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

42–252 PDF 2008

SAVING LIVES AND MONEY THROUGH 

THE PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION 

PROGRAMS 

(110–122) 

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 30, 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 

Bohlmann, Robert C., Director, York County Emergency Management Agency ........................................................................................................................... 9

Maurstad, David I., Assistant Administrator and Federal Insurance Administrator, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency ...... 3 

Mullen, James, Chairman, Mitigation Committee, National Emergency Management Association ............................................................................................ 9 

Woodworth, Brent, Chairman, Multihazard Mitigation Council, National Institute of Building Sciences ................................................................................. 9 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Altmire, Hon. Jason, of Pennsylvania .................................................................... 24 

Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes, of the District of Columbia ................................. 25 

Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota ................................................................. 27 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Bohlmann, Robert C. ............................................................................................... 30 

Maurstad, David I. .................................................................................................. 35 

Mullen, James .......................................................................................................... 39 

Woodworth, Brent .................................................................................................... 46 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Woodworth, Brent, Chairman, Multihazard Mitigation Council, National Institute of Building Sciences: 

‘‘Mitigation Generates Savings of Four to One and Enhances Community 

Resilience,’’ Natural Hazards Observer 30, no. 4 (March 2006) ................... 51 

Summary of Economic Analysis of Benefits and Costs of FEMA Hazard 

Mitigation Projects ........................................................................................... 55 

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

National Association of Regional Councils, Hon. Betty Knight, President, 

written statement ................................................................................................. 70 

vi 


42252.001
vii 


42252.002
viii 


42252.003
(1) 

SAVING LIVES AND MONEY THROUGH THE 

PREDISASTER MITIGATION PROGRAMS 

Wednesday, April 30, 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 9:07 a.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton 

[Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Ms. NORTON. I want to say good morning and welcome all of our witnesses and all who have come this morning. Today’s hearing 

will focus on the reauthorization of the Predisaster Mitigation Program authorized by section 203 of the Stafford Act, which is due 

to sunset on September 30th of this year. The Predisaster Mitigation Program was first authorized by this Committee in the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. The title of today’s hearing, Saving Lives and Money Through the Predisaster 

Mitigation Program, perfectly describes a program that saves far 

more than is invested. 

The Predisaster Mitigation Program is a companion for the 

Postdisaster Hazards Grant Mitigation Program, also authorized 

by this Committee in section 404 of the Stafford Act. The vast predominance of disasters in the country, of course, are from natural 

disasters. Examples of mitigation for such disasters include elevating or buying out structures in a floodplain and strengthening 

buildings to better withstand earthquakes or hurricanes. This program provides cost-effective technical and financial assistance to 

State and local governments to reduce injuries, loss of life, and 

damage to property that might otherwise be caused by natural disasters. 

The Predisaster Mitigation Program has been developed based on 

a successful pilot program, Project Impact. One often-cited example 

of the effectiveness of predisaster mitigation is from Washington 

State. Immediately after the Nisqually earthquake struck Seattle 

on February 28th, 2001, Seattle Mayor Paul Schell and other public officials cited predisaster mitigation grants that fortified buildings as one of the primary reasons that lives and property were 

saved during the earthquake. Ironically, the mayor’s statements 

came on the same day that the administration claimed that the 

project administration predisaster pilot program should be 

defunded because it was not effective. However, Congress had already written this program into law based upon compelling eviVerDate Aug 31 2005 18:04 May 07, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\42252 JASON
2 

dence that the Predisaster Mitigation Program is an investment 

that has shown it works. 

The evidence that had resulted in congressional action came from 

a successful pilot project and has been substantiated by anecdotal 

evidence such as provided by Seattle, and, more importantly, by 

empirical evidence provided later by two congressionally mandated 

studies. In 2005, the Multihazard Mitigation Council, part of the 

National Institute of Building Sciences, chaired by one of our witnesses today, found, quote, that a dollar spent on mitigation saves 

society an average of $4, end quote. 

The Congressional Budget Office issued a September 2007 report 

on the Predisaster Mitigation Program as required under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, which stated, and here I quote, the 

best available information suggests that on average future losses 

are reduced by about $3 for each dollar spent on those projects, including both Federal and non-Federal funding, end quote. 

Choose whatever study you prefer, but unavoidably money for 

this program has consistently been shown to provide an excellent 

return on investment. Today’s hearing will focus on investments in 

mitigation measures which affect the safety of infrastructure. The 

full Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is planning a 

hearing on other investment opportunities which also will focus on 

our Nation’s infrastructure needs. 

I am pleased to hear from our Ranking Member Mr. Graves. 

Mr. GRAVES. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I appreciate all of 

our witnesses being here today and taking the time to come by. 

Today’s hearing will focus on the reauthorization of the 

Predisaster Mitigation Program administered by FEMA. The 

Predisaster Mitigation Program under section 203 of the Stafford 

Act sunsets on September 20th, 2008. The Predisaster Mitigation 

Program was originally authorized by the Disaster Mitigation Act 

of 2000 as a pilot program to study the effectiveness of mitigation 

grants given to communities before disasters strike. Prior to the 

creation of the Predisaster Mitigation Program, hazard mitigation 

primarily occurred after a disaster through FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. 

Every disaster costs us in damages to homes, businesses, and infrastructure, and potentially in the loss of lives. The Predisaster 

Mitigation Program prevents damage and destruction by helping 

communities to act proactively through planning and projects that 

reduce the costs and limit the adverse impacts of future disasters. 

With FEMA’s assistance, local governments identify cost-effective 

mitigation projects. When approved, these projects may be funded 

by the Predisaster Mitigation Program, which operates as a competitive award grant program. Since its inception, the Predisaster 

Mitigation Program has assisted local communities across the 

country and has helped fund a wide range of mitigation projects 

such as mitigation plans, buyouts and improved shelters. 

In 2005, the National Institute of Building Sciences issued a 

study that conclusively demonstrated that Federal mitigation programs save the Federal Government money. Specifically, the study 

found that for every dollar spent on mitigation, the American taxpayer saves over $3 in Federal disaster payments. In short, mitigaVerDate Aug 31 2005 18:04 May 07, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\42252 JASON
3 

tion works. It saves lives, limits future damage, reduces Federal 

disaster costs. 

The Predisaster Mitigation Program is a worthy program, and I 

look forward to working with the Chair to reauthorize it this year. 

Again, I want to thank our witnesses for being here today, and I 

look forward to the testimony. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much. 

We will go to our first witness, and his full name is David 

Maurstad, who is Assistant Administrator and Federal Insurance 

Administrator of the Mitigation Directorate. Pardon me. You may 

proceed, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF DAVID I. MAURSTAD, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR AND FEDERAL INSURANCE ADMINISTRATOR, MITIGATION DIRECTORATE, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Good morning, Chairwoman Norton, Ranking 

Member Graves, Members of the Subcommittee. I am David 

Maurstad, FEMA Assistant Administrator for Mitigation. Thank 

you for the opportunity to testify today about the success of 

FEMA’s Predisaster Mitigation Grant Program and respectfully request reauthorization of the program. 

FEMA’s mission is to lead the Nation in an effort to prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from all hazards. This comprehensive emergency management system starts with mitigation: sustained efforts by communities, businesses, and individuals to reduce their vulnerability from future disasters. PDM has become an 

integral part of FEMA’s mitigation strategy by providing grants to 

States, territories, tribal governments and communities so that 

they can develop mitigation plans and implement mitigation activities before hazards strike. 

Community-level mitigation planning and activities save lives, 

reduce property damage, direct response and recovery efforts to 

where they are needed most, decrease reliance on Federal disaster 

funds, and reduce the financial impacts of disasters on the communities they strike as well as the Nation. All States and territories 

and more than 16,000 communities, involving approximately 64 

percent of the Nation’s population, now have mitigation plans. 

Many were funded by PDM. These plans not only help communities 

focus on reducing vulnerability to hazards, they open the door for 

PDM brick-and-mortar grants that support a wide range of cost-effective mitigation activities such as acquiring repetitively flooded 

homes; protecting utilities; and retrofitting, elevating or relocating 

hazard-prone homes and businesses. 

PDM’s basic premise, to help communities build stronger and 

smarter, is not new. FEMA has been facilitating community mitigation efforts since 1988, when the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program was created. An excellent example of a cost-effective HMGP 

project can be seen in Exhibit A. This photograph shows a coastal 

Mississippi home that was elevated using HMGP funds. Several 

years after the project was completed, this home was the only one 

left standing on a street ravaged by Hurricane Katrina’s storm 

surge. This HMGP success not only offers a clear example of mitiVerDate Aug 31 2005 18:04 May 07, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\42252 JASON
4 

gation’s effectiveness, but also underscores the fact that it often 

takes time to realize avoided losses. PDM, like the postdisaster 

HMGP, also funds elevations like the one shown in Exhibit A, and 

over time, States and communities will be able to highlight many 

similar successes. 

In Rutherford County, Tennessee, for example, State and local officials used PDM funds to acquire a flood-prone home. A family 

closed on the home in 1997 after conducting a reasonable and prudent examination of the pros and cons of purchasing. What this 

family did not know, however, was the home’s flood history. The 

home suffered 20 documented floods after it was purchased, with 

an annual recovery cost averaging $17,000. PDM funds enabled 

Rutherford County officials to acquire the property from the homeowner, demolish the structure, and return the property to open 

space, thus eliminating a persistent flood risk, and reduced the 

burden on the local services that protect the homeowner and his 

family from potential and actual flooding. 

These mitigation success stories show how States and communities can benefit from both types of mitigation assistance. 

PDM’s success leads FEMA to be optimistic about the program’s 

future, and in anticipation of reauthorization and related appropriations, the Agency is moving forward with the following grant 

cycle schedule: June 2nd, 2008, release of the unified hazard mitigation assistance guidance and opening of a 6-month application 

period; December 12th, 2008, close the application period and begin 

eligibility and completeness review; mid-January 2009, begin National Technical and Peer Evaluation Reviews; and in March of 

2009, finalize selections and begin preaward process. This projected 

aggressive schedule reflects feedback FEMA has received from our 

constituents, and is consistent with Congress’s desire that FEMA 

obligate all available PDM funding in a timely manner. 

The administration supports reauthorization of the Predisaster 

Mitigation Grant Program through 2013. Doing so for 5 more years 

will assure a stable and dependable source of mitigation funding, 

and will promote consistent community efforts to pursue mitigation 

planning and activities. Without PDM, I am afraid that the momentum we have developed over the last 5 years in States and 

communities across the Nation to address hazards before disasters 

strike will be lost. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify this morning. I look forward to any questions that you might have. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Maurstad, for that testimony that lays out some of the results. 

So I take it that, just for the record, that the administration does 

support reauthorization? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Yes, ma’am. Support reauthorization to 2013. 

Ms. NORTON. How many grants have you received, and how 

many have been awarded, please? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. I could get you—well, I am pretty sure I have got 

the number here. Through 2007 we have awarded 1,494 subapplications for projects and plans for a total of $485,359,000; 943 

were plans and 551 projects. As of today, 85 percent of the funds 

have been obligated, but all of the funds have been dedicated to 

particular projects. 

5 

Ms. NORTON. How many did you receive in total, Mr. Maurstad? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Generally speaking, in a grant cycle, for the five 

grant cycles, we have received two to three times the amount of requests for the funding that was available. 

Ms. NORTON. How do you evaluate? Here you have what looks 

like a very popular program, and a competitive program at that. 

But, by the way, do you think it should continue to be a competitive program? There have been some who have suggested that 

there should be some sort of formula. Which do you prefer? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. I think that first it is—as you indicated, it is a 

nationally competitive program. And I think the amount of the applications indicate that there is a great deal of mitigation work 

that can be done throughout the country. The benefits associated 

with the nationally competitive program is that the limited funding 

that is available goes to the best projects. That is done through a 

series of activities starting at the local level in developing the 

project, knowing that it is a competitive project. I think that puts 

additional emphasis for the communities to develop good projects. 

They then go to the State that also looks at the projects, determines the best projects to forward for the national competitive review. The regions look at them. 

But the benefits for the national peer review is consistency, to 

make sure that there is consistency with State and local plans, effective use of the resources, making sure that they have the proposed viability, likelihood of successful loss reduction. They go 

through technical review, engineering studies, make sure that they 

are again cost-effective. 

The last 2 years we have had a blended program. We have had 

a national competitive program, and we have also had a minimum 

set-aside for each State of $500,000. That has proved to be a very 

workable process that allows all States to participate in PDM, and 

believe that is a good way forward. 

Ms. NORTON. That is an important addition, the set-aside program. Of course, what you described as important in any competitive process are steps, and it is important for our grants—and most 

of our grants are competitive—for us to go through the kind of rigorous competition you have just suggested. And I think some have 

suggested a formula approach because of the sophistication needed 

in order to write such a grant. 

We have made no decision on that, but the notion that some 

areas or States or counties are more sophisticated than others to 

engage in the competition, do you have any views on that, on how, 

for example, people might be helped, whether or not there is some 

way that FEMA could offer some assistance to the jurisdictions 

that don’t have the technical sophistication or capability of writing 

a competitive grant in an area like this? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Well, first of all, I think there has been great 

progress made by all the States. This is a relatively new program, 

5 years now, and certainly over that period of time, the applications have improved because of the technical assistance that we 

provide, the training that we provide at both the State and the 

local level, and because a significant component of the national review is a peer review that involves both individuals from headquarters of FEMA, region FEMA, but also individuals from States 

6 

and local communities. We had over 40 members of the technical 

review from local communities. That has helped get information 

out as to—— 

Ms. NORTON. Are those people who help evaluate—— 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Yes, it is a peer review evaluation, and we include members on the team from State and local governments. 

Ms. NORTON. How are they chosen? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Primarily they are either advanced by the State, 

they come from one of the groups that is going to testify on the second panel, but they volunteer, essentially. So with the technical 

and training that we are doing, with the number of years now that 

the program has been under way, the involvement of State and 

local in the peer process, we believe the applications are becoming 

much better. 

The 500,000 set-aside, however, does allow all States, regardless 

of their size, which I think is maybe more important than their 

technical capability, to receive funding from PDM. And we believe 

that this blended process certainly has worked. But in the competitive process we have had winners, so to speak, from all the States. 

So everyone has the capability. 

Ms. NORTON. You have had from all the States? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Uh-huh. I believe we have, yes. 

Ms. NORTON. So virtually every State has received some funding? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Yes. Yes. 

Ms. NORTON. Now, the grants, of course, like all Federal grants, 

are administered at the local level, yet FEMA obviously is held responsible because it is Federal money. How do you monitor compliance with Federal requirements for these grants? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Well, first of all, we rely on the close working relationship between the regions and the States. But the State is the 

applicant, so they work with their local communities to make sure 

that the Federal laws are followed. We follow up to make sure that 

the programs—or, I mean, the applications and the projects do 

what they are intended to do. Of course, there are random audits 

by IG of all of our grant programs, and certainly if there are difficulties associated, we will recover those funds from the local communities or the State. 

So there is certainly the process, and the process is followed to 

make sure that the funds are spent like they are supposed to be 

spent. 

Ms. NORTON. In this country where we are used to dealing with 

crises, you have to sell the government, you have to sell people on 

dealing with crisis before it becomes a crisis. The American way, 

having much to do with the great good fortune of living in a country with our kind of resources, kind of innovation our people show, 

seldom prepares for something terrible. And so if there is something terrible, we go in and fix it the best way we can. So this program in a real sense goes against the grain because it says nothing 

has happened yet, and yet you should spend some money in case 

something happens. 

I ask you the program about compliance with Federal regulations 

because the program is new, and it has shown such results that if 

a concern arose because the money wasn’t being spent for something that hadn’t been authorized there, you would have somebody 

7 

saying, see there, we haven’t had a flood, and these people haven’t 

had a hurricane in 50 years, and these people are spending money; 

how come they are spending money on that rather than something 

else? So we are all trying to educate ourselves and the Congress, 

and, for that matter, the country, about why spending this money 

in this way is important to do. 

Now, Katrina is kind of a case in point, but not really, because 

I am not sure what kind of mitigation—of course, you could have 

had some. But no one is talking about spending huge amounts of 

money on mitigation, and certainly not the kind of mitigation that 

it would take to ward off an unforeseen hundred-year notion, although at the very moment, if I may say so, FEMA is going 

through just such a process, because we are indeed requiring people to look at what would happen in the case of a hundred-year 

flood. And there have been whining and groans throughout the 

country, including my own jurisdiction here, about how we have 

never had any flood or anything like that, why are we have having 

to do this? Why are we having to spend this money? So your testimony on what this program has done and how you monitor it is 

important for us to hear. 

Now we are going to hear some testimony that suggests that 

nonprofits, private nonprofits, should be allowed to be subapplicants for the program, as they offer some programs already 

under the Stafford Act. Would you support such a change in the 

legislation to allow, authorize private nonprofits to be a part of the 

program? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Before I get to that, could I make a comment on 

mitigation activities in the gulf coast based on what you said? 

Ms. NORTON. Please. 

Mr. MAURSTAD. There actually is quite a bit of mitigation going 

on in the gulf coast. We are going to have over 1 billion, 300 million dollars will be spent in Louisiana alone, nearly 500 million in 

Mississippi to help reduce that area’s vulnerability to future 

events. A lot of the State mitigation plans that are in both of those 

States were funded by mitigation dollars that will help those communities better prepare for the future. So there is a considerable 

investment going on in the gulf coast in mitigation. 

Ms. NORTON. Actually, I am very glad you intervened to make 

that point and to correct the impression that I have left that somehow if you are having an unforeseen matter, there is no mitigation 

to be done. You are absolutely correct, Mr. Maurstad. 

Mr. MAURSTAD. And you do, you have outlined the challenge that 

mitigation faces and why the report that the Congress required has 

been so helpful, the CBO report. The private sector now is far 

more—is recognizing far more the benefits also associated with 

mitigation, and is helping spur local governments and individuals 

to take these activities that are long-term investments in reducing 

our vulnerability. 

As far as the private nonprofits, they really have a mechanism 

right now, certainly different than in some grant programs, to 

apply for predisaster mitigation funds in working with a local community to sponsor their application with the State. Now, some communities have deemed that the nonprofit either has resources to do 

the activities on their own or have other priorities, as is what may 

8 

be the case at the State. So we certainly—it certainly can be workable within our process if it is the desire of Congress to allow them 

to work directly with the States. Quite frankly, we are just looking 

for as many good mitigation possibilities out there as we can, as 

we can find. 

Ms. NORTON. Apparently there is some evidence that relatively 

small communities would have a better chance of competing for a 

grant if, for example, a private university were to—rather than the 

State, which doesn’t, or the local jurisdiction which doesn’t have 

the particular expertise. Again, we don’t have particular evidence 

on it. We are just trying to widen the competition to make sure 

that all—— 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Exactly why competition is one of the issues; because of the limited funding that is available, you have more people 

competing for the same amount. So that is one of the difficulties. 

But again, what we are looking for is the best mitigation opportunities out there and to help those that want to develop those types 

of projects. 

One point I forgot to mention that we are improving on is one 

of the issues that has been raised to me since the beginning of 

PDM was the cost-benefit in association with how to determine 

cost-benefit. We have made great strides in working with our State 

partners in better understanding cost-benefit, how that analysis 

should be done. And we are coming out with a new software tool 

that is going to again make that process more—easier for the applicants to comply with. 

Ms. NORTON. I think that the Committee itself may want to look 

at some of our economic development project areas or areas which 

have not been able to be economic development project areas. That 

is where we have lots of competition for EDA funds. And I have 

in mind some of those areas where you are dealing with rural communities where you couldn’t begin to get the kind of expertise within the community except through some kind of university or the 

like. 

You made a good point, though, Mr. Maurstad: Widen the competition for limited funds. 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Yeah, ma’am, if I may be so bold to interrupt, 

I come from a very small community, 12,500 people, and my old 

hometown after I left, they were successful recently in this competition for a PDM grant. So I think we are providing the technical 

assistance and the training that really any community that is interested in being able to put together a competitive grant application can do so. It really starts with the will at the local level to 

want to make a commitment to mitigation. 

Ms. NORTON. Finally, could I ask what you do when you, for example, as a mitigation acquire a property, return it to open space, 

are there permanent restrictions on the use of that property once 

it is declared open space? How is that put in place? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Yes, there are. Because the local community is 

the subapplicant, and because it is on a willing-buyer/willing-seller 

basis, the community takes the deed and then deed-restricts the 

property for open space. And so it cannot be turned back to development. And we have been very successful in all of our grant proVerDate Aug 31 2005 18:04 May 07, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\42252 JASON
9 

grams. We have returned about 6,000 acres of previously developed 

property to open space. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Maurstad. Very 

good testimony. 

And we would like to call the final witnesses: James Mullen, 

chairman of the Mitigation Committee of the National Emergency 

Management Association; Greg Woodworth, chairman of the Multihazard Mitigation Council of the National Institute of Building 

Sciences; and Robert C. Bohlmann, director of the York County 

Emergency Management Agency. We can just go left to right then. 

Mr. Mullen? 

TESTIMONY OF JAMES MULLEN, CHAIRMAN, MITIGATION 

COMMITTEE, NATIONAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION; BRENT WOODWORTH, CHAIRMAN, MULTIHAZARD 

MITIGATION COUNCIL, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF BUILDING 

SCIENCES; AND ROBERT C. BOHLMANN, DIRECTOR, YORK 

COUNTY EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY 

Mr. MULLEN. Thank you, Chairwoman Norton, Ranking Member 

Graves, and distinguished Members of Committee, for allowing me 

the opportunity to provide you with a statement for the record on 

the Predisaster Mitigation Program. In my statement I am representing the National Emergency Management Association, 

NEMA, whose members are the State emergency management directors. 

The PDM program works as a companion to the Postdisaster 

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. PDM means we don’t have to 

wait until a disaster occurs to take mitigation actions, and the program broadens the Nation’s efforts both geographically and in 

terms of the hazards that may be addressed. 

As Congress considers the Predisaster Mitigation Program’s reauthorization, adequate funding levels are needed to give the program the opportunity to demonstrate real value for the investments. NEMAsupports the program’s reauthorization and looks forward to working with Congress to improve the program. 

The title of DMA2K that authorizes the PDM program is scheduled to sunset on September 30th, 2008. Again, we ask for Congress to reauthorize this critical program before that September 

30th, 2008, sunset as any funds appropriated cannot be used after 

the sunset date. We believe that PDM is an important program and 

is making significant strides to mitigate against future disasters. 

Before coming to my current position with the State of Washington, I served as the city of Seattle’s emergency management director and was intimately involved in developing Seattle’s Project 

Impact pilot program, a public-private partnership that addressed 

and identified mitigation needs and promoted corrective strategies. 

The February 28, 2001, Nisqually earthquake demonstrated to the 

city and to the Nation there was significant value to that program. 

Many of the actions taken to retrofit and seismically protect buildings were helpful in preventing further damage, most notably in 

schools. We believe that these efforts saved the lives of schoolchildren in one school in particular. 

While Project Impact provided value, there was concern that the 

communities were not being chosen in coordination with the State 

10 

emergency management agency, nor were the projects. PDM does 

allow for this coordination, particularly with the State’s required 

hazard mitigation plan and identified projects. And while NEMA 

has concerns about some aspects of the PDM program, we remain 

firm that the program’s reauthorization is particularly important. 

PDM is a young program that is still evolving, and FEMA’s Mitigation Division has worked very closely with the State emergency 

management directors to listen to our input and respond to our position papers, even though we do not always agree. 

NEMA believes there are a couple of areas that do need to be 

looked at with respect to PDM. First, NEMA initially sought for 

PDM to be a formula-based program in which every State had a 

chance to receive funding. A competitive program, as is current 

practice, severely limits the ability of smaller States and those with 

less frequent disasters to successfully apply for and receive grants. 

Science cannot accurately predict where the next disaster may be 

or what kind of disaster may be faced. Attempting to prioritize limited predisaster mitigation funding on the national level is counterproductive to the establishment of State and local planning; therefore, NEMA supports the distribution of predisaster mitigation 

funds by a base-plus-population formula rather than by competitive 

grants. 

The competitive system as it is presently funded creates more 

losers than winners. In an enterprise that seeks to encourage communities to protect themselves, it seems counterproductive to pit 

good programs against good programs where the objective is to promote the development of community predisaster mitigation programs overall. For small States and local jurisdictions, the cost of 

preparing the applications and the energy consumed through the 

various reviews are substantial and burdensome, particularly so 

when a good program is denied funding. 

Secondly, we would like a longer rolling application window to 

allow States and communities to begin applications even before 

funding is available, because priority lists are based on the State 

plans that are already in place. One of the issues is the timing of 

the application process over the holidays and disaster declarations. 

Finally, more technical assistance is needed to help States and 

communities before receiving the grants, as that would assist with 

the costly environmental and historic impact reviews. 

Thanks in large part to PDM funding, about 85 percent of the 

6-1/2 million people who live in the State of Washington live in 

communities that have developed hazard mitigation plans envisioned by DMA2K and funded in large part by PDM grants. I want 

to share with you just one key example from Washington State 

that illustrates the importance of this program. 

Edmonds, Washington, School District obtained a 3 million PDM 

grant in 2005 to help it retrofit nine of its schools from earthquakes. The total project price is $8 million, and the project will 

be completed in the coming months. This project is important because the school district sits at the south end of the South Whidbey 

Island Fault, which scientists now tell us is the most dangerous 

earthquake fault in the State. The largest project the State of 

Washington anticipates funding through the Hazard Mitigation 

Grant Program in the next few years is $1-1/2 million. 

11 

The President’s budget proposal includes 75 million in funding 

for the Predisaster Mitigation Program. The funding level is a $39 

million decrease compared to fiscal year 2008 funding levels. Additionally, the program contained significant earmarks in 2008, thus 

reducing the amount available for State and local governments to 

openly apply to be considered for the grants. The program funding 

is sorely under the national need, especially with the original intent of the law to provide each State with a portion of funding so 

lessons learned from disasters could be taken advantage of by all 

States. Each year FEMA typically receives requests for grants 

averaging over $450 million. 

With such low levels of funding, the Predisaster Mitigation Program has never been fully able to address the intent of DMA2K. 

In 2005, Multihazard Mitigation Council published a study that 

found that every $1 FEMA invested into mitigation projects saves 

society approximately $4. The same study also showed that every 

dollar spent on hazard mitigation saved the Federal Treasury $3.65 

in postdisaster relief and increased Federal tax revenues. These 

findings are vitally important to knowing that Federal investments 

are getting a strong return, as well as the 25 percent cost share 

that State and local governments contribute to the PDM grants 

upon award. 

In conclusion, Congress has continued to support PDM by reauthorizing this program three times. We must continue to build national preparedness efforts with a multihazard approach aimed at 

reducing lives lost and damage to property. We ask that Congress 

ensure that PDM authorization doesn’t expire, and that a strong 

reauthorization is passed this summer. Thank you very much. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Mullen. 

Mr. Woodworth? 

Mr. WOODWORTH. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, Ranking 

Member Graves, and Members of the Subcommittee and distinguished guests. I truly appreciate this opportunity to speak with 

you today concerning a very important subject, the need for, the 

benefits of investing in predisaster mitigation. 

My name again is Brent Woodworth, and I am president and 

CEO of a company called Global Crisis Services, which is an international risk and management consulting firm, but I also chair the 

Multihazard Mitigation Council, which is a voluntary advisory 

council of the congressionally authorized nonprofit NIBS, or National Institute of Building Sciences, which is why I am here today. 

We are responding—we worked with FEMA in developing a 

study to take a look at the benefits of predisaster mitigation. The 

study included a review of FEMA grants, which included the 

FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, Project Impact, and the 

Flood Mitigation Assistance Programs, from 1993 through 2003. 

Over 5,000 grants were reviewed. The study was completed in 2005 

and clearly shows that FEMA’s mitigation grants have been extremely effective in reducing future losses from earthquake, wind, 

and flood. We were very, very pleased with these results, and again 

shared them up the line. 

In taking a look at the study, we used a number of statistically 

representative samples to look at both project and process mitigation activities. The project activities included such things as brickVerDate Aug 31 2005 18:04 May 07, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\42252 JASON
12 

and-mortar efforts, which might be elevating a house above flood 

level, installing hurricane clips, or bolting down a foundation. Process activities are aimed at increasing awareness and fostering mitigation action, including stimulating communities to adopt up-todate building codes, purchase flood insurance, or update their disaster recovery plans. 

We used some sophisticated modeling techniques in using our 

study, including software such as the HAZUSMH software tool to 

help analyze some of the earthquake and flood analysis. Bottom 

line, the total mitigation investment expenditure during the study 

period was $3.5 billion. The financial benefit to the population from 

investing in mitigation efforts during the study period was valued 

at approximately $14 billion, using 2004 as a constant dollar figure. Dividing the mitigation benefit by the mitigation expenditure 

yielded a benefit-cost ratio of 4 to 1. 

The second part of our study, we also took a look at in-depth examination of eight different selected communities. Our findings 

there showed that the FEMA mitigation grant funds utilized by 

each of these communities was also highly cost-effective and led to 

additional non-Federal-funded mitigation activities. Communities 

have the greatest benefit when those particular funds were institutionalized into hazard mitigation programs, and it inspired a lot of 

activities within the community. 

This brings me to our conclusions. First, mitigation is cost-effective and warrants Federal funding on an ongoing basis, both before 

disasters strike and during postdisaster recovery efforts. The Nation will always be vulnerable to natural disasters, and therefore 

it is only prudent to invest in mitigation. As the British philosopher Henry de Bracton in 1240 stated, an ounce of prevention is 

worth a pound of cure. 

Number two, predisaster mitigation grant programs should not 

rely solely on benefit-cost ratios as the selection criteria for investment. Not all benefits can be easily measured. For example, the 

benefit of moving structures out of a known floodplain can be quantified, but it is difficult to measure the benefit of the same land 

being reclaimed as naturalized wetlands or converted into a community recreation area. Even more difficult to measure is the benefit of reducing the stress people feel when constantly threatened 

by some of these disaster events. 

Finally, number three, mitigation is most effective when it is carried out on a comprehensive, communitywide, long-term basis. Single projects can help, but carrying out a coordinated set of mitigation activities over time is the best way to ensure that communities 

will be physically, socially, and economically resilient in coping 

with future hazards. 

Our recommendations to this Committee are as follows: One, invest in natural hazard mitigation as a matter of policy. This should 

be done on an ongoing basis, both before and during and after disasters. Number two, give FEMA the ability to consider benefits to 

society in the broadest possible sense. And finally, number three, 

support mitigation activities that will build the resilience of communities by helping to fund programs that increase knowledge on 

the basis of mitigation, promote public- and private-sector investVerDate Aug 31 2005 18:04 May 07, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\42252 JASON
13 

ment, and motivate community members to engage in collaborative 

preparedness efforts. 

In closing, we appreciate this opportunity and clearly urge you 

to reauthorize the PDM program. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Woodworth. 

Mr. Bohlmann. 

Mr. BOHLMANN. Good morning, Chairman Norton, Ranking 

Member Graves, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. 

I am Robert Bohlmann, the emergency manager and homeland security director for York County, Maine, and I am representing the 

International Association of Emergency Managers this morning. 

We believe that the PDM is an important program, and urge Congress to quickly take action to reauthorize it prior to the PDM’s 

scheduled sunset on September 30th, 2008. 

An adequate level of funding is necessary to ensure the success 

of PDM. The number of applications received this year would indicate there is a great need and an interest. The 75 percent Federal 

cost share of the 446 applications received this year would have totaled over $317 million, which far exceeds the $52 million available 

for competitive grants. 

We understand there are concerns about the amount of PDM 

funding in prior years that remain in the FEMA account. We believe that the origin of the confusion regarding these funds is related specifically to the fact that even after a project is selected and 

the funding dedicated, it is not yet officially obligated. 

IAEM members firmly believe that the PDM program is an investment in the community, the State, and the Nation. Included in 

my written statement are examples of benefits of PDM projects. 

One of them is York Beach, a tourist community in York County, 

Maine, which was especially hard hit by the Mother’s Day flooding 

event of 2006. The project will place a gate on the ocean outfall, 

so that the silt cannot fill the catch basins. When this project is 

completed, 26 businesses will be able to remain open during the 

tourist season. The construction of this project will keep 200 jobs 

in place in the community, and keep the community producing tax 

revenue at the local and State level, as well as provide a great 

place to vacation during the summer. 

We would like to suggest several possible improvements to the 

program. Our suggestions include FEMA should allow direct application of eligible private nonprofits. An eligible private nonprofit 

such as a college or a hospital can apply to the State as a subapplicant for Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and for assistance 

under FEMA public assistance; however, for the predisaster mitigation grant they are required to find an entity such as a city or a 

county to serve as the subapplicant on their behalf. This is an unnecessary and burdensome step, and we urge the Committee to 

work with FEMA on either a legislative change or a legislative interpretation which would allow PNPs to apply directly to the State. 

In many circumstances, PNPs have not been able to apply because 

already understaffed agencies are unwilling to serve as subapplicants. 

FEMA should allow a cost escalation factor to cover costs of price 

increases. It may be 24 months or more from the time a vendor’s 

14 

estimate is obtained for a project application to the actual time of 

beginning construction. 

FEMA should simplify the cost-benefit analysis. 

FEMA should allow more time for preparing applications. We believe that any additional time allowed to applicants in this process 

would result in higher-quality applications for projects. 

In closing, we urge the Committee to reauthorize the program. 

We would appreciate consideration of improving the PDM program 

by allowing eligible private nonprofits to apply directly to the State 

as subapplicants, by including a cost escalation factor, and by simplifying the cost-benefit analysis, and by allowing more time for 

thoughtful applications. 

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

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

Mr. Mullen, you speak of the formula approach. How would you 

justify a formula approach, which would mean, I guess, that every 

State—and we already have a set-aside for every State—if it would 

mean that some legitimate projects of far more need would not get 

the funds that in any priority ranking they might otherwise receive? 

Mr. MULLEN. Well, Madam Chairwoman, there are two ways of 

looking at this, I think, and one is that local governments and 

State governments need to have some certainty. Having been a 

local official for some time, it takes a lot to build the kind of community coalition to do the application process and get everyone excited about doing the work. And sometimes an emergency manager 

at the local level has to choose to do that as opposed to some other 

task that they are already understaffed for that they have to do. 

We spend a lot of time trying to get through the week at the local 

level. And so it is very difficult from a State perspective to say you 

need to ratchet up and do this work when they are not sure whether or not they are going to get funded or not or have any hope if 

it is a program of merit. 

I think the problem here, the second part I want to say, is programs of merit are not getting funded now. And going back to my 

testimony, I would have to mention that science can’t tell us where 

the next disaster will be. And one of the ways we can get consensus 

around mitigation in this country is to really promote everybody 

looking at their risks, their threats on the basis of their particular 

requirements and have some sense of certainty that at least their 

best projects will surface. And I do believe that that wouldn’t replace a peer review or anything else. It wouldn’t be competitive, 

though. The peer review then could be supportive and helpful and 

advisory in terms of you can make your project stronger if you do 

this. So I believe that would be my answer to that. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Woodworth or Mr. Bohlmann, do you have a 

view on that matter? 

Mr. WOODWORTH. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

In looking at bringing in private and nonprofits, our particular 

view is that mitigation projects need to be broad-based, across the 

community, and have the greatest value they possibly can. 

Ms. NORTON. But I am asking about the formula basis as opposed to competitive basis. 

15 

Mr. WOODWORTH. That I understand. And in putting together a 

formula to help meet that particular requirement, we haven’t 

looked at what the specific formulas would be to do that. We are 

not opposed to it as long as it impacts the widest possible community as a result of the formula so that the greatest number of citizens within the community can indeed benefit from the formula. 

Ms. NORTON. You, Mr. Bohlmann, do you have a view? 

Mr. BOHLMANN. I became aware of this when I read Mr. Mullen’s 

testimony last evening, and I have not had a lot of time to go over 

it. And I did talk to our leadership quickly, and we really don’t 

have a solid position on it. We have not had issues in our communities with what has happened in the past by the competitive 

grant. And I think we have to do a little bit more study and have 

some more detail on this to see where our association is actually 

going to stand. 

Ms. NORTON. Given the amount of money, there would be a presumption, I have to say to you, gentlemen, in favor of competition. 

I bring some experience from another Committee on which I serve, 

the Homeland Security Committee, which also has jurisdiction over 

FEMA for other disasters, disasters related to terrorism. And, of 

course, we started out with something of a formula, and we still 

have the legacy of something of a formula. And we have had some 

terrible examples of places where you would not expect al Qaeda 

to search out on a map receiving funds, while places, according to 

all the chatter, where terrorists seek, cry for funds. 

So the notion of every State, some of whom have constant natural disasters, and some who rarely have them, raises in me a presumption or at least a burden that those who want the formula 

would have to bear. I am not closed to the idea. The Homeland Security experience has been horrible, because people think up 

projects if they know that there is a formula. That said, the Committee is open to looking at various ways to fund this program. 

Mr. MULLEN. Madam Chairwoman? 

Ms. NORTON. Yes. 

Mr. MULLEN. I actually have a comment relevant to that. The 

EMGP program is a formula program much like—— 

Ms. NORTON. Which program? 

Mr. MULLEN. The EMPG, Emergency Management Performance 

Grant program, is a formula program. Also one of the problems 

that maybe we are dealing with is there is insufficient money in 

the pipeline altogether. The program that asks for $450 million and 

only has 100 million or so in it creates more losers than winners, 

and that isn’t productive if we are trying to promote mitigation. So 

the insufficiency of the funding at this level, I think, indicates that 

we have got to find a way to bridge the gap between the need and 

what we are able to deliver. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, there is certainly an argument to be made to 

do both. The mitigation program assures, yes, there is a baseline 

ability of every community to handle a natural disaster. The what 

I can only call a tiny amount of money in this pot may also speak 

up on its own behalf about how the money should be distributed. 

Could I ask you, Mr. Woodworth, I was very interested in your 

formula, and CBO came back with something close—yours was $1 

16 

invested—$4 for every $1 invested. They have $3 for every $1 invested in savings. Could you say a word about your methodology? 

Mr. WOODWORTH. Yes, Madam Chairman. The difference between those two is that we did look at slightly different disasters. 

When you take a look at what the CBO report covered, it went beyond the three elements that we touched on, which were primarily 

wind, earthquake and flood. They also included fire and tornadoes 

and some other elements in additional detail beyond what was in 

our particular study. 

The other difference is some of the discounting factors that were 

used in evaluating value of life over time, et cetera. In the CBO 

study they do comment that the numbers that they have on things 

such as wind and flood pretty much match with what the MMC 

study is. There were some variations on the earthquake side based 

on the samples that they took versus the samples that we took, 

which were completely random. So we saw that mathematical variance between the two, but in both cases we considered it a fairly 

small variance. 

The positive news is that, of course, a 3-to-1 or a 4-to-1 benefitcost ratio is very good. And some of the things that also would impact that over time are we are looking at analyzing the frequency 

of disasters, the magnitude of potential consequences of disasters 

and so forth as to how you truly value them. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you. 

Yes, CBO has acknowledged that its own estimates have been 

low. 

Mr. Bohlmann, I am very intrigued by parts of your testimony 

on page 4 about not letting cost-benefit analysis, traditional costbenefit analysis, be the sole determinant regarding the effectiveness of these programs. And you speak about indirect benefits. 

Could you give an example of indirect benefits? And could you indicate how you think one might quantify or otherwise evaluate indirect benefits coming from the program? 

Mr. BOHLMANN. Of course a cost-benefit analysis is a common 

way of doing it, but there are a lot of indirect benefits from these 

programs that we have seen out there in large communities and 

small communities. And that is the spin-off, as I mentioned in my 

testimony, of the communities where it may be just the access, allowing folks to go to work, allowing fire apparatus in. It is hard to 

put into a cost-benefit, but it is a tremendous benefit to the community. And those are the things that local emergency managers 

try to measure as well as purely the cost-benefit analysis. 

Ms. NORTON. It is intriguing. Open space, for example, I am not 

sure how you would evaluate that, but communities might evaluate 

that very highly. 

You have a view on that, too, Mr. Woodworth? 

Mr. WOODWORTH. Yes, Madam Chairman. In looking at some of 

the benefits of mitigation that are not as tangible, for example, we 

talk a lot about environmentally green activities, and one of the 

things that is a benefit of investing in predisaster mitigation, making structures more sound or taking them out of flood areas, is 

frankly a reduction in debris when there is a disaster, so there is 

less debris and garbage, et cetera, to handle in those events. Another example I mentioned was just measuring the reduction in 

17 

stress and the ability of people to feel an ability to go back to work 

more effectively following a disaster, or even eliminating that 

stress through predisaster mitigation activities. Those things can 

have a very significant impact on social, economic, environmental 

issues. 

Ms. NORTON. I think the challenge for us is to find ways to measure some of these, and until we do, we are stuck with how government measures effects of its programs. But what we are not stuck 

with is excessive bureaucracy. 

I want to just put on the record once again from the time I ran 

a Federal agency until this very moment, I can tell you that bureaucracy—not that we have heard much in the way of complaints 

about this program, but I can understand why it leads people to 

hate government. They can’t get to the issues that government is 

supposed to deal with. And government feels, of course, that it is 

dealing with taxpayer money, and it has got to go through a process. So my concern always is are we performing the government 

function itself in the most efficient and low-cost way? And when it 

comes to applying for a program out of which funds come, I would 

be very interested in what you would have to say about whether 

you believe there are ways to streamline this particular process. 

Ms. NORTON. You heard me ask Mr. Maurstad about the technical way in which the applications have to be presented. 

Would you, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Woodworth, or Mr. Bohlmann, have 

any suggestions about unnecessary requirements of the process or 

ways to streamline the process itself that could be helpful to us in 

the authorization? 

Mr. MULLEN. Madam Chairman, I will take a stab at that. 

I think it is very helpful to consider the notion of a rolling application process, which I mentioned in my testimony and which Mr. 

Maurstad referenced, which is that the idea of having more than 

a 3-month window to apply is very important. In the last 2 years, 

in 2006 and in 2007, we had three Presidential-declared disasters 

in the middle of that. I have a staff that is of a reasonably good 

size, but when we have a Presidential disaster and floods all over 

western Washington and storms that cut out 3 million people with 

power for 2 weeks, we have to put all hands on deck to deal with 

that. So my mitigation person comes in from the—— 

Ms. NORTON. How much lead time, do you think? 

Mr. MULLEN. I think the 6 months is good. We would like 10 

months, but 6 months is certainly a vast improvement, and it is a 

sign of the responsiveness that I mentioned also in my testimony 

also in the mitigation division. They have been very helpful in listening to us and in processing our requests and in evaluating our 

needs, and so I am encouraged by 6 months. If I ask for 10 and 

he gives me 6 and we are at 3 months, we are making good 

progress. 

Ms. NORTON. You are getting somewhere, Mr. Mullen—— 

Mr. MULLEN. Yes. 

Ms. NORTON. —because we do not want the time period to be 

such that it gets postponed. If it is only going to last 3 months, we 

are back where we were, but I certainly take your point. We are 

learning this new program essentially. We are learning the process. 

So we want to—particularly for the areas that are of concern the 

18 

most and that have the least expertise, we do not want time to be 

able to work against them. 

Do either the rest of you have suggestions along those lines? 

Mr. BOHLMANN. I will take a stab at that as well. 

I think the 6-month extended period does help us a lot, and anything that can be done to reduce the application process would be 

helpful, especially in our smaller States and in our smaller communities. The technical training that is being offered by FEMA has 

improved, and I think that if they can enhance that even more, it 

would help. When you get down to the small, rural community, you 

have probably three full time municipal employees in the whole 

community, and a lot of the work is done by volunteers. We actually had a case in Maine where the lead person on a very large 

project was a volunteer who stepped up to the plate, and he pushed 

this process through, and it worked extremely well, but you do not 

find that capability in every small community. So, for any help that 

can be given in technical expertise to make those communities 

more viable to apply, the need is there. There is a tremendous need 

for mitigation all the way around in small and large communities, 

and there has to be a process, and it has to be one that is valid, 

which they certainly have with the peer review. 

Again, the process needs to be as easy as we can make it. An extended time frame as we have stretched out now—and even the 10 

months would be good because it does take time to bring these together and to make a good project if it is going to go on a competitive basis nationally. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, in this case, time really is money for many 

communities that have the time to do it. They may, in fact, be better able to compete in the process. 

Mr. Woodworth. 

Mr. WOODWORTH. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I also believe that having at least the 6 months is very reasonable, of which Director Maurstad spoke, but I believe down at the 

local level we really have to do a job of training and education on 

how to fill out these forms; what applies and what does not; some 

great examples of grants that have been accepted; others that 

would not be accepted, so that the local community has a far better 

understanding of how to actively compete for these. 

Ms. NORTON. Let me ask you a question. I think especially it is 

for Mr. Bohlmann. Actually, I would like all of you to take a stab 

at it. And that is suggestions regarding tightening building codes 

and zoning codes to help prevent damage and disaster. You know, 

if you think of something that on the surface may seem, of course, 

to be no cost, of course, communities may regard it as costly because it determines where people build, who people build. If you 

are looking at the funding, if you are looking at building codes that 

could help prevent a disaster or a zoning that could help prevent 

a disaster, you cannot help but think, my goodness, why isn’t this 

community helping itself simply by its own building codes and zoning codes to prevent disasters which it may see coming time and 

again or which it may know is going to come? 

Do you have views on this notion? If so, how might it be accomplished? How important is it or isn’t it in this mitigation work? 

19 

Mr. BOHLMANN. Well, I believe it is very important. However, I 

have to couch this a little bit. I come from New England. New England is very steep in, ′′do not tell me how to do things.′′ 

Ms. NORTON. So is the rest of the country. 

Mr. BOHLMANN. Well, I was trying to keep it localized. 

A lot of our communities started out very small, and as growth 

came, they did not lean forward and put zoning into place. Now 

they are looking at that, but in many cases, the damage is already 

done. We have got buildings built in areas that, under today’s 

standards, you probably would not, and with today’s building codes, 

you might not allow some of those buildings. So we already have 

a lot of those places in harm’s way that we have to look at, but I 

think we do need to work much harder with our communities to 

move forward with good planning. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, one way is, for example, to ask you whether 

you think it should be a factor in evaluating applications. 

Mr. BOHLMANN. Definitely. Definitely. 

Building codes and what they are doing to upgrades certainly 

should be a factor. I mean, we do not want to rebuild again and 

again. Of course, the open space is answering some of that. 

Mr. MULLEN. Madam Chairman, I have kind of a longer view of 

this. 

It is interesting that the first time that FEMA in the previous 

administration approached me about Project Impact was in September of 1997. The immediate assumption was that we would run 

out and upgrade our building codes. It is interesting you would say 

that. We did four other things because we felt we could actually address those more easily. It is, oftentimes, that emergency managers 

are not in the zoning and building code food chains, so with a program like this, we deal with what we think is an immediate problem. But I will say there are a couple of things. 

First, in order for people to adjust codes, they need information 

that says it is more valuable to take the cost and the burden and 

the political challenge of tightening a code. It is important to do 

that so that a bad thing does not happen. So people have to know 

what the risk is and know that this measure that is being proposed 

will match the risk. That is a local discussion that takes place. 

I would say, in my State—and I cannot speak for other States— 

but in my State, we have pretty robust earthquake codes because 

of the seismic activity we have experienced over the years, and that 

has helped us a great deal. What really has to happen, I believe, 

nationally is that mitigation itself has to get back into the dialogue. 

It has to be discussed. It has not really been considered a primary 

element for a number of years in this country. Even in emergency 

management circles, there were times, frankly, in the early years 

of the century where you whispered the word ′′mitigation,′′ and people kept trying to find another word for ′′mitigation.′′ 

Mitigation, I think, has survived all of that. I think I see a comeback from all quarters among all of those others of us who are committed to disaster mitigation. I think we need to change the dialogue and bring up and really challenge local governments and 

State governments and the Federal Government to treat mitigation 

as a very critical priority. It is so much cheaper to avert damage 

than to repair it. It makes perfect sense. 

20 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Woodworth. 

Mr. WOODWORTH. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

From a zoning and building code standpoint, I think building 

codes play a very, very important part. As part of the NIBS board, 

we have seen that time and time again. 

From an earthquake example, if you look at the enforcement and 

the development of codes and at the use of codes in California for 

earthquake and then compare seismic activity that has occurred in 

the past to other countries which do not necessarily have those 

kinds of building codes, we can see dramatic examples of the huge 

advantage and the benefits in a reduction of damage, in saving 

lives, in increased productivity and so forth by implementing those 

codes. Things down in hurricane area, such as hurricane clips, bolting down foundations, putting on shutters, are all of huge benefit 

in reducing losses. There are a lot of inventions that continue to 

come out in the marketplace which help focus on this area. 

Just to comment, I know Popular Science, a magazine, about a 

year and a half ago had their invention of the year that was actually a nail, and it was a nail that had a flatter head. It was then 

twisted and ribbed, and when used on construction projects, it 

would actually increase the holding strength of the structure by 

more than two to one over conventional nails. Yet, the cost to build 

a house with this was less than a $15 difference than building with 

standard nails. So we are seeing many things that are out there 

that can help us increase the resiliency of structures in high-risk 

areas, and I think we are all in favor of where it makes sense applying the building codes properly. 

Ms. NORTON. This is very, very important testimony. Every community, as Mr. Bohlmann says—this is America, after all—does its 

own cost-benefit analysis when it comes to something like building 

codes. More power to them. 

The problem I have is I have a hard time as Chair of this Subcommittee justifying spending Federal dollars, for example, for 

mitigation for a community that did not want to take any steps 

itself, a community that was flood prone, for example, and decided 

that they wanted a grant, but slight changes in its building codes 

was something that it did not want to make. I understand the political ramifications of these things, and the government certainly 

would never mandate such things, but when it comes to government dollars, it does seem to me that one factor ought to be, what 

has this community done to help itself that we can reinforce with 

the very small amount of government funding we have available in 

the first place? You have got to have some way to eliminate people. 

You heard the testimony that there were—what?—three to one, 

the number of applications. Well, how do you sort that out when 

all of these people who have taken the time and effort must desperately want this grant? It is not an easy grant to apply for. Well, 

you have to have some criteria that are fair in sorting out, so you 

get down to those you are going to consider. 

What Mr. Graves said with our first witness was so straightforward. He did not have any particular questions. I have gone on. 

I want to ask him if he has anything further to ask this panel. 

21 

We found your testimony very, very helpful. We would like to 

look more—or at least I would like to have the Subcommittee look 

more into eligible nonprofits. 

I suppose my final question to you would be: Do you think that 

there is a substantial number of communities that would have no 

way whatsoever to compete without the help of a local expert like 

a university or a hospital or other nonprofit or do you think maybe 

that is one way we ought to use and eliminate people? Remember, 

I indicated we have got to find some way to decide who gets in the 

final pool. Would what amounts to increasing the pool by allowing 

some communities which do not have the capability to rely on an 

eligible nonprofit for the application process be an indicated thing 

to do in your judgment? 

Do any of you have views on that? 

Mr. MULLEN. Madam Chairwoman, I am getting two questions 

out of that. Let me try to answer them as fully as I can. 

I think that the nonprofit issue is something that is interesting 

to me. I would have to go back and consult with the mitigation 

committee, my colleagues at NEMA, to see what the range of views 

would be across the Nation. It is a pretty diverse group, and I 

would really want to know what kind of feelings they had about 

that before I commented for NEMA. 

Ms. NORTON. This is new to us, and we know it is allowed, 

though. We have allowed it before, so I suppose what would convince me is not so much opinion as some indication that there are 

substantial numbers of communities that are in terrible need that 

might, indeed, be made eligible. Do any of you have suggestions of 

such examples? 

Mr. BOHLMANN. Well, Madam Chair, I think they currently could 

apply if they can find a State or a county or a local community, 

and what we were recommending—— 

Ms. NORTON. That is true. 

Mr. BOHLMANN. —is that it follow the same standard as the 

HMGP—Hazard Mitigation Grant Program—or the FEMA disaster 

program where they could apply directly and remove that one 

piece. I do not think it would increase the numbers that want to 

apply. We have heard from our membership that it is difficult for 

a number of our members to take on that role of being the subapplicant for them. That is where the difficulty comes in. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Woodworth. 

Mr. WOODWORTH. I truly believe that there is a good role for the 

nonprofits on the academic side in, perhaps, helping and in working with some of the smaller cities and communities in developing 

the proper grant proposals. Again, looking at measurement activity, such as the frequency of disaster within the community, the 

impact on the community, the potential effect of the consequences, 

I do know that there are a number of national nongovernment organizations, nonprofits and so forth, that are focusing more and 

more on this year of predisaster mitigation both domestically within the U.S. and worldwide. So this has become a hot topic within 

the emergency management community. 

An example of this is not a small city, but I will give you an example within a larger city in Los Angeles where with the support 

of the city and the mayor, a group of the NGOs along with busiVerDate Aug 31 2005 18:04 May 07, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\42252 JASON
22 

nesses are coming together to try to put together a nonprofit foundation focused on predisaster mitigation and preparedness for the 

City of Los Angeles, and I think there are a number of other efforts 

similar to that that will be going on. 

Mr. MULLEN. Madam Chairwoman, I might add that adding applicants to the pool, unless there is sufficient funding for them to 

have a reasonable opportunity or prospect of receiving funds, is 

problematic, but I do not doubt that there are groups that put out 

applications that could benefit from more technical assistance and 

more support. 

FEMA probably would have—I do not want to speak for FEMA 

certainly, but they might have some concerns, since they are in the 

decision chain, about giving assistance to specific groups that ask 

them, but I would think that some contracting capability or some 

arrangement with the universities or someone else could really— 

if it were funded so they could justify spending that time, it might 

attract people to the process, and it might also—if there were sufficient funding to give them to think they would have a chance of 

success, it might help. We would certainly work with the Committee to come up with an appropriate way to do that. Standards 

are always important. Even if you make it available to everybody, 

there should be some minimum criteria for entering into the pool, 

I think. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, what you have all had to say, I think, is important to consider. The competitive process, obviously, has everything to do with whether you are able to carry out the process 

where you submit the application. I am concerned about people in 

our local community who are able to carry out that process, but 

there is an art and science to writing applications. If we want to 

make sure that need is truly factored in here so you get to some 

of the neediest parts or subparts of various States and, of course, 

the capability which is built into the application process automatically, you are still left with: Who are you leaving out for whom 

writing such an application would just be beyond anything they 

could do? Will the State give the required attention? Meanwhile, 

right next door is a university that is equally impacted, has a vested interest, has people who could write the application, who could 

assist the community, and for lack of opportunity to get the appropriate jurisdiction to pay attention, the community simply is not 

factored in. It is a very diverse kind of country, and there are very 

small communities in States and where the State has spent a lot 

of time on very large cities and on communities that are much 

more high-profile than obscure communities, which are always 

poorer, always have all of the problems often of big cities but have 

none of the expertise and could never have it. 

So this is something that I am entirely open to and am almost 

agnostic about, but I think about the small amount of money also 

when considering who should get the money. I really have a hard 

time believing that small communities which experience what is 

constantly—for example, they are in the same position as the county seat of a big city. How do we make up for that? It does seem 

to me to be an obligation of this Committee. I speak as somebody 

from a big city who does not have much knowledge or understanding of life in very small towns, but I know in this town that 

23 

the government could write any kind of application it wants to, and 

you get on them when they do not because they have the capacity. 

I just cannot say that about smaller areas even close to Washington. 

I very much appreciate your testimony. It has been very helpful 

to hear from those of you who have been, as it were, on the ground 

and who can, therefore, tell us what we surely need to know in the 

reauthorization process. Thank you very much for coming to testify. 

[Whereupon, at 10:28 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

24 


42252.004
25 


42252.005
26 


42252.006
27 


42252.007
28 


42252.008
29 


42252.009
30 


42252.010
31 


42252.011
32 


42252.012
33 


42252.013
34 


42252.014
35 


42252.015
36 


42252.016
37 


42252.017
38 


42252.018
39 


42252.019
40 


42252.020
41 


42252.021
42 


42252.022
43 


42252.023
44 


42252.024
45 


42252.025
46 


42252.026
47 


42252.027
48 


42252.028
49 


42252.029
50 


42252.030
51 


42252.031
52 


42252.032
53 


42252.033
54 


42252.034
55 


42252.035
56 


42252.036
57 


42252.037
58 


42252.038
59 


42252.039
60 


42252.040
61 


42252.041
62 


42252.042
63 


42252.043
64 


42252.044
65 


42252.045
66 


42252.046
67 


42252.047
68 


42252.048
69 


42252.049
70 


42252.050
71 


42252.051
72 


42252.052
73 


42252.053
74 


42252.054
75 


42252.055
76 


42252.056
77 


42252.057
78 


42252.058
79 

Æ 


42252.059