made 

with the State involved in where the dollars that can be allocated 

for that area need to be spent. So I would have to go back, get the 

specifics, see what the recommendations were from the State and 

how that fit in to our national effort. 

[Information follows:] 

25 


41772.005
26 


41772.006
27 


41772.007
28 

Mr. ARCURI. I would appreciate that. One more question. Prior 

to Hurricane Katrina, New York State had the second highest flood 

losses in the Nation under the National Flood Insurance Program. 

This was not because New York experienced floods of overwhelming magnitude but, rather, the sheer frequency with which 

it suffered from declared disasters. I look at the map that I have 

here, the progress of mapping activities, and New York has, it 

seems, a significant number of counties which are not funded. 

And especially when you look in the southern part of New York 

State that neighbors Pennsylvania, where all of the counties seem 

to be funded, and yet the neighboring counties right across the border are not funded; and that seems to be more the rule than the 

exception in New York. What is it that goes into the evaluation in 

terms of different—I see the same thing happens with respect to 

Northwestern Ohio and Southern Michigan and South Carolina 

and Georgia. 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Well, as I indicated, we have put forward from 

the beginning of the map modernization the multi-year flood hazard identification plan. It has been out, transparent, visible; everybody has had it. But in the development of that, we used risk, we 

used stakeholder input from the local and the State level, we 

looked at, in some cases, communities that had data to contribute 

to the process. So we have developed a specific sequencing and 

funding process through the five years of map modernization. 

So the risk, of course, is based on flood claims by district, which 

may be different than the losses that you are talking about if a lot 

of the events that you had were not insured, because the focus and 

the direction from Congress has been to look at the impacts to the 

National Flood Insurance Fund and the National Flood Insurance 

Program, which may be slightly different from the criteria that you 

mentioned. But it is still risk-based with local and State stakeholder input. 

Mr. ARCURI. So do I have to tell my local communities that they 

need to get engaged, to be more proactive in terms of getting the 

message out of what their needs are? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. I think that is always good advice. But I also 

think that, as I go around the Country and look at disasters, one 

of the things that always strikes me is the number of folks that 

have been damaged by a flood event that did not have flood insurance. Clearly, people that have flood insurance after events, whether they are presidentially declared disasters or whether they are 

after a lot of the flooding events that never rise to that level, the 

people that have a flood insurance policy are those that recover 

faster and get back on their feet better. So I continue to try to encourage people, if they are in the high-risk area, if they are in the 

low-to moderate-risk area, to have a flood insurance policy. 

Mr. ARCURI. Forgive me, this is my last question. I don’t mean 

to be argumentative, but it just seems odd to me. I don’t understand the fact that New York has so little of its counties that are 

funded and yet it has such a high incidence of flooding. 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Again, without knowing the specifics, one aspect 

that could allude to that is the areas that were funded under the 

program were more expensive to do, so there were fewer studies 

that could be done, so the geographic area that could not be 

29 

reached. So it could depend upon the types of studies that were 

done in those areas that were funded in New York, and I would 

have to get the specifics on that. 

Mr. ARCURI. If you could furnish me with that, I would appreciate that very much. 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ARCURI. Thank you. 

No more questions, Madam Chair. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Arcuri. 

Mr. Dent? 

Mr. DENT. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Thank you for being here today. Just a quick question about this 

map that has been presented and the legend at the bottom right. 

I live in Eastern Pennsylvania, Lehigh Valley, Allentown, Bethlehem, Easton area. We are the green area affected county. What 

is the difference between the green and I guess that reddish and 

the funded county areas? What does that mean? Affected would be 

affected county versus the preliminary county versus funded county, I guess is really the question. 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Right. The affected county means that those 

counties have final maps adopted and in place from the map modernization initiative. 

Mr. DENT. But they are not funded. 

Mr. MAURSTAD. No, they are funded. They are completed. 

Mr. DENT. Okay. Okay, that is what that means, is completed. 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Yes. 

Mr. DENT. All right, I just wanted to be clear about that point. 

And then preliminary county means what? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Preliminary counties mean that we have gone 

through the probably year to year and a half scoping process, development of the new maps, and have provided those maps to the 

local communities in preliminary form that starts the 90-day process, starts the appeal and adoption process. 

Mr. DENT. Okay. And then funded county means? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Funded county means that those counties have 

received funds to start that we have allocated—— 

Mr. DENT. To begin the process. 

Mr. MAURSTAD. To ultimately have a final effective map. 

Mr. DENT. Okay. All right. Now, I want to get to the issue of my 

area of Eastern Pennsylvania. As you know, Pennsylvania is a very 

flood-prone State. We probably have more miles of running water 

than any of the lower 48 States. So we have enormous flood issues. 

In my region, we have had three major events in the last three 

and a half, four years; Hurricane Ivan and two other major events. 

We, in my region, have put together a regional comprehensive flood 

mitigation program which has been very helpful. In fact, this year, 

in the omnibus appropriations bill, we did get some earmark funding, actually, to deal with some of our highest flooding areas, and 

we are basically working through FEMA to fund what we consider 

to be six of our high priorities. 

Are you at FEMA giving greater consideration to communities 

like mine in the Lehigh Valley of Pennsylvania that do have regional flood mitigation plans, that they have a lot of projects that 

area ready to go, have been comprehensively done by planning 

30 

commissions, we are well ahead of the game? Do you give priority 

consideration for funding for those types of applications or proposals versus some other communities that may not be as well advanced in terms of their planning? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Well, the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 required all local communities to have local mitigation plans, so four 

years ago we—— 

Mr. DENT. Ours aren’t just local, they are regional; they are 

multi-jurisdictional. 

Mr. MAURSTAD. I understand. Many communities do it on a 

multi-jurisdictional basis to meet that requirement. We have over 

16,000 communities that now have in place the required mitigation 

plans. The Predisaster Mitigation Grant Program is a competitive 

program; it is based on technical engineering and feasibility of the 

projects, very strict grants management competitive requirements. 

Having a plan in place, that gets you into the game but doesn’t 

necessarily provide you with additional points, so to speak, in the 

competition. And, of course, in the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program there aren’t requirements other than to have the local plan 

in place to be eligible for Hazard Mitigation Grant Programs. 

Mr. DENT. So based on this legend, then, you really want to be 

a green area, essentially; you want to be affected county, right, in 

terms of your process? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Well, this is indicating those counties that have 

effective maps, which is different from having local mitigation 

plans. So this really doesn’t depict what you are talking about. 

Mr. DENT. Okay. All right, that is why I was a little confused 

with that point. Okay, thank you. 

The other issue I have, too, being, again, from Eastern Pennsylvania, we are a partner in the Delaware River Basin Commission. 

That is a multi-State entity: Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, 

and New York. And one issue that I continue to hear—and perhaps 

this is more a question for FEMA; it would be a better question, 

I guess, to the DRBC, who is not here, but the question I hear most 

regularly is this: my residents will tell me that floods are occurring 

in part in Eastern Pennsylvania because of the reservoirs up in 

New York being at too high capacity, and that those reservoirs 

need to be managed differently; that is, not be at 100 percent or 

over 100 percent capacity, but some other number less than 100 

percent; I don’t know if it is 80 or 90 percent, but some other number. 

The feeling is that when those fill up that contributes to flooding 

downstream and it is a source. I realize there are lot of experts and 

hydrologists and others who have to examine this issue and have 

some very different opinions, that we must deal with this issue 

from a science-based criteria or perspective. 

So I would just be curious to hear your thoughts, particularly 

FEMA’S thoughts—or even the Corps, it doesn’t matter—how you 

feel we should be talking to our constituents about that very sensitive issue? Because they are convinced the issue is the reservoirs 

are at too high capacity and that is what is driving flooding on the 

Delaware. 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Well, from FEMA’S National Flood Insurance 

Perspective, that is a jurisdictional issue. What we are talking 

31 

about today is mapping the risk. The risk is there, and what we 

have been charged to do is go out and determine what that risk is 

and then communicate it to local governments and to the public so 

they can take necessary actions as a result of that. So what you 

are talking about really falls outside the scope of my area of responsibilities. 

Mr. DENT. Corps? 

Mr. STOCKTON. As this Nation developed, a lot of projects were 

built, dams and reservoirs, some Federal, non-Federal, authorized 

for specific purposes, and we do have authorities to go in and reevaluate basins or systems to adjust them to more contemporary 

needs. So the authorities exist. It would take funding to do one of 

these studies to help re-evaluate exactly how the system might be 

operated for more optimal contemporary purposes. 

Mr. DENT. One other thing, too. In my community, too, we are 

looking at developing some interesting flood warning systems and 

actually trying to get some of these funded. I know if you have any 

types of perspectives on these types of programs, but it has gotten 

to that point, where I live, particularly along the Delaware, that, 

with the number of events we have been having in recent years— 

we didn’t have any major events since 1955, and then over the past 

three, four years we have had three major events. So now there is 

very serious talk of flood warning systems, of course, other alternative plans to help elevate houses or remove people from areas of 

high risk. So I would just be curious to hear your comments and 

perspective on these flood warning systems at FEMA. 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Well, I think they have proved to be very valuable and they are, I think, in many areas of the Country very necessary preparedness activity that needs to be looked at so that 

communities can be prepared for and know how they are going to 

respond when an event is at their doorstep. 

Mr. DENT. Okay, that is my final question. I guess my only comment would be I just encourage FEMA to stay engaged with the 

Delaware River Basin Commission as we talk about flood mitigation and help them, because obviously anything we can do to prevent these floods or mitigate these flood events is important to you 

because you are the ones who are asked to respond after the fact. 

So to the extent that you can help shed some light on the issue 

of where these reservoirs should be in terms of capacity might be 

very helpful. And there are a lot of competing interests, I understand, on the Delaware. New York State is interested in water for 

the city, we are trying to manage both drought and flood at the 

same time, and I do understand the complexities of these types of 

issues, but FEMA’S input with the Delaware River Basin Commission I think would be very valuable to helping us better address 

this difficult situation. So thank you and I yield back. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Dent. 

Mrs. Capito. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I want to thank the gentlemen. I represent the State of West Virginia. We have, as well, a lot of flooding, but it is more of a flash 

flood type situation into the hollows because of our geography. On 

the map I am curious to know—and maybe you covered this in 

your opening statement, and I apologize if I didn’t hear it—when 

32 

a county begins to map in conjunction with FEMA, is there a process by which the county can contest some of the results? Because 

this actually happened in one or my counties. What is the process 

for that? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. I appreciate the question. The answer is yes, and 

I go back to one of the comments that I made. I am not sure if you 

were present at that time where I said that really the success of 

the program depends on its partnerships. So once we start this 

process with our partners, those that participate in the National 

Flood Insurance Program, we sit down and we have what is initially called a scoping meeting that starts the whole process and 

kind of lays out how things are going to unfold along the way. 

While the engineering work is done, if communities have information to provide, we accept that, we use that; if they have topographic information, for example. Along the way we continue to let 

them know what and where we are at during the mapping process. 

Of course, when you get closer to the more formal processes, 

when we provide the preliminary maps, there is that 90-day comment period where communities can provide scientific or technical 

disagreements, we will call them, with the maps that have ben provided to them. Then there is even, during the six month appeal, an 

adoption process that they go through. Certainly, disagreements 

can happen during that. 

But then back again in response to the Chairwoman’s question, 

at any time that there is better information that communities can 

share with FEMA, we want that information, then we can have a 

process for updating and improving those maps. We want the best 

maps possible for communities. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Right. And I appreciate the good hard work that 

you do. And I know you are not in the emergency response area, 

but FEMA has done a great job, historically, in our State, coming 

in and setting up very quickly in very difficult situations, and I appreciate that. 

Let me ask you another topic that we discussed a lot. It was 

called, at one point, ‘‘three strikes and you’re out,’’ you know, if you 

filed your flood insurance and collected three times. What is the 

status of that and do you have anything to say about that? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Well, we do have and are in the midst right now 

of implementing the severe repetitive loss pilot program that was 

authorized in the 2004 NFIP reauthorization. It doesn’t really have 

a ‘‘three strikes and you’re out’’ provision, but it does have a process that if a valid mitigation offer is made to a particular property 

owner and they turn down that offer, then their insurance premiums can be increased 50 percent. So it is the first time that the 

program has really ever had—we usually work cooperatively with 

incentives in the program. This is clearly a disincentive and is trying to use the stick approach with those that have been severe repetitive loss policyholders. 

Mrs. CAPITO. In the grand scheme of things, I mean, this is just 

an off-the-wall kind of question, but, percentage-wise, would you 

say are individuals who are repetitive large loss in coming to 

FEMA? I mean, just kind of ball-park. I am curious. 

33 

Mr. MAURSTAD. I think it is around 8,000 of the 5.5 million policyholders fit into the definition that Congress put in the Act of severe repetitive loss. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you. 

Mr. MAURSTAD. But they cause a large number of policy losses 

every year. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Right. 

Mr. MAURSTAD. They are a small number, but they are costly. 

Mrs. CAPITO. They make their voices heard. Thank you. 

Ms. NORTON. Let me ask both of you to respond to the criticism 

of your methodology in the prior panel and from complaints from 

the States. How do you define risk? To what extent is probability 

used? Do you use a historical approach largely? How do we know 

this is scientific? 

Mr. STOCKTON. Let me take that, Congresswoman. We define 

risk as being the probability of an event occurring times the consequences. So if you have a 1 percent chance of accedence, that is 

your probability; and then the consequences have to do with type 

of property or lives that you are protecting behind that levee. 

As far as the methodology that we use, both the FEMA method 

and the Corps method, the risk analysis method, they are very, 

very similar when they go through and the information that they 

collect to perform those analyses. The only difference is there is uncertainty in all the calculations we do; it is based upon statistics, 

historical record. There is a lot that we don’t know, but we make 

the best—— 

Ms. NORTON. Is there a formula that you use? 

Mr. STOCKTON. Absolutely. We use quite complex computer models to compute this. To determine what the flood profiles are for 

different level events, whether they are 100-year events or 500-year 

events, we can produce that, but it is based upon the period of 

record you have, the type of hydrology you have, the hydraulics of 

the channel, and it varies. 

So the only difference in the two methodologies, really, is how 

you capture all that uncertainty. The FEMA approach just basically adds three feet of freeboard to capture that uncertainty; our 

approach that we use determines what the probability is, and we 

look for a 90 percent confidence level that that flood level will not 

be exceeded. In some cases that provides for less than three feet 

of freeboard; in some instances that provides for more than three 

feet of freeboard. 

This approach has been recommended by the National Academies 

of Science. We have adopted this approach. It is not new; we have 

been using it since 1997. We continue to update our guidance, 

though, to make it clear, and more relevant as more models become 

available. But it is not new, and I think eventually the Corps and 

FEMA will have a similar approach. 

Ms. NORTON. Just a moment. Corps and FEMA use different approaches about the same subject matter? 

Mr. STOCKTON. There are two alternatives provided for in the 

Code of Federal Regulations, and they are fundamentally the same. 

The only difference is how we capture that uncertainty. One is a 

probabalistic approach, we use the risk analysis; the other is a deVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:11 Mar 11, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\41772 JASON
34 

terministic approach where you just add three feet of freeboard to 

capture that uncertainty. 

Ms. NORTON. I am going to have to take your word for it, but I 

do note that in the next panel Larry Larson, of the Association of 

Floodplain Managers, suggests that you ‘‘re-establish’’—that is interesting—re-establish the Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force. It makes me a little nervous to hear about differences between FEMA and Corps. Do you believe it would be 

good to have this interagency task force? 

Mr. STOCKTON. Yes, ma’am. 

Mr. MAURSTAD. First of all, we do allow the Corps of Engineers 

method for their projects. We recognize that. We work with them 

in partnership, and I would say we started very vigorously enhancing our partnership in August of 2005 with the Corps of Engineers 

and formed an interagency flood risk management committee 

where General Riley and myself and our staffs meet quarterly and 

are working towards making sure that we can better serve our customers. 

Ms. NORTON. So you say there is already, in effect, an Federal 

Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force, is that your testimony? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. No, that is not. What I was alluding to and leading to was the two agencies are now, and have been, working with 

developing a better cooperation so that we can better serve our constituents, and I can—— 

Ms. NORTON. Would you agree with Mr. Stockton that this would 

be a good time to re-establish the Federal Interagency Floodplain 

Management Task Force? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. We value our partnership with the Association of 

State Floodplain Managers and we look to continue to have discussions with them on pursuing this suggestion. 

Ms. NORTON. Particularly given the partnership, I would ask you 

to pursue that, if at all possible. 

Let me quickly ask a series of other questions. We have one more 

panel we have to quickly get to. I am going to have to ask you 

about costs that are inevitably associated with flood mapping, particularly in the midst of the worst downturn in the economy in several years. The point, of course, the Subcommittee recognizes, is to 

prevent floods, and the mitigation you do, the mapping you do, the 

partnerships you do all are a part of that process. 

Yet, we heard one Member of the Committee talk about the insurance as a flood tax speak of economic dead zones that had been 

created in his community by mapping, about the mapping had the 

effect of killing development in community. We know there is 

wholesale concern that development in some communities are going 

to stop instantly, if it hasn’t already stopped because of economic 

conditions. 

Have you thought how to avoid undue costs as a result of the 

flood remapping? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Well, I think that we certainly look at the impacts. We are going to have economic cycles, certainly. One thing 

that is certain is floods are going to happen every year, and they 

are going to remain our number one natural disaster, and floods 

in those areas would be far worse than what the impacts are—— 

35 

Ms. NORTON. Well, for example, the example I gave you before, 

the people who had just done, raised to the last level, and here 

comes a new level. 

Mr. MAURSTAD. No, I need to correct that. The level was always 

three feet, since 1986. 

Ms. NORTON. They just finished work. Maybe the level isn’t 

where it should have been. Is there any grandfathering that takes 

into account work that has just been done? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. That would be a slippery slope for us to recognize work that had been done that did not meet our regulatory 

standards. 

Ms. NORTON. There was troubling testimony from Ms. Miller of 

Michigan about the lakes dropping 11 times, she testified, not rising, and yet elevations being required through the remapping. How 

would you respond to that criticism? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. In a very general sense, I don’t know the specifics, so I can’t comment specifically, but lakes rise and lakes fall. 

When I was the regional administrator in Region 8, North Dakota 

was one of the States in the region. They have a lake up there 

called Devils Lake. Thirty years ago, I believe that lake was completely dry; now it is at about 48 feet and has caused considerable 

flooding since the early 1990s—— 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Maurstad, I would agree with that, except the 

testimony was that it keeps dropping 11 times. I know the Chair 

of the Full Committee is concerned about the effect of climate 

change on the Great Lakes, so much so that they are having trouble getting boats in. And I am not suggesting that you could all of 

a sudden see the lake come up again, but where the dropping of 

water levels has been so consistent over so many years, you can 

imagine telling people you have got to elevate beyond where you 

were doesn’t make much sense to them. Would there be any kind 

of communication or negotiation that would go on in a case like 

that? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Well, there is going to be communication, 

Madam Chair, and I would say, again, FEMA, we rely on the engineers, we rely on the Corps of Engineers, we rely on the private 

contract engineers to provide us with accurate data that reflects 

the one percent annual chance flood risk. That has to be sound, because ultimately we have to operate under the premise that it 

could be legally challenged. So the answer to your question is, yes, 

we would communicate, we would look at situations like this, and 

if the data was wrong, we would change it and correct it. 

Ms. NORTON. All right. I think that the Great Lakes may be one 

of those instances where there needs to be perhaps some realistic 

understanding of what has happened over the Great Lakes over 

now a number of years consistently. The Full Committee Chairman, I think, will have to have his own meeting with you to discuss that matter because he is the expert there. 

How much noncompliance, for lack of a better word, do you find 

with the remapping program? Do people generally get it done is 

what I am asking. 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Yes. 

Ms. NORTON. How about this year, in terms of the protests this 

year? 

36 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Well, there is no question that, as we have gotten into map modernization, one of the benefits, quite frankly, of 

map modernization and finally updating the maps after many 

years of neglect for funding reasons is because of all the discussion 

and communication that is going on throughout the Country on 

what their flood risk is. It is more sensitive in those areas where 

there are levees that are no longer providing the protection the 

people once believed they had. 

So in those areas, yes, we are working through a number of challenging circumstances. But overall we are meeting our metrics. 

When Congress designed Map Mod, it said we will provide $200 

million a year for five years, but it is going to be performancebased; you are going to have metrics and we are going to expect 

you to meet those metrics, and we are on track to do that. We are 

very proud of that, in fact. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, I don’t envy the task you have and the protests you receive. Many of them are inevitable. It is not the kind 

of understanding of the program, the quid pro quos, that are involved that there should be, and I know you are making every effort at communication. I must say that FEMA was not quick to 

come forward after Katrina to ask Congress for changes to accommodate that special circumstance. I don’t suggest that this is that 

special circumstance, but I am suggesting that essentially where 

the complaints came from were the areas of the Country. 

And the post-Katrina act is not the result of the agency coming 

forward and saying we are interpreting this perhaps conservatively. If you want it interpreted differently, then perhaps there 

need to be changes in the statute such as X, Y, Z. Instead, you had 

to have Mississippi and Louisiana and others coming here long 

after the fact, and they complained bitterly, bitterly, of FEMA’S 

procedures, about how it was keeping development from occurring. 

They did it by a true indictment of FEMA. 

In light of that experience, I am going to ask you to look closely 

at your statute and at your flexibility and at your procedures to 

make sure that you have the necessary flexibility, because I want 

to assure you this Subcommittee is prepared to quickly give you 

added flexibility, if necessary. 

I very much appreciate this work is a huge challenge and, based 

on the work you have done, I have every reason to believe you will 

meet that challenge. Thank you for your testimony. 

I am going to ask the next two witnesses to come forward. We 

are trying to complete this hearing in about another half hour. 

These two witnesses are equally important to this Subcommittee: 

Les Sterman, the Executive Director of East-West Gateway Coordinating Council, St. Louis, Missouri; and Larry Larson, the Executive Director of the National Association of State Floodplain Managers. 

I am going to ask Mr. Larson to go first. 

Could I ask you to stand and be sworn? Do you swear that the 

testimony that you are about to give is truthful, so help you, God? 

[Witnesses answer in the affirmative.] 

Ms. NORTON. Please begin, Mr. Larson. 

37 

TESTIMONY OF LARRY A. LARSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE FLOOD PLAIN MANAGERS; 

AND LES STERMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, EAST-WEST 

GATEWAY COORDINATING COUNCIL, ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 

Mr. LARSON. Thank you, Chairwoman Norton and the Members 

of the Committee. I represent the Association of State Floodplain 

Managers. We have about 11,000 members nationally, the vast majority of them working at the local level. 

The issue of mapping of flood risk, especially that related to levees, is critically important to this Nation. We have a number of unsafe levees in this Nation and a number of high risk areas that we 

need to identify. I am going to talk about just a few areas briefly: 

the need to accurately map flood risk and hazards; the issue that 

levees and mapping and managing flood risk is a shared responsibility of all levels of government; and I will talk a bit about the 

level of protection issue, the one percent issue that you have raised 

a number of times. 

FEMA, as they indicated, map flood risks for about 20,000 communities, and the FEMA program uses, as Mr. Maurstad indicated, 

the one percent standard to identify that hazard risk area. It is important for people to recognize that that one percent standard, or 

100-year floodplain, is not a public safety standard. It is not a 

standard that says you will be safe if you use this standard; it says 

this is the standard that is used by the National Flood Insurance 

Program to run an insurance program that balances those issues 

that come into play in the Flood Insurance Program. 

Is that a level of public safety standard? No, it is not. Is it a 

standard that should be used for structural flood protection measures, especially in highly urbanized areas with highly critical facilities such as hospitals and police and fire stations and the rest? As 

we saw in New Orleans, no, it is not adequate. So we need to think 

about a variable level of standard. But right now FEMA uses a one 

percent standard across the Nation for mapping all flood hazard 

areas. 

I want to also point out that when a new map is issued, the end 

result is not always putting people in the floodplain, in that 

mapped floodplain; sometimes people come in, sometimes people go 

out. Our experience shows that, typically, when new maps are 

issued, there is pretty much a balance of those that come in and 

go out because you now have a more accurate depiction of the 

floodplain. So you always have what some people consider winners 

and losers. We don’t consider the need to purchase flood insurance 

as a loser; it is really an opportunity. And, quite frankly, in most 

cases it is a low cost opportunity. 

Showing the flood hazard on the map will not make the hazard 

go away if we don’t show it on the map, so we need to make sure 

that people understand that it is important to show it on the map. 

If they want to be able for citizens and communities to take action, 

they need to know what the risk is. 

Levees and mapping or managing flood hazards are a shared responsibility; Federal, State, and local. Typically, it is the local community that asks for a levee. The Federal Government may have 

built it for them, but it was their mitigation option that they chose. 

With that, they accepted the responsibility, in most cases, to operVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:11 Mar 11, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\41772 JASON
38 

ate and maintain that levee. If they did not do that accurately and 

adequately, they may now find that the Corps of Engineers comes 

in and says your levee is not adequate and can’t be certified. If you 

had been maintaining it over the years, it probably would be. Those 

are all things that need to be considered. 

Finding Federal funds to fix levees these days is very problematic, as you know, with Federal budgets, so coming up with other 

options to repair levees, to rehabilitate levees, to look at options for 

levees—as they are doing in the case of Sacramento, perhaps doing 

setback levees behind the current levee; building new levees, giving 

the river some more room—those are all options that need to be 

considered. There are programs that provide technical assistance 

for communities when the mapping process occurs and levees are 

decertified. The Flood Plain Management Services Program of the 

Corps of Engineers is one program to assist those communities that 

should be pursued actively. 

We find that there are private sector investment firms interested 

in funding infrastructure these days. It is a much safer investment 

than the stock market at the moment, and perhaps a little better 

return than CDs. So there is a keen interest in hundreds of millions of dollars being available to help communities in infrastructure improvements, and levees seems to be one that now is open 

for that kind of discussion. 

I will again—I know you asked about the Floodplain Management Task Force, the re-issuance and upgrading of the Executive 

Order to guide Federal investments and work in floodplains. Those 

are all things we support. 

With that, I would be glad to answer any questions any of you 

might have. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Larson. 

Mr. Sterman? 

Mr. STERMAN. Madam Chair, Ranking Member Graves, and 

Members of the Committee, my name is Les Sterman. I am Executive Director of the East-West Gateway Council of Governments, 

which is a partnership of local governments in the St. Louis, Missouri-Illinois metropolitan region. 

The St. Louis region is at the confluence of the Mississippi and 

Missouri Rivers. A large portion of our region’s land area is protected by levees and other flood control facilities, some of which 

have been in place since the 1920s. Entire communities owe their 

existence and prosperity to these great rivers and the protection 

from flooding that we have carefully built over the last 80 years or 

so. About half a million people live in the Illinois portion of our region, and we now know that about 160,000 of them are in imminent economic and physical peril. 

Last August 15th, Congressman Costello called a meeting and 

the Corps of Engineers revealed for the first time that they could 

not certify that what were formally 500-year levees along the Mississippi River in Illinois could withstand a 100-year flood event. 

This would mean that the entire area known as the American Bottom would be remapped as a special flood hazard area. 

Like many older industrial cities, St. Louis has struggled to regain its economic footing in recent years. In Illinois we are experiencing an economic rebirth. Long-awaited, but now imminent exVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:11 Mar 11, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\41772 JASON
39 

pansion of industries like U.S. Steel and Conoco-Phillips, expansions worth literally billions of dollars in actual construction, is 

now on hold. New development has simply stopped dead in the 

American Bottom. 

Perhaps most troubling, the American Bottom is home to some 

of the poorest and most physically and economically vulnerable citizens in our region. For most of them, flood insurance is not a realistic option at any price, and without flood insurance they will be 

unable to get a mortgage, unable to buy or sell a home, and unable 

to recover from a catastrophic loss from a flood. 

Let me assure you that we take these actions by FEMA and the 

Corps very, very seriously. Since August 15th we have mobilized 

our local governments, who are very quickly taking unprecedented, 

cooperative steps to rebuild our flood control systems along the 

Mississippi River. Legislation will be considered by the Illinois 

General Assembly next week to impose a sales tax in three Illinois 

counties to raise as much as $180 million for these repairs. Our 

goal is to rebuild our flood control systems in five years or less, an 

enormously challenging job, but one that simply must be done. 

At the same time as we are pulling together to protect our citizens and our local economy, we are troubled by a number of serious 

concerns about how this situation has unfolded and the future participation of the Federal Government in helping us rebuild. My 

written testimony provides some detail, but I would like to just 

cover a couple of highlights of those concerns. 

While the remapping process has been underway for some time, 

the revelation of the levee deficiencies was both sudden and shocking to local officials in our area. Public officials want to do the right 

things to protect the safety and livelihood of their citizens, but to 

ask them to fix a $180 million in less than a year, especially one 

they didn’t even know about, is not reasonable. 

The manner in which the remapping process is unfolding across 

the Country leads to some irrational and very unfair outcomes. Our 

area, for example, is bisected into two FEMA regions, which are 

proceeding along different schedules in the remapping process. The 

remapping in Missouri is as much as three years behind that in Illinois. The citizens of Illinois, who will suffer truly Draconian outcomes from this process, will look a couple of hundred feet across 

the Mississippi River at their neighbors in Missouri, who will suffer no such outcomes. Congressman Costello sponsored an amendment to the National Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization 

Act, H.R. 3121, that rectifies this injustice. The bill did pass the 

House and is now pending in the Senate, and we strongly urge its 

passage with the Costello amendment included. 

We know that we have to work together in a responsible way to 

reduce the risks of flooding, without compounding the problem by 

putting people and entire industries in immediate economic jeopardy. We don’t ever want to create a situation where well-intended, 

but man-made government action is creating hardship every bit as 

threatening as the acts of God that we want to protect against. 

I thank you for the opportunity to testify and I would be pleased 

to respond to any questions you may have. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much. First, let me ask do you perceive significant, either of you, financial dislocation in terms of conVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:11 Mar 11, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\41772 JASON
40 

struction or other dislocation that attend the remapping? I am concerned, for example, Mr. Sterman, that you said it was stunning, 

the changes that were needed were sudden, with Draconian outcomes. Would you elaborate on that, please? Why was it sudden? 

These were not apparent, that these changes would be needed? 

What was unexpected? 

Mr. STERMAN. The remapping process was certainly not unexpected. 

Ms. NORTON. No. 

Mr. STERMAN. The local government has been participating in 

that for a number of years. What was unexpected was the decertification of—we have 500-year levees along the Mississippi River 

that have historically protected hundreds of thousands of people 

and industries. The Corps announced, on August 15th—and this 

was evidently a surprise to FEMA as well—that they could no 

longer certify those levees to withstand a 100-year flood. We were 

not expecting that. 

Ms. NORTON. And those were 500-year levees? 

Mr. STERMAN. Yes. 

Ms. NORTON. Now, do you think Katrina had to do with that? 

What in the world led to that? 

Mr. STERMAN. I don’t know that Katrina led to it, per say. These 

were noted as ‘‘design deficiencies’’ by the Corps of Engineers, so 

it is the design process. The Corps’ design process has improved 

over many years since those levees were built. They were evidently 

maintained adequately, but simply no longer met current standards that the Corps is using. There was a significant change. 

We withstood the flood of 1993, which was a 300-year event. We 

did that with the help of what is known as flood fighting. Folks got 

out there with sandbags; sand boils came up from under seepage; 

and the levees held fairly successfully. Under the current standard 

that the Corps is using, at FEMA’S direction, flood fighting activities like that will no longer count in assessing the adequacy of the 

levee. So the levees need to withstand without human intervention 

that flood. We weren’t expecting that kind of outcome at that time. 

Ms. NORTON. Could I ask you on the fact of the use of sandbags, 

human beings helping to control floods. Do both of you consider 

that that is in keeping with modern flood control, that it was time 

to let that go, or do you think that that causes needless expense? 

Mr. STERMAN. Well, we think flood fighting is a standard, well 

worn practice in this business. It has been practiced for many 

years. It is sandbagging around sand boils; it is reinforcing behind 

floodgates. Those are things that can be planned for. We do have, 

along the Mississippi, significant advanced notice when floods will 

be occurring, so people and the forces are in place ready to do that. 

But that kind of activity no longer counts in certifying a levee. 

Ms. NORTON. I am going to ask Mr. Graves if he has any questions. 

Let me go on, then. 

You say, Mr. Larson, that the standard, the one percent standard, is not a public safety standard, but an insurance standard. 

Mr. LARSON. Correct. 

Ms. NORTON. Is it an appropriate standard? 

41 

Mr. LARSON. One thing we looked at in our analysis was that 

probably using a uniform standard across the Nation does not 

make a lot of sense because of what Mr. Stockton talked about: risk 

is variable. If you are protecting a cornfield, it is one thing. If you 

are protecting a highly urbanized area such as Mr. Sterman has 

talked about here, that 500-year level of protection makes a lot of 

sense. It is important, by the way, to understand that a 500-year 

flood is not five times larger than a 100-year flood. In the St. Louis 

area it is about a foot of difference, a foot in height of difference. 

Ms. NORTON. But, of course, if you are doing new construction, 

that could make a lot of difference. 

Pardon me. Go ahead. 

Mr. LARSON. So it is important that we look at those highly urbanized areas and say we need to provide greater than one percent 

chance level of protection for low—— 

Ms. NORTON. You know, it seems so common sense. Why, then, 

is there this universal one percent standard regardless—— 

Mr. LARSON. Well, prior to the NFIP, the Corps of Engineers 

typically built higher levees, such as there were in East St. Louis, 

typically 500-year standard project flood, those kinds. But once the 

NFIP came in and communities figured out that all they really 

needed was 100-year levee to get out of insurance and regulation, 

levees started to get dumbed down in the Nation, and that wasn’t 

a positive step. 

That is one of the problems with having the magic line. If we had 

universal flood insurance requirements, that magic line between 

100 and nothing wouldn’t make any difference. Right now it is an 

all or nothing line, instead of a graded line that says your risk is 

variable and how you deal with that should be variable. We don’t 

do that in this Nation, but we need to get to that point. 

Ms. NORTON. Does flood remapping encourage maintenance of 

levees, dams, et cetera, over the years? 

Mr. LARSON. Well, it should encourage it. 

Ms. NORTON. But, in fact, did you find that there was great noncompliance with maintenance upkeep? 

Mr. LARSON. Yes. What happened in Katrina was two things. 

Since then—it is somewhat Katrina, but it is also evolution over 

time. Both the Corps and FEMA realized that they were not dealing appropriately with levees. FEMA had not been looking carefully 

at levees when they mapped an area to determine if that levee was 

really adequate. The Corps, in its inspection program, had been 

issuing letters to communities for a number of years saying you are 

in the program, but your operation and maintenance is deficient; 

you should do this, this, and this. In some cases they issued those 

letters for 10 years in a row but never kicked the community out 

of the program. Now they have religion, after Katrina, and said we 

need to make sure communities have safe levees, and now I think 

you are seeing some of the results of that. 

Mr. STERMAN. The remapping process certainly got our attention. 

I mean, we have been moving since August 15th of last year to rebuild these levees. We are not waiting for the Federal Government 

or the Corps of Engineers to come in and do the job; that will take 

too long. We are looking to raise $180 million locally, take the bull 

by the horns and get these levees repaired. We know we are proVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:11 Mar 11, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\41772 JASON
42 

tecting people’s lives; we know we are protecting literally billions 

of dollars in economic assets. We have got to get moving. 

Mr. NORTON. Well, that, of course, speaks positively to what they 

are doing. I understand that, with all the priorities that States 

have, it is easy enough to say, you know, the levees look like they 

are doing fine for now and I need some money for public education. 

I am trying to get a grip, though, on financial dislocation. We 

have heard this hypothetical: there are changes, like you can’t use 

the sandbags anymore; or we haven’t been in the floodplain before. 

Now, let’s say we are doing what Mr. Sterman says, we are going 

to fix it. Meanwhile, it appears that if you are doing, for example, 

new construction, you have to build higher than you would have to 

build if in fact the levee were fixed that is now being fixed. So you 

will hear complaints, my goodness, construction is there permanently. Once we make this investment, that is a substantial addition to the cost of construction. 

Is there any flexibility you could suggest to keep new construction—I am concerned about the economic turndown—from essentially having to add what could be millions of dollars in construction that will be unnecessary because the community is doing what 

Mr. Sterman says, they are moving in there to fix the problem? 

How can we deal with costs that may prove unnecessary? 

Mr. LARSON. Well, I don’t see those costs as unnecessary. This 

all-or-nothing view of levees that says if we have got a levee, we 

have to do absolutely nothing has been part of what has led us 

down this road. So doing something behind a levee is not necessarily a bad thing. 

Ms. NORTON. But I am not talking about the levee now, I am 

talking about someone who has to now do something about construction as the levee is being fixed. 

Mr. LARSON. I understand that. You know, we have thousands of 

miles of identified floodplains in this Nation, and there is construction occurring in them all the time, and it takes into account flooding. Those are areas that aren’t protected by levees. So if construction isn’t stopped there by the identification of a floodplain, why 

would it be stopped behind a levee? Are there added costs? Yes, 

there are added costs, but it is a risk area. So I think there is a 

balance there. I understand people see that and sometimes perceive 

that as a ‘‘unnecessary cost.’’ I don’t believe that it is. 

Mr. STERMAN. Madam Chair, I think that this is one of the most 

important questions in this whole process, is the economic impact. 

We are finding, in our areas, when people are faced with those increased costs of development, they are simply choosing to go someplace else to build. In our area there are other places to build. 

The economic impact to us, even if we are able to make our selfimposed standard of five years to get these levees fixed, could be 

in the billions of dollars just in industry that is foregone in our region; and the impact on individuals will be substantial as well. And 

all this, frankly, to most of our citizens and businesses seems rather arbitrary; one day everything was fine and the next day, with 

the waving of a pen, it is not fine anymore and all of our plans get 

changed and literally billions of dollars of economic impact have to 

be absorbed by our region. 

43 

Ms. NORTON. The difference, I think, between you, Mr. Larson, 

and Mr. Sterman, you are a true, Mr. Larson, floodplain expert. 

Mr. Sterman, I think, speaks for how people develop. Government 

doesn’t have to do with that and people have—— 

Mr. LARSON. Government does do with it. In the end, it pays disaster costs. 

Ms. NORTON. No, no, no. See, forever the floodplain man. The 

way in which development occurs in places like St. Louis and, for 

that matter, the District of Columbia, is developers decide among 

their choices. Anything that adds to the cost has to be taken into 

account. Our Subcommittee, of course, has jurisdiction over Federal 

construction and we see it everyday, and we are going to have a 

hearing on the credit crunch and what effect it may have on commercial real estate, which we are now beginning to see happen. 

I don’t mean to pose this as a reason for stopping remapping. I 

do mean to say that, even without using the R word, something 

pretty bad is happening in this Country at this time, and there are 

people throughout the United States that are particularly concerned about whether or not development will continue in their 

community. That means, to be clear, construction of various kinds 

by the private sector; not by government, by the private sector. 

But if I may say so, there are people who bid on government 

work who are bidding less today. One of the most fast developing 

cities is the city that I represent, where you now sit. New ballpark, 

building on every blade of grass. But when I ask people about it, 

they tell me the way in which commercial development takes place 

is people have gotten their financing long before any recession sets 

in. 

I went to a reception in advance of the first game and we went 

on the top of the building owned by the Lerners, who are the owners of the ballpark, and it has this wonderful view of Washington, 

one of the great views of Washington, and I looked down and I 

said, what is being built there? Because there was a hole that 

hadn’t been built up, and it is surrounded by all kinds of buildings 

that are going up. And I was informed, Congresswoman, that is a 

hole in the ground. One of our leading construction companies was 

ordered to stop, it was to be a hotel. We love hotels. It is not a government building, the company was ordered to stop because the 

hotel had ‘‘lost,’’ had lost its financing. 

I don’t know if this Subcommittee can do anything about it, but 

I am steadily trying to find out as much as I can about it, because 

to the extent that there is anything we can do about it, I think we 

ought to make recommendations or somehow do what we can. 

Many are absolutely petrified that the Administration has become 

so concerned that it has become activists in the marketplace. 

So may I ask you to think about that subject, Mr. Larson, because he brings a very important view to this matter, and that is 

remember what the costs will be if you do not proceed? And you 

don’t have to think about Katrina to think about that; all you have 

to do is think about what is happening, as I speak, in the Midwest. 

If you want to talk damage, all you have to think about is what 

is the most common hazard in the United States of America, and 

you will come up with the word floods. And you are speaking to a 

Member who represents the District of Columbia, who saw floods 

44 

in one of our communities, to which we could only say, what? 

Floods that come from hurricanes and hurricanes you have in communities like this that don’t even have much in the way of hazards. 

So this Committee has jurisdiction over FEMA. It does not mean 

to mitigate that concern at all. Normally, the concern that Mr. 

Sterman raises would be of concern to us. It is of particular concern 

to us today. We do not believe that this is an ordinary kind of 

downturn of the kind we have seen for the last several years. We 

had one in, what, 2000? This has been an extraordinary economy. 

I was with the Speaker in India. We went to London, India, and 

Barcelona. There was talk of—and here we are on a climate change 

trip and, of course, in India talking about the U.S. nuclear deal, 

but everywhere we went there was not only concern, but stark evidence that what was happening here, sub-prime now spreading to 

other parts of the economy, had definitely spread to Europe, was 

definitely in India, where the Indians were looking for other 

funders now, funders other than Europe, other than the United 

States. 

So I am in a mood to take very seriously what is happening to 

the economy. I understand, we all appreciate that this is a cyclical 

economy. We know it will snap back. We know how strong it is. We 

don’t want to be part and parcel of worsening it at the same time 

that the Administration and the Congress is trying to relieve the 

effects on the economy through the mechanisms they have. We 

mean to be in harmony. We do not know how to do that. 

So I am not here saying, therefore, fill in the blanks. I am saying 

that with the very important testimony you have brought to the 

table, I am asking you to think about this subject in light of the 

twin risks, the risk of not proceeding rapidly—because the one 

thing we know even less about than the economy is what the next 

hazard will be—and the risk of a downturn that we may, ourselves, 

have aided and abetted by not being sufficiently flexible in thinking 

through this process that we are now going through. 

I want to thank each of you for really very important testimony 

that this Subcommittee will take into full account. Thank you 

again for coming. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:23 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

45 


41772.008
46 


41772.009
47 


41772.010
48 


41772.011
49 


41772.012
50 


41772.013
51 


41772.014
52 


41772.015
53 


41772.016
54 


41772.017
55 


41772.018
56 


41772.019
57 


41772.020
58 


41772.021
59 


41772.022
60 


41772.023
61 


41772.024
62 


41772.025
63 


41772.026
64 


41772.027
65 


41772.028
66 


41772.029
67 


41772.030
68 


41772.031
69 


41772.032
70 


41772.033
71 


41772.034
72 


41772.035
73 


41772.036
74 


41772.037
75 


41772.038
76 


41772.039
77 


41772.040
78 


41772.041
79 


41772.042
80 


41772.043
81 

Æ 


41772.044