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

58–405 PDF 2011

S. Hrg. 111–1006 

FLOOD PREPAREDNESS AND MITIGATION: 

MAP MODERNIZATION, LEVEE INSPECTION, AND 

LEVEE REPAIRS 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISASTER RECOVERY 

AND AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE ON STATE, LOCAL, 

AND PRIVATE SECTOR PREPAREDNESS AND 

INTEGRATION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 28, 2010 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/ 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs 

( 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois 

EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Staff Director 

BRANDON L. MILHORN, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 

JOYCE WARD, Publications Clerk and GPO Detailee 

AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISASTER RECOVERY 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana, Chairman 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts 

BEN BILLINGS, Staff Director 

ANDY OLSON, Minority Staff Director 

KELSEY STROUD, Chief Clerk 

AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE ON STATE, LOCAL AND PRIVATE SECTOR 

PREPAREDNESS AND INTEGRATION 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas, Chairman 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

JON TESTER, Montana 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

DONNY WILLIAM, Staff Director 

RYAN TULLY Minority Staff Director 

KELSEY STROUD, Chief Clerk 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statement: Page 

Senator Landrieu .............................................................................................. 1 

Senator Pryor .................................................................................................... 3 

Senator Tester .................................................................................................. 4 

Senator Collins ................................................................................................. 4 

Prepared statement: 

Senator Landrieu .............................................................................................. 41 

WITNESSES 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 28, 2010 

Hon. Jo-Ellen Darcy, Assistant Secretary of the Army, Civil Works, U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers .................................................................................... 5 

Sandra K. Knight, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Federal Insurance and 

Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security ..................................................................... 7 

Hon. Robert Mehlhoff, District 26, Montana House of Representatives ............. 21 

David R. Maidment, Director, Center for Research in Water Resources, and 

Hussein M. Alharthy Centennial Chair in Civil Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin; and Chair, Committee on Floodplain Mapping 

Technologies, and Chair, Committee on FEMA Flood Maps, National Research Council, The National Academies ........................................................... 23 

Sam Riley Medlock, Policy Counsel, Association of State Floodplain Managers, 

and Member, National Committee on Levee Safety .......................................... 24 

Robert G. Rash, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Engineer, St. Francis 

Levee District of Arkansas .................................................................................. 26 

Joseph N. Suhayda, Interim Director, Louisiana State University Hurricane 

Center, and Chairman, Independent Technical Review Committee, FEMA/ 

USACE Louisiana Storm Surge Study ............................................................... 28 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Darcy, Hon. Jo-Ellen: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 47 

Knight, Sandra, Ph.D.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 56 

Maidment, David R., Ph.D.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 23 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 64 

Medlock, Sam Riley: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 24 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 69 

Mehlhoff, Hon. Robert: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 21 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 62 

Rash, Robert G.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 26 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 77 

Suhayda, Joseph N., Ph.D.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 28 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 80 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

Page

IV 

APPENDIX 

Map referenced by Senator Landrieu .................................................................... 44 

Map referenced by Senator Landrieu .................................................................... 45 

Chart referenced by Senator Pryor ........................................................................ 46 

Questions and Responses submitted for the Record from: 

Ms. Darcy .......................................................................................................... 82 

Ms. Knight ........................................................................................................ 89 

Mr. Mehlhoff ..................................................................................................... 102 

Mr. Maidment ................................................................................................... 105 

Ms. Medlock ...................................................................................................... 109 

Mr. Rash with an attachment ......................................................................... 118 

Mr. Suhayda ..................................................................................................... 134 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

(1) 

1The map referenced by Senator Landrieu appears in the appendix on page 44. 

FLOOD PREPAREDNESS AND MITIGATION: 

MAP MODERNIZATION, LEVEE INSPECTION, 

AND LEVEE REPAIRS 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 28, 2010 

U.S. SENATE, AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISASTER RECOVERY, JOINT WITH THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON STATE, LOCAL, AND PRIVATE SECTOR PREPAREDNESS AND INTEGRATION, OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 3:02 p.m., in 

room 342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mary L. Landrieu, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee on Disaster Recovery, and Hon. 

Mark L. Pryor, Chairman of the Subcommittee on State, Local, and 

Private Sector Preparedness and Integration, presiding. 

Present: Senators Landrieu, Pryor, Tester, Burris, and Collins 

(ex officio). 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANDRIEU 

Senator LANDRIEU. Good afternoon. Let me call this meeting of 

the two Subcommittees to order, and we will be joined in just a 

minute by Chairman Mark Pryor, who chairs our sister Subcommittee and other Members will be joining us as the afternoon 

unfolds. 

I want to begin by saying how pleased I am to host this joint 

meeting. It is a little unusual, but, I think, very important and 

very necessary because of the information that our Subcommittees 

are going to cover. Senator Pryor, welcome. And I will be giving a 

brief opening statement, turning it over to my co-colleague, Chairman Pryor, and we are thankful to be joined by Senator Tester 

from Montana. 

Before I begin my opening statement, I would just like to refer 

the audience and those listening to this map,1 which shows the 

United States counties where levees are found, because that is 

what our hearing pertains to levee certification, flood maps and 

flood insurance availability and affordability. These are very important issues for our country, and I thank you, Senator Collins, for 

joining us. This map shows that this really is an issue of national 

significance, and I am glad to be joined by the Senator from Maine 

because she has quite a few counties in Maine that have levees. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

2 

1The map referenced by Senator Landrieu appears in the appendix on page 45. 

You can see that the State of California, which I am learning has 

an extraordinarily intricate set of levees. Almost the entire State 

is represented. Of course, you can see through the Mississippi 

Delta, which is what I represent, a great stream of levees all the 

way up the Mississippi. And in Montana and in virtually every 

part of this country, there are levees. 

The second map 1 will show—the map in the light green and 

pink—the areas where flood maps have already been updated, but 

the pink are areas that are still under development. 

I am going to try to be brief because we have two panels, but I 

want to call attention to a March 18 letter that 16 Senators of both 

parties signed to Administrator Fugate and Secretary Darcy, who 

is with us today. I won’t read the entirety of the letter, but it says, 

in part, we represent a diverse group of constituents with a variety 

of problems that have arisen as the Flood Insurance Rate Maps 

(FIRMS) have been updated. Our constituents have expressed several concerns about flood mapping, including a lack of communication and outreach with local stakeholders, a lack of coordination between Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the 

Corps of Engineers in answering questions about flood mapping, 

flood insurance, and flood control and infrastructure repairs, a lack 

of recognition of locally funded flood control projects when determining flood zones, the affordability of flood insurance, inadequate 

time and resources to complete flood repairs, control structures before maps are finalized, etc, etc. 

I just wanted to begin by saying this, that this is really a concern 

of so many members of the Senate representing a variety of different sections of the country. This is not just a Southern issue. It 

is not just a Gulf Coast issue. It is not an issue necessarily related 

directly to Hurricane Katrina, although 5 years ago in August, that 

was probably one of the most vivid and horrifying examples of 

what happens when one of our levee systems fail. But we had the 

Midwest floods in 2008, where Cedar Rapids, Iowa, was in large 

measure, parts of it destroyed. We had the floods in Georgia and 

North Dakota in 2009, and then most recently in Rhode Island and 

Tennessee in 2010. 

So this hearing is really an attempt to get a status report on 

where we are, responding to some of these issues and questions. I 

will submit the rest of my opening statement that I prepared for 

the record. But I hope that we are getting some answers to questions like, are FEMA’s flood maps technically accurate, and if not, 

how can they be improved? How can the FEMA process for resolving map disputes with local communities work better? Should the 

Corps of Engineers offer to inspect locally-owned levees, and how 

else can local governments finance these costly engineering inspections? How can people afford flood insurance, and more? 

So I am going to submit the rest of my statement for the record, 

but this has been a particular focus of mine for several years and 

I hope we can get to the bottom of some of these issues. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Senator Pryor. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

3 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PRYOR 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you for 

working on this issue as diligently as you have been. We just really 

appreciate your leadership on this and many other things. 

I want to thank all the Members of the Subcommittee who are 

here today and who will be coming and going today. I know that 

we have really two very strong panels, and I hope this doesn’t take 

too long, but there is a lot of ground to cover here, so I appreciate 

all the witnesses coming today. 

And also, I want to recognize two people who are not on the Subcommittee. The first would be my colleague from Arkansas, Senator Lincoln, because she has shown great leadership, not just in 

Arkansas, but nationally on this issue. Second is Senator Cochran, 

and he and I have worked on this issue together and we have some 

legislation and he has been a great partner in that, so I really want 

to thank both of them, even though they are not here. 

And then I would just like to say a few words that you all know 

and my colleagues know that I have been working on this issue for 

years now, and recently we were able to get a letter to, I think, 

FEMA and the Corps that had Senators from 13 different States, 

and this has gone from the little problem in Arkansas, where it 

kind of—we were one of the early States to have to go through this, 

and it is really mushrooming into a national concern. 

And there are really two basic concerns, I think, that sort of Senators here, or hits States in different ways, but two basic concerns. 

I think Senator Landrieu really fits in this category, first is the 

issue of levee certification and the responsibility for the repairs, 

etc. We can play the blame game all we want on this, but the bottom line is, right now, there are lots and lots of locally owned levees that need a lot of work, that need some repairs, need to be 

modernized, and they just don’t have the local resources to do it. 

As hard as that may be, we need to think through that and see if 

we can come up with a solution here. 

The second is really a little different, and that is once a levee is 

certified, what does that mean? When the maps are done, I am 

going to have some questions about something on the maps. They 

call it Shaded Zone X, but what does that mean to a community? 

A lot of communities have passed an ordinance that has been drafted by FEMA. What does that mean? If they don’t agree with the 

map, can they appeal? How do they appeal? What is the redress 

there? So it falls under that. 

We also have something in our State that is not unique to Arkansas, but it is probably unique pretty much to the Mississippi 

River States, and that is we have the Mississippi River system of 

levees and I think the taxpayers, State, local, Federal taxpayers, 

have invested something like $32 billion, or maybe more, in that 

levee system. It has worked great. A lot of these levees will keep 

out floodwaters to the 500-year mark, and that is spectacular. But 

my sense is that when these maps are drawn, there is really not 

a lot of credit given to the fact that you have this extraordinarily 

good, strong levee system and a lot of my State, at least, has ended 

up in what they call Shaded Zone X, which is in the 500-year floodplain. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

4 

I know that some of my colleagues are frustrated about this and 

I know that people in Arkansas are frustrated. If my constituents 

are frustrated, that means I am frustrated. We haven’t had a lot 

of real progress that has been made on this, as hard as we have 

tried. FEMA has not been the easiest to deal with on this, quite 

frankly. But we are going to continue to work on this and I just 

want to thank my colleagues for being here today and thank you 

for your attention. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you. 

Do the Members have opening statements? Senator Tester. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TESTER 

Senator TESTER. Just very quickly. First of all, it is in order to 

thank both Chairmen of this Subcommittee, and I think that if the 

folks who are testifying took notes of what Senator Landrieu said 

about the questions, those are the real questions. And I can tell 

you that this is not a little issue. This is a big issue and we need 

to get it fixed, and I very much appreciate you bringing this Subcommittee together. 

One last thing. On the second panel, a good friend of mine, a 

Representative from the State of Montana’s Legislature is here, 

Bob Mehlhoff, and I certainly appreciate Bob making the trip out 

and being willing to testify on this very important issue from a 

local perspective. Thanks. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you, Senator Tester. Senator Collins. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLLINS 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Senator Landrieu. I thank you and 

Senator Pryor for your leadership in this very important issue. 

I support FEMA’s efforts to modernize the outdated flood maps 

with new modeling and more detailed data, but it is absolutely imperative that FEMA work with the affected communities in doing 

so. 

In my State, initially, FEMA revised the flood map for Maine’s 

largest city, Portland, without consulting with Portland city officials, and the result, and I know Senator Landrieu can appreciate 

this because it was from her that I learned about V Zones, but the 

result would have had the effect of classifying much of the waterfront as a high-risk flood zone and that would have had an extraordinarily detrimental impact on the economic vitality of Maine’s 

largest city. The city questioned the accuracy of the map, hired a 

consultant to do additional modeling, and FEMA was very helpful 

in accepting that new data, taking a look at its own modeling, and 

ultimately a good decision was reached and I am grateful for 

FEMA’s help in that regard. 

But Portland’s complaints and experience are not unique. Now 

FEMA is revising the flood maps all along a part of Maine’s coast. 

Every community is very worried about where it is going to get the 

money to pay for consultants to provide the kind of detailed modeling that will lead to an accurate assessment. 

So those are issues that I want to explore with our witnesses 

today, and again, I thank you for holding this important hearing. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

5 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Darcy appears in the appendix on page 47. 

Well, let us get right into our first panel. We are grateful to have 

Jo-Ellen Darcy, who is our first witness, who serves currently as 

the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, and in this 

role she oversees programs for conservation and development of the 

Nation’s water and wetlands resources, flood control, and navigation. So this is squarely in her jurisdiction. We are looking forward 

to your testimony today. 

Our second witness is Dr. Sandra Knight, who serves as Deputy 

Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administrator for FEMA. In this 

role, Dr. Knight oversees floodplain mapping, floodplain management, flood insurance, and hazard mitigation. I understand, Dr. 

Knight, that you have asked for some additional time in your opening statement and I will allow that because I think your testimony 

is extremely important, and we are very anxious to hear any 

changes or updates that you could present to us today. 

But let us start with the Hon. Jo-Ellen Darcy. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. JO–ELLEN DARCY,1 ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, CIVIL WORKS, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF 

ENGINEERS 

Ms. DARCY. Thank you, Senator Landrieu, Senator Pryor, Senator Collins, and Senator Tester. Thank you for the opportunity to 

testify before you today. With your permission, I would like to 

make a short statement and submit my entire written statement 

for the record. 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) shares with the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency the expertise and the 

mandate to address the Nation’s vulnerabilities to flooding. However, the responsibility for managing the Nation’s flood risk does 

not exclusively reside with Federal agencies, such as the Corps and 

FEMA. Rather, it is shared across multiple Federal, State, and 

local government agencies with a complex set of programs and authorities, including private citizens and private enterprises, as well 

as developers. 

The Corps and FEMA have programs to assist States and communities to promote sound flood risk management. However, flood 

risk can further be reduced locally through tools like evacuation 

plans, land use planning, and public outreach. Public safety is our 

top priority and our top responsibility. 

FEMA has embarked on a Map Modernization Program to update and improve the Nation’s Flood Insurance Rate Maps. 

Throughout this program, the Corps and FEMA have been successful in leveraging data, partnering on floodplain studies, and collaborating on related policies in order to provide the most current 

flood hazard information to the public. Both agencies will continue 

to build upon this strong partnership. 

In 2007, the Corps created the Levee Safety Program to assess 

the risk associated with levees and recommend courses of action to 

reduce the risk to the public, to property, and to the environment. 

There are approximately 14,000 miles, or 2,000 levees, within the 

Corps’ authorities. A majority of these levees are Federally authorized but locally operated and maintained. The main activities withH605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

6 

in the Corps’ Levee Safety Program include creating and maintaining the National Levee Database (NLD), levee inspections, and developing new procedures for assessing levees, such as establishing 

tolerable risk guidelines. 

The Corps conducts regular levee inspections to verify proper operation and maintenance, identify deficiencies that need repair, 

and document performance over time. Following each inspection, 

the Corps communicates the findings to the levee sponsor in addition to recommending items for repair and possible interim risk reduction measures, if they are necessary. A copy of the inspection 

results is also provided to FEMA. The Corps will assist the local 

sponsor and other stakeholders to develop the best path forward. 

That may include a more comprehensive flood risk management 

approach as opposed to keeping focus on just the levee as the only 

means to reduce flood risk. 

Levee System Evaluations, otherwise, known as Levee Certification, for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is for 

flood insurance purposes and the 1 percent flood event. It is not a 

safety standard for levees. Because local entities are responsible to 

administer the requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program and are often responsible for operating and maintaining the 

levee, the Corps considers the levee certification a local responsibility. However, the Corps will work with FEMA and the local entity to provide information collected through our Levee Safety Program. 

Looking at the bigger picture, the 14,000 miles of levees within 

the Corps’ Levee Safety Program only represent about 10 percent 

of the levees nationally. The condition of many of the levees 

throughout our Nation is unknown. 

I would like to mention the work accomplished under the National Levee Safety Act of the Water Resources Development Act 

(WRDA) of 2007, which established the National committee on 

Levee Safety and directed it to develop recommendations for a National Levee Safety Program (NLSP). The committee completed its 

draft report in January 2009 and put forward 20 recommendations 

for creating a National Levee Safety Program. 

In May 2009, the Army provided the final draft report to Congress. Although the Corps chairs the committee, the recommendations do not and were not intended to represent the administration’s position. The Corps is working to implement certain components of the Act and coordinate agency levee safety activities with 

the committee for activities that align with its recommendations. 

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify today on 

the Corps’ roles and responsibilities in FEMA’s remapping program 

and levee safety. I would be pleased to answer any questions that 

you may have. Thank you. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you. Dr. Knight. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

7 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Knight appears in the appendix on page 56. 

TESTIMONY OF SANDRA KNIGHT,1 DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL INSURANCE AND MITIGATION ADMINISTRATION, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Ms. KNIGHT. Good afternoon, Chairman Landrieu and Chairman 

Pryor and distinguished Subcommittee Members and Senator Collins. We appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today and 

discuss flood mapping and FEMA’s role in helping communities 

identify and address their flood risks. 

It is my privilege to share the panel with Ms. Jo-Ellen Darcy. I 

appreciate that we have the opportunity to demonstrate our partnership as we manage the flood risk in our Nation. 

Before I begin today, I would like to first thank the Subcommittee for providing me with additional time to make my opening statement. Flood mapping can be complex and at times confusing, so it is understandable that many of your constituents have 

questions or concerns about the program and how it affects them. 

That is why I am pleased to have the opportunity today to break 

down this complex issue so that we can focus on the underlying 

goal of the National Flood Insurance Program, which is to protect 

property and save lives. 

To help structure my remarks today, I would like to address the 

most common questions that we hear on flood mapping and the National Flood Insurance Program. 

Why is flood mapping important? Each year, communities in 

every region of this country experience severe weather events that 

lead to flooding that can cause damage to property, hurt the economy, and tragically result in the loss of life. Flood mapping is important because it helps communities identify the risk posed by 

flooding before it occurs so that those losses can be minimized or 

prevented. 

New and updated maps not only reflect better data on hydrology 

and topography, but also show changes due to variations in weather patterns, changes in landscape, the impact of development on 

drainage patterns, and the extent of community vulnerability to 

floods. It is the responsibility of FEMA to identify and map flood 

risks in communities across the country so that it can establish and 

maintain a fair and accurate insurance rating mechanism for the 

NFIP. 

So why are we mapping now? As part of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, Congress mandated that flood maps be regularly updated to reflect the risk posed by flooding. And more recently, in 2003, Congress began appropriating funds to update and 

modernize these out-of-date flood maps that too many communities 

were relying upon to make important decisions regarding development and public safety. 

Prior to 2003, flood maps were static paper documents, limited 

in their detail, and hard to use and maintain. In some cases, the 

maps were 20 to 30 years old and did not reflect current risks or 

recent changes in the watershed. Today’s maps are digital and provide more detailed, reliable, and useful data that can be updated 

more frequently and in a cost effective manner. Using modern techH605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

8 

nology, digitized maps can be easily shared among homeowners, 

community decision makers, and other stakeholders. And, in fact, 

Flood Insurance Rate Maps are accessed more than 30 million 

times a year. 

As a result of this new mapping effort, we have a better picture 

of what areas are most likely to be impacted by flooding. In turn, 

this information will help emergency personnel write response 

plans that account for new and evolving flood challenges while also 

giving home and business owners critical information on how flooding could impact their property. 

In short, accurate maps reflecting current flood risks lead to better decisions how to protect a community. 

So how do we do the flood mapping? Mapping the Nation’s flood 

hazards requires a process that incorporates data collection, analysis, and review to make sure that each map reflects the best information available to communities and to FEMA. While we are confident that the science we use to develop community maps is sound, 

making and maintaining accurate maps is not simple or done without considerable investment. That is why we work closely with 

State and local communities and other Federal agencies, such as 

the Corps, to get the most accurate information and latest science 

to ensure the best available information is reflected on the maps. 

Because of the scientific judgments and assumptions that go into 

a flood study, there are sometimes differences of opinion about the 

end result. That is why FEMA has an appeals process for communities. FEMA reviews alternative analysis and determines whether 

they are superior to those used for the flood study. And further, to 

improve the process, beginning the first of November, FEMA is 

making available an independent scientific body, a scientific resolution panel that can be convened at the request of the community 

or FEMA to resolve conflicting data on the maps. 

So why are people in floodplains required to purchase insurance? 

Well, the short answer is that it is the law. The 1973 Flood Disaster Protection Act (FDPA) directed that mortgage lenders require 

people in special flood hazard areas who have a Federally-backed 

mortgage to purchase flood insurance, and while some homeowners 

may question whether they really need insurance, it is important 

to keep in mind that during a 30-year mortgage, property owners 

located in a 100-year flood zone or Special Flood Hazard Area 

(SFHA) have a more than 26 percent chance of experiencing flood 

damage. 

Even when flood insurance is not required, it is more often than 

not still needed. A quarter of all flood claims come from moderate 

and low-risk areas, and flood policies in these areas are affordable. 

So we encourage all property owners to talk to their insurance 

agents, discuss their risk and options, and make sure they are protected. 

However, we understand the concerns that many have about the 

additional costs of flood insurance coverage, particularly during 

these challenging economic times. To help reduce the cost of insurance, the NFIP gives property owners the ability to purchase a preferred risk policy at a discounted rate when they are newly designated in high-risk areas. Further, in response to concerns that we 

have heard from many of your constituents, we are implementing 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

9 

a new policy on January 1 that will extend the time frame for property owners to purchase these lower-cost preferred risk policies. 

So why do levees need to be accredited? There are thousands of 

miles of levees in the United States, as seen here. They are designed and constructed to provide a last line of defense for people 

and properties against major coastal and river flooding events. Accurately depicting flood hazards near levees on flood maps is critical to ensuring the public is aware of the unique flood risks associated with levees so they are armed with facts that will allow them 

to reduce their risk. Levees require regular maintenance to maintain their level of protection. The fact is, levees can and do decay 

over time and maintenance can become a serious challenge. When 

levees do fail or are overtopped, the resulting flood damage may be 

more significant than if the levee was not there at all. So home 

owners and communities must be aware of what protection they get 

and do not get from a levee. 

FEMA’s levee-related responsibilities are spelled out in Title 44 

of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Based on these regulations, a levee owner must submit documentation to FEMA demonstrating that their levee meets minimum standards in order for 

it to be recognized on a flood map. Once it is recognized, the community behind the levee will be identified on the map as being protected against a 1 percent annual chance flood. Flood insurance is 

not required in those areas, but it is recommended. 

We also understand that some local levee owners do not have immediate access to the documentation required to certify their levees, even though they may be performing well. While FEMA does 

not have the funding nor the authority to manage this process on 

behalf of the levee owners, we do have programs in place, such as 

the Provisionally Accredited Levee (PAL) designation, to give them 

additional time to produce and collect the required documents. 

So in conclusion, I would just like to say FEMA is working diligently with our Federal, State, and local partners to update flood 

maps nationwide and address the concerns of communities. We will 

continue working with all of our stakeholders to analyze and identify flood risks, produce useful and informative flood maps, and 

communicate the true and current hazards for Americans where 

they live, work, and play. We have both the legal and moral obligation to depict that risk accurately, and we are committed to meeting those responsibilities. 

Again, thank you for this opportunity to participate in today’s 

hearing and I am prepared to answer questions, as well. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you, Ms. Knight. We have quite a few. 

It is my understanding that under current law, FEMA can provide a community up to $250,000 to help them with mapping. Do 

you know how many communities you have been able to help with 

these grants in the last year or two? 

Ms. KNIGHT. We are under statute authorized to do that, but we 

haven’t been appropriated to do it. 

Senator LANDRIEU. So you haven’t been able to help one community? 

Ms. KNIGHT. However, I would like—— 

Senator LANDRIEU. I mean, with that grant program. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

10 

Ms. KNIGHT. I am not sure it is a grant program under the law. 

But what we do have is a Cooperative Technical Partnering (CTP) 

program and we can provide funds through the CTP to the State 

and communities that—— 

Senator LANDRIEU. How much money have you sent out to local 

governments specifically, and how many communities do you think 

you have helped come up with local flood maps? Do you have that 

information? 

Ms. KNIGHT. I don’t have the dollars. We do have the CTPs in 

many of our States and communities and we pass funds to them 

to help put the data together. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Alright. If you could submit that, because it 

is my understanding that FEMA is authorized to provide up to 

$250,000 to a community for mapping support activities like hydrology studies, but that you don’t have any money to do that. 

Ms. KNIGHT. Well, through the CTPs we do—I have been passed 

a note that we do provide $75 to $80 million a year to the—— 

Senator LANDRIEU. OK, and the CTPs are—— 

Ms. KNIGHT. Cooperating Technical Partners. 

Senator LANDRIEU. So is that actual money or is it just in-kind 

assistance through professional services? 

Ms. KNIGHT. No, it is actual funds to actually do some of the 

work. They can do some of the technical things. They can do outreach. There is a list of activities that they can do with that money 

to help us not only build the maps and the data, but to communicate and do outreach. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Do you have any idea of the numbers of communities that you served, how many are still on the waiting list 

that haven’t received funds? 

Ms. KNIGHT. No, ma’am. We can get back to you with that—— 

Senator LANDRIEU. If you could get back to us—— 

Ms. KNIGHT. I don’t know that they have been—they have 

asked— 

Senator LANDRIEU [continuing]. Because that is what we are trying to get. One of the things I am trying to get to is how many communities around the country have asked for technical assistance 

and been denied, either because we don’t have the personnel or the 

funding to help them. That is one thing that I am trying to understand. 

Another is this V Zone issue, which I continue to bring up and 

you can imagine why, because that is the V Zone in Louisiana. And 

a 1977 law prohibits Federal funding for new construction in what 

we call High-Velocity Zones. In this area, I would imagine, not 

counting the City of New Orleans, which is slightly outside of that 

V Zone, that maybe a million people live in that zone. The entire 

City of Houma, I think, is included in the V-Zone. A large part of 

Cameron Parish is there. 

So my situation is that in a V Zone, when a hurricane hits, and 

they will hit regularly this area, when a building is knocked down, 

the current law prevents us from building a new building in that 

zone, even if we build it 18 feet above sea level. So we do not have 

a good understanding of how to get out of this situation, because 

we can’t move a million people. We have to figure out how to live 

in a sustainable way. And so I am going to come back to this in 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

11 

a minute. I have just one more question and I will turn it over to 

Senator Pryor. 

The other question is, and this comes from, I think, one of our 

panelists on the second panel, and I want to state this for the 

record. In Dr. Maidment’s written statement, he says ‘‘Base Flood 

Elevations (BFEs) are only shown on floodplain maps that have 

been prepared with high-quality land surface elevation information 

and detailed flood modeling studies. Maps that show only floodplain boundaries have the disadvantage of implying that every 

building in a designated flood zone may flood and that every building outside the flood zone is safe. Providing floodplain residents 

with elevation of structures relative to the expected height of a 

number of floods offers a better way to define risk.’’ 

What percentage of your maps right now, if you can say this, include high-quality elevation data as opposed to boundary lines? Do 

you know? 

Ms. KNIGHT. Well, I know that what we have for—of course, the 

map modernization was actually moving the historic maps into digital format. Of that, 30 percent of the stream miles are represented 

with new science and information. 

Senator LANDRIEU. So would you say that you think 30 percent 

of your maps, whether they are digitized or in the old form, reflect 

this high-quality elevation data? Do you think that is correct? And 

you don’t have to answer now, but if you could get that information, because I think it is very important for our Subcommittee to 

understand what we are dealing with, not whether the maps are 

digitized or not, it is whether they are high quality and elevations 

because that would help the local communities. 

I have others, but I know my colleagues have questions, as well. 

Let me turn it over to Senator Pryor. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Ms. Knight, let me start with you, if I may, and that is I will 

go ahead and ask you to look at these maps here. These are two 

maps from Crittenden County, Arkansas, which is the West Memphis and Marion area. This map that is closest to me, which is on 

your left, is the map that you guys did in 1981. And next to it, it 

is not exactly the same area, but that little area that has all the 

streets on it is clearly on the second map. That is Marion, Arkansas, a little part of Marion, Arkansas, and it is on the second map, 

which is the proposed map that you have now. 

There are some differences in what you call Zone X, which is the 

100-year floodplain, and there are a few minor differences, which 

I understand those happen. But the most dramatic difference on 

that map is that the second map is all gray, and that is the Shaded 

Zone X. In 1981, you didn’t have a Shaded Zone X— 

Ms. KNIGHT. I can answer that. 

Senator PRYOR [continuing]. And now you do. Can you tell us 

why you have gone to the Shaded Zone X? 

Ms. KNIGHT. Yes, Senator, I can. Zone X is not the Special Flood 

Hazard Area. It is an area that recognizes—there are several designations for Special Zone X. The one you are discussing here or 

pointing out here is actually an area protected by a levee. And so 

in the map of 1991 [sic], there was not a regulation in place that 

said that we were to certify levees. In 1986, that was changed and 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

12 

we were required to do that. As part of that, we included in our 

policy that Zone X behind levees should be shown to the public so 

they understand their risk of living behind a levee. It does not require—it does not mandate insurance. It doesn’t mandate that they 

do any special floodplain ordinances. It is not a Special Flood Hazard Area. 

Senator PRYOR. OK, but you mention that there is a note on the 

map itself and the note reads, ‘‘To mitigate flood risk in residential 

risk areas, property owners and residents are encouraged to consider flood insurance and floodproofing or other protective measures.’’ I have a lot of questions about that, but I guess the first 

question would be, is it safe to say that the Shaded Zone X is the 

500-year floodplain? 

Ms. KNIGHT. No, sir. The Shaded Zone X represents what would 

happen would there be a failure of the levee, in this case. It also 

indicates to the public that there is a chance of flooding from interior flooding. The event we had that came over West Tennessee 

and Nashville recently was an unusual event. Had it stopped a little short, there could have been an opportunity for flooding inside 

that levee, between the St. Francis and the Mississippi Rivers. So 

we want people to be aware that there is a risk of overtopping or 

there is a risk of interior flooding. But FEMA does not mandate 

any codes or, in fact, we don’t issue any land ordinances or building 

codes and it is not required in Zone X. 

Senator PRYOR. OK. Well, in the map itself, on the legend of the 

map where it has Zone X and it tells you what that means, it says 

areas of 0.2 percent annual chance of flood. Isn’t that the 500-year 

floodplain? 

Ms. KNIGHT. There are several designations for Zone X. That 

particular piece on the legend, I would have to get back to you on 

that, because there are several designations for Zone X. 

Senator PRYOR. OK. It also says areas of 1 percent annual 

chance of flood within average depths of less than one foot or with 

a drainage area of less than one square mile in areas protected by 

levees from 1 percent annual chance of flood. So does this 

mean—— 

Ms. KNIGHT. Oh, that is an area protected by a levee from 1 percent, which is the minimum standard. Certainly, as was discussed 

earlier, perhaps Mississippi River and Tributaries (MR&T) or the 

Mississippi River levees may have a higher level of protection. But 

our minimum to look at certification is the 1 percent. 

Senator PRYOR. All right. I have some follow-up questions on 

that. 

Ms. KNIGHT. OK. 

Senator PRYOR. We don’t have a lot of time, but I will submit 

those for the record. But I do have another question about the 

Flood Insurance Program, and that is the way you set your premiums. If someone is in the Shaded Zone X area and they decide 

to buy insurance, or what I think is likely to happen, the mortgage 

company or their homeowners’ insurance company would require 

them to purchase insurance because of this note on the map and 

because they are in a shaded area on the map, how is that premium set? 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

13 

Ms. KNIGHT. It is an actuarially-based premium. All our premiums are. They reflect the risk taken by the Federal Government 

to provide that insurance. The question—and I think we have some 

data here today on some of what the dollar figures are for those 

policies. Lenders—we do not mandate that the insurance be purchased in that zone. A lender may do that. It has not been our experience that is widely done, because the lending institutes are 

very competitive and honestly would like to get the mortgage—be 

able to persuade the homeowners to use their institution for the 

mortgages. 

Senator PRYOR. Yes. Didn’t you say earlier that the flood maps 

are, Flood Insurance Maps are referenced more than 30 million 

times a year? I assume that is largely by financial institutions that 

are doing title searches, etc. 

Ms. KNIGHT. It is by individual homeowners. It is by community 

officials. It is by all sorts of stakeholders and people that are engaged. So it is not just lenders. 

Senator PRYOR. So you said earlier that if you have a 30-year 

mortgage and you are in a 100-year floodplain, you have a 26 percent chance of a flood during the life of that mortgage. What is it 

if you are in the 500-year floodplain with a 30-year mortgage? 

Ms. KNIGHT. I actually don’t have the number off the top of my 

head, but I actually saw something. There is a nice chart on American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE’s) website that kind of gives 

you the different probabilities for each frequency flood. 

Senator PRYOR. And do you get a—— 

Ms. KNIGHT. It is somewhat less than that. 

Senator PRYOR. Do you get a lower premium based on that? 

Ms. KNIGHT. The premiums are based on the zones themselves, 

so depending on how the zone is classified. We map the risk, but 

the Flood Insurance Rate Maps are done by zones. And within each 

zone, those rates are variable, depending on depth and depending 

on proximity and that sort of thing and what kind of home it is. 

It is very individual based on the home itself or the building itself. 

Senator PRYOR. You have several different premium levels, is 

that right? 

Ms. KNIGHT. Yes, sir. 

Senator PRYOR. Well, I do have a lot more questions, but I don’t 

want to intrude on my colleagues’ time, so I may just submit those 

for the record. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Well, I can say, as I recognize the Senator 

from Montana, that no matter what zone you are in, most of our 

constituents think they are paying too much for flood insurance. 

And, of course, flood insurance only covers up to $250,000 of a 

home. There are many, many homes in the United States that are 

valued at much more than $250,000 that have to go to the private 

market, and so that is on top of the premiums that are paid and 

it gets back to the question of are your maps boundary maps or are 

they elevation maps, and you can actually see structures within 

shaded zones, or non-shaded zones, that there is an advantage or 

disadvantage structure by structure. 

But, Senator Tester, your turn for questions. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

14 

Senator TESTER. Yes. Thank you very much. We have a lot of 

questions and so I appreciate the opportunity and thank you both 

for being here. 

I just want to touch very briefly on the CTP funds. 

Ms. KNIGHT. Yes. 

Senator TESTER. How much are those grants for? What are they 

capped at? 

Ms. KNIGHT. It is based on scope of work, and I don’t know—— 

Senator TESTER. Is there a cap? 

Ms. KNIGHT. No. 

Senator TESTER. OK. And those amounts can be used for technical outreach work, various works like that. 

Ms. KNIGHT. Yes, sir. 

Senator TESTER. Do you have any money for certification of levees or is that not within your purview? 

Ms. KNIGHT. No, sir. It is not in our purview. 

Senator TESTER. OK. Secretary Darcy, I appreciate you being 

here and I am feeling like you need some questions, so here we go. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. DARCY. Thanks for asking. 

Senator TESTER. No problem. There are thousands of miles of 

levees, and I think it was in Sandra Knight’s testimony, that were 

constructed mostly by the Army, or mainly by the Army Corps of 

Engineers. Before January 2008, the Army Corps did inspections. 

In fact, the town of Missoula, shortly before January 2008, had 

their levee inspected by the Army Corps of Engineers. Since that 

point in time, though, the agency doesn’t do it anymore. This puts 

small rural communities that don’t have a lot of population base 

to spread out funding in a very precarious situation because of the 

certification of levees. Could you give me some insight into why 

that policy was changed? 

Ms. DARCY. Senator, the policy change came before I did, but I 

think the intent of the policy change basically was because of the 

funding. We were focusing our funding on levee safety and not certification, and the levee certification is, as we have said, is a local 

responsibility. If a Corps of Engineers levee has been built by the 

Corps of Engineers and is maintained by the Corps of Engineers, 

it is their responsibility. If the Corps of Engineers has built the 

levee and turned it over to the local sponsor under a cost sharing 

agreement, then part of the operation and maintenance of that is 

the local sponsor’s, so—— 

Senator TESTER. Got you. Doesn’t the Army Corps still do annual 

and periodic inspections of those levees—— 

Ms. DARCY. We do inspections— 

Senator TESTER [continuing]. Even if they do turn them over to 

a local entity? 

Ms. DARCY. Yes, sir. 

Senator TESTER. Why can’t they just take that to the next step 

and do the certification? 

Ms. DARCY. The inspection information is given to FEMA, and 

for the purposes of floodplain accreditation, that information can be 

used for that. But it is an evaluation and provision of information. 

Senator TESTER. Thanks for that piece of information. So why 

don’t you use that information for determining the flood? 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

15 

Ms. KNIGHT. Sir, we do. We use all the information the Corps 

gives us. 

Senator TESTER. OK. So why are we requiring a certification? 

Ms. KNIGHT. It is required by the law in 1986 that we do that, 

and there are some standards in there that say that we have certain things to provide. 

Senator TESTER. OK. Let us bounce back then. So why can’t we 

take the extra step to say it is certified? 

Ms. DARCY. When we do an inspection, we do annual inspections 

and we do periodic inspections—— 

Senator TESTER. Yes—— 

Ms. DARCY [continuing]. And again, these are of Corps-constructed levees, only 14,000 miles of the 100,000 or more miles of 

levees in the country. So it is a limited universe that we have. And 

when we do our inspections, we do an annual inspection, which is 

we walk up and down the levee and it is visual and we give that 

information to the local sponsor and FEMA. 

Senator TESTER. Right. 

Ms. DARCY. Then we do a periodic inspection, which we do every 

5 years, which is a more detailed inspection. However, that inspection is not—the sort of checklist that we have on our periodic inspections does not include all of those requisites that need to be 

done for a—— 

Senator TESTER. So what additional information needs to be collected to meet that? 

Ms. DARCY. There is additional engineering information that 

needs to be collected. That is in addition to what a regular inspection that we do would involve. 

Senator TESTER. OK. The Army Corps in 1987 used risk-based 

analysis caused—use of risk-based analysis—let me be clear— 

caused a disconnect with FEMA, FEMA’s numeric freeboard standard. The disconnect made the standard Army Corps data unsuitable for FEMA certifications. In that case, the two agencies were 

able to come to an agreement so that the data was usable by both 

sides. Have your two agencies attempted to come to an agreement 

on data of inspection of levees, because I think you have two different standards. If I am incorrect on that, correct me. 

Ms. DARCY. Senator, it is not incorrect. What it is, is that the 

checklist that FEMA has in order to have a levee evaluation for 

their program to be in the NFIP program—— 

Senator TESTER. Yes. 

Ms. DARCY [continuing]. Has more requirements than what we 

have in our periodic inspection. 

Senator TESTER. OK. And there is no way to get those two to 

match up? 

Ms. DARCY. I am not saying there isn’t a way. I think that, as 

I say, it is additional requirements and we view those requirements 

as operation and maintenance level of responsibility. 

Senator TESTER. OK. Administrator Knight, in the last few 

months, FEMA has announced a number of changes to attempt to 

help struggling communities transition to their new flood maps. We 

appreciate that. One of the struggles faced by communities and 

homeowners in a new Special Flood Hazard Area, similar to what 

the Senator from Arkansas talked about, are faced with sudden unH605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

16 

anticipated expenses, $1,700 a year. The tremendous financial 

drain is not a part of their household calculations and puts them 

in a heck of a bind. 

Senators have expressed their support for at least a phased-in 

premium for residents of areas that are newly mapped in the floodplain. While FEMA has not put such a policy in place, and correct 

me if I am wrong on that, I appreciate the attempt to use an extended referral risk policy to grant relief to some of those residents. 

One of the most important elements of this new policy is that it 

is retroactive to when many of the new maps from the Map Modernization Program began to go into effect. I am getting somewhere 

with this. This allows communities who are already struggling with 

new insurance rates to better handle the shift. 

Another concern that many communities have is the appeals 

process for disagreements with FEMA findings. Last week, FEMA 

proposed—you probably know where I am going now—proposed an 

impartial third-party arbitration panel for resolving scientific disputes that cannot be resolved through the existing appeals process. 

However, this proposal, this one is not retroactive, so it is unavailable to any community that feels their appeal was wrongly rejected 

but for whom the new flood maps have already gone into effect. 

What will FEMA do for the communities that are already living 

with new flood maps that they disagree with? 

Ms. KNIGHT. Well, sir, there is a lot of discussion in there. First, 

I would like to start with the graduated rate proposal. 

Senator TESTER. Yes. 

Ms. KNIGHT. That is not in our statutes to do that, but we support that and we—— 

Senator TESTER. I appreciate that. 

Ms. KNIGHT [continuing]. The Administrator has come on board 

to say that we do support that. 

Regarding the Scientific Resolution Panel—— 

Senator TESTER. Yes. 

Ms. KNIGHT [continuing]. We think it is a great way forward and 

we appreciate that—— 

Senator TESTER. As do I. 

Ms. KNIGHT [continuing]. You are supportive. 

Senator TESTER. So why don’t we make it retroactive? 

Ms. KNIGHT. So the retroactive piece is that for communities that 

use these flood maps to make decisions in their communities, these 

maps are already in place, and as many folks that come into the 

maps go out of the maps as they are updated and improved. And 

so to go back and change that could change a lot of activities that 

communities are doing to reduce their risk in their communities. 

Senator TESTER. But you do understand that without it being 

retroactive, this doesn’t help the folks who have already been 

placed into a new scheme. 

Ms. KNIGHT. If they are placed—we resolved many of the appeals. We have had 275 appeals out of 92,000 map panels, which 

is pretty good, but there still is an opportunity. We have a map 

change process—— 

Senator TESTER. OK. 

Ms. KNIGHT [continuing]. And so any community that feels like 

their data is still not correct, there is a map revision process—— 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

17 

Senator TESTER. Good. 

Ms. KNIGHT [continuing]. That they can submit to FEMA and we 

will update the maps. 

Senator TESTER. And that process includes what? 

Ms. KNIGHT. It includes—there is a list of data that they have 

to provide, much like the appeals, that demonstrates that it is new, 

improved data. 

Senator TESTER. OK. Well, I have a town called Miles City that 

is in a heck of a quandary over this and we were hoping this Appeals Panel could help them, but it is not retroactive, so they are 

out of luck. So if it was possible—— 

Ms. KNIGHT. They can submit a map revision, a request for map 

revision. 

Senator TESTER. OK. All right. One more question, real quick. It 

doesn’t have to do with this, but as long as we have the Army 

Corps here, I have to do this, so a little bit—I want to talk a little 

bit about some cabin transfers on Fort Peck Lake. 

For 10 years, Congress has allocated the Army Corps $3 million 

to perform these conveyances. Right now, I understand the Corps 

is charging potential buyers and owners up to $10,600, to be exact, 

in administrative costs to get these transferred, triple the administrative costs for similar transactions in the private market. Let me 

tell you, when I get people from the private sector coming up to me 

and telling me that Government isn’t efficient, it is hard for me to 

argue when—and I just got another, if it gets through the process, 

$1 million for cabin conveyances in appropriations, and we are still 

charging this kind of money. 

The good Senator from Arkansas said when his constituents 

aren’t happy, he is not happy. My constituents are not happy, and 

I can’t tell them—I can’t give them any reason why this is happening. 

I will tell you that for $3 million, you could probably buy a fair 

number of the cabins around Fort Peck Lake. What is going on? 

Ms. DARCY. Well, Senator, in anticipation of your question, I did 

ask staff to look at the administrative expenses that you refer to, 

and you are right, that it is anywhere between $9,000 and $10,600, 

and we have broken down the expenses and a good bit of them, 

quite frankly, like 36 percent of the administrative expenses are 

due to our having to evaluate the sanitation conditions for the—— 

Senator TESTER. But these are all on the same lake. 

Ms. DARCY. Right. 

Senator TESTER. You can’t take a format and move it? It would 

seem to me—this is $10,600 in addition to the $3 million. 

Ms. DARCY. Correct. That is what—but that is what they would 

have to reimburse the Corps for the administrative expenses, correct. 

Senator TESTER. But Congress—do you understand what I am 

saying? Congress has allocated $3 million, plus we are dinging the 

owners $10,600 in addition to that. This is a ton of dough for cabins that, truthfully, I don’t know how many cabins are on Fort 

Peck Lake, but you could probably, if you are talking not the land 

but the cabin, you could probably buy a fair number of those cabins 

for $3 million plus $10,600 for every property. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

18 

Ms. DARCY. I know that these estimates are based on the 119 

cabins that are in the Fort Peck Parcel. 

Senator TESTER. Yes. 

Ms. DARCY. I will—it does sound like a lot of money—— 

Senator TESTER. It is. 

Ms. DARCY [continuing]. And—— 

Senator TESTER. You could buy a fair part of Chouteau County for $3 million. I mean, it is a lot of money. It is a lot of money. 

Take it back to the brass. I thank you, if you would, and I appreciate both of you being here. Thank you very much. 

Just in closing, I don’t want to go off the levee thing. This baby 

ain’t going away. We have to figure out a way, and I appreciate the 

work that FEMA and the Army Corps have done together in towns 

like Great Falls, but we have to get this fixed because we are 

breaking people. Thank you. 

Senator PRYOR. [Presiding.] Senator Collins. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Senator Pryor. 

Ms. Knight, let me start first by thanking FEMA for responding 

to my request and working with the City of Portland to come up 

with a more accurate flood map. It turns out that FEMA’s baseline 

wind and wave measurements are not appropriate for Casco Bay 

because it has so many islands and ledges and peninsulas that 

change the flooding from what would be predicted using your models. So we had an acceptable outcome when it comes to the City 

of Portland, but the problem is that the city had to spend $10,000 

to hire a consultant to do the kinds of specialized modeling. 

There are now some two dozen coastal communities in Maine 

that are going through the same process. When the Portland Press 

Herald interviewed FEMA officials about why they were not doing 

the more sophisticated modeling, FEMA replied that it lacked sufficient funding to perform the more detailed floodplain modeling that 

the City of Portland paid for and that these other communities are 

paying for. 

That prompted me to take a look at the budget that FEMA has 

for flood map modernization, and last fiscal year, the President’s 

budget request was $220 million and Congress fully funded that 

amount. This year, however, the administration’s budget request is 

only for $194 million. That obviously is $26 million less. That is 

more than a 10 percent cut. Did FEMA ask for more money and 

get turned down? 

Ms. KNIGHT. I can answer that. Actually, Senator, the cut was 

because of efficiencies in our program management and a new system for information technology (IT) that helped us save some dollars. 

Regarding the technical pieces of it, there will be no downgrade 

to the technical approaches we take. 

And I would like to comment, if I can, on your discussion about 

the technical levels of detail. We certainly recognize coastal areas, 

as Senator Landrieu stated, are challenges, and there certainly are 

different types of models and data that are important in different 

regions, depending on the topography and the conditions. And for 

the Portland area, what we really appreciated was, in addition to 

the community reaching in and updating their model, was the data 

itself, because the wind data drives the coastal models. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

19 

So we have a new source of wind data that we will certainly be 

using in the rest of the maps in your State and we also encourage 

throughout the process, before we get to appeals, that the community partner with us with whatever data they have. So to minimize 

any expenses to the community, we would gladly take any data 

that you have. 

To administer the balance of the program across the United 

States and the map we had up there earlier, it really does take 

that we have a base set of data that we use and a base kind of 

model that we start with. If we can get better information, we certainly use it. We certainly take advantage of any data the other 

agencies have or the State has. 

Senator COLLINS. Are you using better data, for lack of a better 

word, as you look at the rest of the coast, learning from the experience in Portland? 

Ms. KNIGHT. I can tell you, as we roll out with our next generation map that we will definitely be looking at upgrading the 

science, and that is our version called Risk Map. For the maps that 

we have now, we have a plan that we work with the communities 

and do the basic things, and a lot of communities that have had 

more data, we have used more sophisticated information. It would 

be nice to have real granular data everywhere and it is simply not 

available at this point. 

Senator COLLINS. But, see, that is exactly the problem. It is shifting the burden onto the coastal communities in York and Cumberland Counties to spend the money for consultants to produce 

this data, and that is expensive and a lot of these communities are 

cash strapped right now due to tough economic times, and we have 

communities like Harpswell, for example, which, believe it or not, 

has 200 miles of coast, even though it is a very small community, 

just because of the way Maine’s coast is. There are so many little 

bays and inlets. We have the town of Kennebunkport. It is projected that two-thirds of Kennebunkport would be placed in a flood 

zone. That is a 50 percent increase from the current flood map. 

The implications for new development, as the Chairmen have 

both indicated, for the cost of flood insurance, are enormous both 

for individuals and for the community, and that is why I feel so 

strongly that the financial burden of providing the data that would 

lead to the most accurate possible flood maps shouldn’t fall on the 

communities. It should be FEMA’s responsibility. 

Ms. KNIGHT. Well, to have the level of data in every community 

on every map would far exceed the budget that we have to work 

with because of the level of data that it would take to do that. And 

again, in places we have it and opportunities where we can work 

with, through cooperative technical partnerships, then you can provide that data. You can provide it to us anyway, but we can work 

with you and give you funds to help do that if you have a technical 

source that understands your situation better. Those are the vehicles right now that we use. As we do the next generation maps, 

where we are looking at where the highest risks are and where 

that precision needs to be improved. We will be able to step up 

some of the engineering tools and some of the data tools there. 

Senator COLLINS. Well, I would ask that you continue to work 

with me and the other Members of this Subcommittee—— 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

20 

Ms. KNIGHT. We would be glad to. 

Senator COLLINS [continuing]. To help communities tap into that 

funding source, because for a community to have to spend tens of 

thousands of dollars to produce data to challenge these maps is 

really difficult during these tough economic times. Thank you. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Yes, and I would just add that it would seem 

to me a more reasonable approach would be to develop the maps 

together, in sort of a not adversarial, but in a partnership, because 

that is what this is. It is a partnership to keep our communities 

safe and to do it in the most affordable way. 

I would like to ask—this has been a very good panel. I hope you 

can all stay to hear the second panel, because we have to move to 

our second panel, and I would like to introduce just one member 

of that panel and then turn it over to Chairman Pryor to introduce 

the others. 

But we thank you for your testimony. We are going to follow up. 

We have just scratched the surface here, the tip of the iceberg. We 

have many follow-up questions and I am going to ask the Members 

to submit those for the record. But thank you all very much. 

If the other panel will come forward, Dr. Suhayda is the Interim 

Director of the Louisiana State University Hurricane Center. He 

recently chaired the Independent Technical Review committee of 

the Joint FEMA–Corps of Engineers Storm Surge Study. We are 

looking forward to his testimony. 

If the others would please take their seats, Senator Pryor, to 

keep us moving, will introduce you as you are seated. And again, 

thank you all very much. Senator Pryor. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I will go ahead 

and introduce this panel as our staff sort of swaps out the nameplates and resets the microphones, etc. I will be very brief in my 

introduction, and I am going to introduce three of the panelists. 

Senator Landrieu has already introduced one. And then Senator 

Tester will introduce the fourth. 

But I would like to begin by introducing Dr. David Maidment. He 

is Director of the Center for Research in Water Resources and 

Chair in Civil Engineering at the University of Texas in Austin. He 

served as Chairman of the National Research Council’s Committee 

on Floodplain Mapping Technologies and FEMA Flood Maps. 

Our next witness is Sam Riley Medlock. She is Policy Counsel for 

the Association of State Floodplain Managers and a member of the 

National Committee on Levee Safety. Ms. Medlock has over 18 

years experience working on hazard mitigation and environmental 

policy. 

And finally, I would like to introduce Rob Rash. He is the CEO 

and Chief Engineer of the St. Francis Levee District in Arkansas. 

Mr. Rash is responsible for all operations of the St. Francis Levee 

System, which extends in Northeast Arkansas and covers seven 

counties with 235 miles of levee. 

And Senator Tester has the last introduction. 

Senator TESTER. Well, thank you, Chairman Pryor. 

It is my pleasure to introduce Representative Bob Mehlhoff. Bob 

made a career out of being a math and science teacher. After that, 

he ran and was elected to the State legislature, the State House 

from the West side of Great Falls, where one of the levee problems 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

21 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Mehlhoff appears in the appendix on page 62. 

exists right now, so he can give us an on-the-ground view of it. He 

is a decent guy and a fair softball player. [Laughter.] 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator PRYOR. Alright. Great. 

Well, since we are all set up here, Representative Mehlhoff, why 

don’t we start with you and go ahead and give your testimony. And 

I think we would like a 5-minute opening statement. If you could 

limit your statements to 5 minutes, that would be great. And, of 

course, all of your written statements will be placed in the record. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HON. ROBERT MEHLHOFF,1 DISTRICT 26, 

MONTANA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Mr. MEHLHOFF. Thank you, Senator Pryor, for inviting me here, 

and Senator Landrieu, and also Senator Tester, thank you for your 

kind comments about my softball ability. [Laughter.] 

My name is Robert Mehlhoff and I am a State Representative 

from District 26 in Montana. I represent the West Great Falls 

Flood Control Drainage District and also the Vaughn Small Drainage District. 

For the sake of time, I will quote statistics from Great Falls 

Levee only. The Vaughn Levee is smaller, but has proportionately 

fewer properties. 

The Great Falls Levee System is a 7.65-mile project. It is designed, engineered, and constructed by the Corps of Engineers and 

was completed in 1987 at a cost of over $10 million Federal and 

$2 million local. The levee has been inspected annually by the 

Army Corps and has passed every annual inspection. A periodic or 

5-year inspection was just completed, but we have not received the 

results yet. We anticipate no problems in that particular inspection, however. 

Now the Flood District has been told that in addition to the 

Army Corps’ inspections, there will be new and costly requirements 

from FEMA for levee accreditation from the National Flood Insurance Program. At about the same time Great Falls learned that 

FEMA will require accreditation for the levees, we also learned 

that the Army Corps no longer performs these accreditations. Without the Corps, the communities alone will have to bear the cost of 

private engineering firms to conduct this expensive study. 

Since the levees were built, the Corps of Engineers have accepted 

responsibility to ensure levee safety. In fact, other levees in Montana have been certified by the Seattle District, as was stated earlier by Senator Tester. The Army Corps and FEMA’s cooperation 

that had worked for decades no longer exists and the losers are the 

levee districts that will be forced to pay for these additional requirements. 

The levee districts in Great Falls and Vaughn are small, sparsely 

populated, and low-income areas. All together, there are approximately 1,000 properties behind the nearly eight miles of levees. 

Great Falls and Vaughn simply do not have the population or the 

tax base to pay for these increased FEMA requirements without 

the help of the Corps. As if there wasn’t enough, we are told that 

they may have to redo these expensive studies every 5 to 10 years. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

22 

FEMA has asked Great Falls, the flood district, Cascade County, 

to enter into a Provisionally Accredited Levee Agreement, the PAL, 

with FEMA. The PAL would obligate the community to accept full 

responsibility for levee certification and the costs that come with it, 

and it would set a deadline of 2 years for the completion of certification process. If we do not sign a PAL agreement, our levee will 

be de-accredited as soon as FEMA’s new maps go into effect. The 

flood insurance will become prohibitively expensive for my low-income and moderate-income constituents. We cannot afford the cost 

to pay a private engineer to certify the levees, and we cannot afford 

the flood insurance if we do not complete the certification process. 

This dilemma is having a devastating effect on our area. 

I appreciate that the fact that FEMA and the Army Corps have 

at least come to Great Falls to do some community outreach, and 

we are grateful to Senator Tester for his work to help bring representatives from these agencies to hear firsthand from the community. But the fact remains that for Great Falls and many other 

small cities and many other towns in our country, we do not have 

the resources to fund our own levee accreditation required by 

FEMA, and it should not take the personal intervention of a U.S. 

Senator for FEMA and the Army Corps to work together to hear 

from folks and to come up with some decisions. 

Because of the economy, folks in my district are having a difficult 

time making ends meet. Many families could lose their homes if 

large unanticipated costs are added to their monthly expenses. People who want to sell their homes are finding fewer prospective buyers willing to take a chance to purchase a home in the affected 

area. 

We had over 800 people show up, many in a Montana blizzard 

with chill factors well below zero, to sign a request of our Congressional delegation to find a solution. That is the degree of concern 

that is out there. 

We have had many meetings and conferences called with the 

Corps and FEMA. We feel that the buck keeps getting passed back 

and forth and we are not getting definite answers on what Corps 

data can be used in the certification process. A decision on what 

data can be used is essential to determine what FEMA certification 

will cost our local community. 

We need the Army Corps and FEMA to sit down, go through our 

data, and determine if there is sufficient data for the two agencies 

to certify our levee. The Army Corps of Engineers needs to represent our interests in this process. Essentially, our levees exist 

today as they did the day they were built. We cannot understand 

why the Corps of Engineers will not or is not allowed to stand by 

their work. 

I would be happy to answer any questions. I have some solutions 

that I have submitted and I would be more than thankful that you 

guys did give us this opportunity, and I will submit any information you request. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you very much, and before we move to the 

next witness, would you like to comment on Senator Tester’s softball ability? [Laughter.] 

Senator TESTER. That is out of order, Mr. Chairman. [Laughter.] 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

23 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Maidment appears in the appendix on page 64. 

Mr. MEHLHOFF. A great third baseman. You don’t want to be 

anywhere around where that ball comes in from third base and incoming to first base. 

Senator PRYOR. There you go. Good. Dr. Maidment. 

TESTIMONY OF DAVID R. MAIDMENT,1 DIRECTOR, CENTER 

FOR RESEARCH IN WATER RESOURCES, AND HUSSEIN M. 

ALHARTY CENTENNIAL CHAIR IN CIVIL ENGINEERING, THE 

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN; AND CHAIR, COMMITTEE 

ON FLOODPLAIN MAPPING TECHNOLOGIES, AND CHAIR, 

COMMITTEE ON FEMA FLOOD MAPS, NATIONAL RESEARCH 

COUNCIL, THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES 

Mr. MAIDMENT. Good afternoon, Chairman Landrieu and Chairman Pryor, and Senator Tester and Members of the Subcommittees. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. It is an honor 

and privilege to do so. 

My name is David Maidment and I am the Director of the Center 

for Research in Water Resources at the University of Texas at Austin. I chaired two National Research Council Committees concerning FEMA’s floodplain maps. References to these reports and 

more detailed arguments than I will present today are contained 

in my written testimony. My testimony today addresses the accuracy of FEMA floodplain maps. 

FEMA has undertaken an ambitious program to provide the Nation with coverage of digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The first 

phase of this program, called Flood Map Modernization, operated 

from 2003 to 2008, and a subsequent phase, called Risk Map, is 

now in operation. The Committees that I chaired assessed flood 

mapping practices during the Flood Map Modernization period. I 

will begin with the work of the Committee on Floodplain Mapping 

Technologies. 

During the annual appropriations hearings for Flood Map Modernization, concerns were expressed to Congress that the underlying framework data used as input to the flood mapping progress 

were not of adequate quality in much of the Nation to properly support the creation of new digital flood maps. The underlying framework data consists of two components: First, land surface reference 

information that describes streams, roads, buildings, and administrative boundaries; and second, land service elevation information 

which defines the topography or shape of the land’s surface. The 

Committee concluded that the land surface reference information, 

which is derived from regularly updated aircraft imagery, is adequate to support floodplain mapping. The land surface elevation information is, however, more questionable. 

The main source of land surface elevation information is the National Elevation Dataset (NED), which is derived from contour information in U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 1-to-24,000 scale topographic maps which were made over a long period and have an average date of 1970. FEMA’s floodplain mapping standards call for 

elevation data that is approximately 10 times more accurate than 

the data in the National Elevation Dataset. This means that the 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

24 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Medlock appears in the appendix on page 69. 

National Elevation Dataset is too old and inaccurate to use for 

floodplain mapping. 

The committee concluded that a new National Digital Elevation 

Data Collection Program (NDEP), which it named Elevation for the 

Nation, is required, and that light detecting and ranging (lidar) 

should be the primary technology for acquiring digital elevation 

data. The data arising from Elevation for the Nation might have 

many beneficial uses beyond floodplain mapping and management. 

Following completion of that study, FEMA and National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) asked the National Research Council (NRC) to conduct a further study on flood map accuracy and the Committee on FEMA Flood Maps was formed. Key 

components of the uncertainty of flood mapping are hydrology, how 

large is the flood flow, hydraulics, how deep is the floodwater, and 

topography, what is the elevation and shape of the land surface. 

In collaboration with the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping 

Program, the committee carried out detailed case studies to compare hydrologic, hydraulic, and topographic uncertainties in three 

physiographically significant mountain areas: The mountainous 

west of North Carolina, the rolling hills in the Piedmont Region of 

North Carolina, and in the very flat coastal plain. We chose North 

Carolina for these case studies because the State had already collected lidar data Statewide to support its flood mapping efforts. 

Now, I might also add that North Carolina’s flood maps are the 

best in the Nation. In my own State of Texas, half of the counties 

have no digital floodplain maps. 

The committee concluded that the largest effect by far on the accuracy of the flood maps is the accuracy of the topographic data. 

A comparison of light detecting and ranging (lidar) data and the 

National Elevation Dataset around three North Carolina streams 

revealed random and sometimes systematic differences in ground 

elevation of about 12 feet, which significantly affects predictions of 

the extent of flooding. These large differences exceed FEMA’s stated error tolerances for terrain data by an order of magnitude. 

As Risk Map develops, there has been a significant policy shift 

by FEMA to emphasize collection of better land surface elevation 

information as a precursor to further floodplain mapping activities. 

FEMA is also moving from simply showing where Flood Hazard 

Zones are to communicating flood risk for individual structures by 

adding other information such as the depth of flooding to the maps. 

The resulting flood maps should be more accurate and informative 

and should address the concerns with land surface elevation information identified by the National Research Council Committees. 

Thank you again for the opportunity of testifying today. I will be 

happy to address your questions. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you. Ms. Medlock. 

TESTIMONY OF SAM RILEY MEDLOCK,1 POLICY COUNSEL, ASSOCIATION OF STATE FLOODPLAIN MANAGERS, AND MEMBER, NATIONAL COMMITTEE ON LEVEE SAFETY 

Ms. MEDLOCK. Thank you. My name is Sam Riley Medlock. I represent the Association of State Floodplain Managers. First, we 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

25 

thank Chairman Landrieu, Chairman Pryor, Senator Tester, and 

the other Members of these Committees for your attention to the 

issues related to our Nation’s flood risk and levees. 

Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM) and its 29 

chapters represent more than 14,000 State and local officials and 

others who are the Federal Government’s partners in the national 

effort to identify and reduce the loss of life and property in floods. 

Today, my testimony addresses the challenges and opportunities 

at the nexus of levees, flood maps, and flood insurance. By holding 

this hearing on both levees and maps, the Subcommittees recognizes the relationship between these two issues, that they are 

intertwined. ASFPM appreciates that recognition and would further add the interrelation of flood insurance. 

Because of concerns about flood insurance as an added cost, we 

are now hearing calls to withhold maps, keep risk under wraps, 

and pour more Federal money into flood control structures as the 

only approach to dealing with flood hazards, despite their demonstrated limitations and the residual risk that exists behind levees. In fact, we must recognize that areas behind levees are at risk 

from flooding. Although some may deny that risk, resist safety notices on maps, argue that their levees will never fail, and that folks 

behind those levees do not need flood insurance, the simple fact is 

that those areas behind levees are at risk and the American people 

have a right to be informed of that risk and be given every opportunity and tool to prepare themselves for the next flood. 

The problem with these elements—maps, levees, and flood insurance—have crystallized to create an important opportunity for all 

of us this afternoon and through the National Policy Dialogue to 

identify ways to better manage flood risk. Today, at least four significant policy initiatives are underway that can lead to a more 

complete and integrated flood risk management approach for the 

Nation. 

One is the National Committee on Levee Safety that was mentioned earlier by Secretary Darcy. This Committee on Levee Safety 

was created by the Water Resources Development Act of 2007. The 

committee has completed its report to Congress and is in the process of developing legislative recommendations. I represent the 

ASFPM on that committee. 

Additionally, FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate has launched a 

comprehensive initiative to reconsider or rethink the National 

Flood Insurance Program, actively seeking bold ideas. We look forward to hearing back from FEMA on that initiative with substantive recommendations for policy and even legislative reform in 

the next couple of years and urge your timely attention to that 

when those recommendations for reform come through. 

Additionally, the administration recently reestablished the Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force (FIFMTF), 

which had been dormant for 15 years but has great potential to 

unite the Federal family, not just Corps and FEMA, but also those 

agencies that put tremendous Federal resources behind levees. 

And then, last, the Council on Environmental Quality is working 

to redesign the fundamental principles and guidelines associated 

with big national water policy and projects. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

26 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Rash appears in the appendix on page 77. 

In the time that I have left, I would like to raise three important 

issues, one being that levees have too long been the sole tool, the 

biggest tool, the most visible tool that State and local governments 

and Federal leadership goes toward to manage flood risk. That, 

combined with the 1 percent or so-called 100-year flood standard, 

has, if you will, painted State and local government into the situation, into the corner in which we find ourselves today. When you 

add to that the accreditation, a needed consideration of the state 

of the Nation’s levees along with the requirements under the National Flood Insurance Program, we recognize that there are real 

concerns that communities have and that families and businesses 

have with that flood insurance requirement and would point to 

some very bold initiatives and ideas that are emerging from this 

national dialogue. 

For example, levee districts could obtain group flood insurance 

policies to protect every property owner or structure in that leveed 

area, pool those premiums, but it would also engage those policy 

holders in the health and maintenance of that levee in order to 

keep premiums affordable. Additionally, that same approach could 

be used by communities. 

In closing, we would request permission to submit more detailed 

comments into the record after today’s hearing and look forward to 

answering your questions. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you. 

Mr. Rash, I know that you have someone else who is with you 

from the Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association, George 

Grugett. I know you wanted me to recognize him, but go ahead. We 

would love to hear your testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT G. RASH,1 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF ENGINEER, ST. FRANCIS LEVEE DISTRICT 

OF ARKANSAS 

Mr. RASH. Yes, sir. Thank you. Madam Chairman and Mr. Chairman, other Members of the Subcommittee, Senator Tester, I would 

like to thank you for the invitation to be here today. Thank you 

very much. And I would like to discuss the concerns that we as 

local citizens have with the FEMA Flood Map Modernization process. 

My name is Rob Rash and I am the Professional Engineer currently serving as the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Engineer of the St. Francis Levee District of Arkansas. Our headquarters are in West Memphis, Arkansas, and I maintain 235 

miles of levee, 160 miles of Mississippi River mainline levee and 75 

miles of St. Francis Basin tributary levees. It may be important to 

note that our district began in 1893, and so we have been around 

quite some time. 

These levees are part of the Mississippi River and Tributaries 

Flood Control Project, which contains a total of 3,787 miles of levees, along with other structures, such as flood walls, reservoirs, 

pumping plants, floodplains, diversions, and every other proven 

method to prevent flooding from the 41 percent of the waters of the 

United States that flow to the Gulf of Mexico. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

27 

Since the MR&T project is a unique, one-of-a-kind Federal flood 

control project, let me say that the law that established this project 

states the project for flood control of the Mississippi River and its 

alluvial valleys is adopted and authorized as set forth and recommended in the report submitted by the Chief of Engineers in 

House Document 90. That document states that the flood used to 

design this plain is predicted by the Weather Bureau as the maximum possible and by the Mississippi River Commission (MRC) as 

the maximum probable flood. 

For the sake of time, I have not quoted the law nor the document 

exactly or in their entirety. It may be well to partially quote a little 

more of the law that says that the works and outlets constructed 

under the provisions of this Act shall be built in a manner and of 

a character which fully and amply protect the adjacent lands. This 

law and this project has served the country well, because for the 

last 82 years, no project levee built to MRC standards has ever 

failed, despite major floods in nine of those years, some of those 

record proportions. 

As I am sure, the flood maps are not new to us. The thing is that 

the new fact of the flood maps is the area behind the levees, within 

the boundaries of the St. Francis Levee District of Arkansas, were 

shown as a Zone X on the old maps and are now shown as a 

Shaded Zone X. The Zone X was a 500-year level of protection, 

which was adequately shown, as you show here, Senator Pryor. We 

are now in a Shaded Zone X area which does not mandate flood 

insurance but strongly recommends it. This recommendation and 

history show us that when a Federal entity requests or recommends flood insurance, Federal mortgage companies follow suit. 

The millions of citizens and those that now inhabit the alluvial 

valley of the lower Mississippi River have paid levee taxes for over 

100 years. They consider that these taxes have been paid in lieu 

of flood insurance. The levee taxes are collected and expended by 

the levee boards to finance the day-to-day operations and maintenance of these levees and is of great concern to us and the citizens 

of the valley that are not going to pay flood insurance and levee 

taxes. The local people’s investment in our local levee system since 

we began building them in the early 1800s is in excess of $17 billion, which includes the original levee, the construction of the original levee and the maintenance of these levees for the last 150 

years. 

In conclusion, my letter of invitation to appear before you asked 

for my recommendations. My first recommendation will be that 

FEMA use the best engineering and hydraulic information available in the revisions of the Flood Rate Insurance Maps and that 

they discontinue the practice of considering that every Flood Protection Area in the Nation as being the same when, in fact, they 

are different. 

FEMA needs to take into consideration what has been done to 

protect against floods and they also need to consider what the demands for the sale of more and more flood insurance will have on 

the economy of this Nation. The MR&T deserves a separate designation on all Flood Insurance Rate Maps that clearly state that 

protection is above the 500-year flood and no insurance is required. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

28 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Suhayda appears in the appendix on page 80. 

We are aware of the need that FEMA has to collect funds, but 

we are also aware of the consequences their present actions will 

have on the future of this Nation, especially in the rich alluvial valleys that produce so much that is necessary in our day-to-day lives, 

including, but not limited to, the majority of the food and fiber required for this country. 

The Mississippi River is a critical natural resource and one of 

our Nation’s greatest assets. At 2,320 miles, it ranks as one of the 

largest rivers, supplying 18 million people with drinking water and 

linking agricultural, timber, coal, and other producers to markets 

around the world. Each year, the Mississippi River Valley generates more than $12 billion in agriculture and forest products and 

$213 billion in manufacturing goods. The return on the Federal investment for the MR&T project is 27-to-1. It is the finest flood control project in the country, and I ask that you please recognize that 

in the flood map updates. 

That concludes my statement and I will answer any questions 

that you may have. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you. Dr. Suhayda. 

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH N. SUHAYDA,1 INTERIM DIRECTOR, 

LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY HURRICANE CENTER, AND 

CHAIRMAN, INDEPENDENT TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE, FEMA/USACE LOUISIANA STORM SURGE STUDY 

Mr. SUHAYDA. Thank you very much. Senator Landrieu, it is 

good to see you again, Chairman Pryor and Senator Tester. My 

name is Joe Suhayda. I am the Interim Director of the Louisiana 

State University (LSU) Hurricane Center. I want to describe some 

recent experience of the State of Louisiana and the communities 

within that State as a result of both Katrina and then the remapping effort on the part of the Federal Government, and then the 

reconstruction of many of the levee systems that are critical to Louisiana. 

A lot has been happening in Louisiana. Most of the stories you 

can tell around the country, I think I can top, but I won’t. But we 

do have a wealth of experience. I did serve as the Chairman of the 

Technical Review Committee and participated in the preparation of 

the maps for Louisiana. I also worked with several of the communities when it came to appeal the maps. So I saw how they were 

prepared and how it impacted the communities. My knowledge that 

I brought to the process, because I participated in it, was critical 

to the success that we have so far had in dealing with the appeal 

process in FEMA. 

In terms of the accuracy of the maps, we did find a number of 

local topographic and bathymetric issues that limited the accuracy 

of the maps. Senator Collins and Dr. Knight referred to the local 

effects and the lack of ability to pay for what is needed to be done 

at the local level. In many cases, we had the data at the local level 

already. 

We had concerns, also, with the mapping of the stillwater, which 

is part of the coastal evaluation, and the wave heights. The model 

being used, called the Wave Height Analysis for Flood Insurance 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

29 

Studies (WHAFIS) model, we believe is not appropriate for Louisiana. We believe the complexity of the coast exceeds the ability 

of that model. The Corps does not use that model in its own assessment for the levee protections. 

We also had questions with regard to the procedural issues. Did 

FEMA’s contractors follow FEMA’s guidelines? We felt obliged to 

follow the guidelines in preparing the appeal. We found inconsistencies when we looked through the details between what the contractor did originally and then what the guidelines were. 

As far as mechanisms for resolution, dispute resolution, we have 

evolved to the point now where, as a result of the involvement of 

Senator Vitter, there have been a series of meetings set up outside 

of the normal, I would say, appeal process procedure, where we 

have met with the technical people that created the maps, the contractors, and related some very detailed criticisms and suggestions 

for change. 

The maps are being changed. I feel like we made a big step forward. My concern is that the accommodation that FEMA has made 

to our concerns in Louisiana are ad hoc, that the next time we do 

this, and I will mention that there is going to be a next time, I am 

not sure that we have a new protocol for dealing with appeal 

issues. But certainly things are improving in terms of interacting 

with FEMA. 

Levee inspection, I just want to use, and levee certification, a 

couple of examples. We have had levees that were in the past, in 

a sense, certified for 100-year protection at a fixed elevation. The 

criteria changed. Hence, these levees no longer were certifiable. 

Hence, they are taken out of the analysis of flood protection. So we 

have communities right now that have had levee protection for a 

number of years, that had the Base Flood Elevation at three feet. 

Under the new maps, they have 11 feet, and the irony is, outside 

the levee system, the stillwater is 11 feet. It is like the levees don’t 

even exist. So the Federal Government and the local community 

have cost shared on levees that are not included in the analysis. 

Plaquemines Parish, we have BFEs in some of the protected 

areas that are 18 feet, and I just am trying to estimate here. I 

think 18 feet is close to the ceiling elevation of this room. That is 

how high the new buildings would have to be built. 

In terms of coastal restoration projects and non-levee structures, 

Louisiana is replete with roadways and railroads and other nonlevee structures that should be included in the analysis that get 

unequal treatment. We have coastal restoration projects that we 

are planning in terms of barrier restoration, in terms of ridge restoration, that we believe should be treated through a process similar to levee certification so that we could certify these coastal features. 

And just to conclude, I do believe that a Cooperative Technical 

Partnership is the means for preparing the State of Louisiana to 

take over more responsibility and be more involved, because we 

will be revising the maps and redoing the area around New Orleans in the 2012 to 2013 time period when the new levees are completed. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator LANDRIEU. [Presiding.] Thank you. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

30 

Chairman Pryor, I appreciate you allowing me just to make a 

brief statement. Unfortunately, I am going to have to slip out, but 

I just wanted to thank our witnesses. I really appreciate your testimony. I was particularly moved by, Mr. Rash, your testimony about 

the effort that your community has undergone since 1892. I mean, 

New Orleans will be celebrating its 300th year in 2018, and literally for 300 years, the people of New Orleans and surrounding 

areas have been building levees and investing millions and millions 

and billions and billions of dollars, and we have to find a way in 

this country to honor that and respect the money that the taxpayers have already paid and not require them on top of all that 

to pay exorbitant insurance rates, as well. I mean, that is the problem. 

And under insurance rates now, which I am going to submit for 

the record, many of my constituents—this started before Hurricane 

Katrina, but it really came to a head after Hurricanes Katrina and 

Rita—I cannot tell you the number of people that have come to me 

and said, ‘‘Senator, I can afford my mortgage. I cannot afford my 

insurance.’’ They are paying taxes to a levee district. They are paying exorbitant insurance rates. And we have to find a better way, 

whether it is along the Mississippi, for which we are very appreciative and understand it is very unique, the Mississippi River and 

its tributary system, which you beautifully outlined. 

And so, Ms. Medlock, I would just say that I look forward, and 

I think the Chairman and I both look forward to working with you 

and your Association to try to find a better way, more community 

input, more local input, more support for the communities, one size 

doesn’t fit all, honor the money that has already been spent, and 

try to find an affordable way for this country to have safe communities and peace of mind. And we know that levees aren’t the only 

answer, but when we build them, they shouldn’t break or bust or 

be breached, and we are looking internationally. 

I will tell you—I will conclude with this—I hope that Assistant 

Secretary Darcy will accompany me to the Netherlands, where they 

protect their people from floods that might occur once every 10,000 

years, and they do it in a very affordable manner and they don’t 

have, or haven’t had since 1953, a massive flood. We can’t seem to 

be able to afford or find a way to protect our people from one every 

100 years and are struggling with the one to every 500 years and 

have people building 20 feet above the ground. Senior citizens, the 

disabled community, I mean, they are having serious issues with 

what is happening to us on the coastal area. I can only imagine, 

Senator, in your State of Montana and inland in Arkansas. 

But this really is a big problem, and I thank Senator Pryor for 

joining me in this effort. It is not going to be easy, but it is imperative that we find some solutions here for our people. And I thank 

you and I am sorry that I have to leave early. 

Senator PRYOR. [Presiding.] Thank you, Senator Landrieu. Thank 

you for your leadership, and I am glad you were able to stay as 

long as you did. 

I have a few questions here and I think I would like to start with 

Mr. Rash. Mr. Rash, you see this map up here of Marion, Arkansas, which is, if I understand it, it is inside your territory—— 

Mr. RASH. Yes, sir. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

31 

Senator PRYOR [continuing]. The St. Francis Levee District—— 

Mr. RASH. Actually, my house is on that map. 

Senator PRYOR. Is that right? 

Mr. RASH. Yes, sir. 

Senator PRYOR. How much of your territory that is in the St. 

Francis Levee District, how much of your territory is in the new 

Shaded Zone X on the maps? 

Mr. RASH. The three counties that are being remapped right now 

are completely shown in the Shaded Zone X within our district. If 

all seven counties in our district were remapped, they would all be 

shown in a Shaded Zone X, at best. 

Senator PRYOR. Can you give us a sense of what your experience 

has been with FEMA and the Corps of Engineers during this process? 

Mr. RASH. Senator, we had a meeting—I will go back 2 years 

ago—that you set up in our office with FEMA representatives to sit 

down and discuss these very issues about the Shaded Zone X and 

the delineation of the Shaded Zone X. They listened to our concerns 

and we did not hear back. 

However, we did have a meeting Monday. We did have a meeting 

Monday with FEMA representatives in Washington, D.C., about 

the very same issues. The concern is that the actual flood maps are 

complete in our area. They just have not become effective. But the 

entire area in Crittendon County within our district is shown as a 

Shaded Zone X. We have voiced our concerns. We were told Monday that the map will go out as is, and we have some concerns 

about the delineation, as we have had all along, the delineation of 

that Shaded Zone X because of the—when you look back at other 

areas, the 1927 flood, you can see the areas that were submerged 

and that should follow that Shaded Zone X, which is what we recommended to FEMA. 

So our process has been somewhat cumbersome, but they have 

worked with us recently very well. 

Senator PRYOR. OK. Can you tell the Subcommittee here how 

often local communities in your area face issues of flooding? 

Mr. RASH. Senator, I heard mention of the area in Millington and 

the 10 to 12 inches of rain that they received and were flooded. We 

received 8 to 10 inches of rain in that time period. We had some 

homes that were flooded, but certainly nothing from the riverine 

flooding that is portrayed on these Flood Insurance Maps from the 

Mississippi River. So we have these 8 to 10-inch rains. 

I would like to mention that Cedar Rapids and the effects there 

in the Northern part of the country, we saw, I think we probably 

all saw some of the levee breaches there. I want to point out that 

the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project, it is designed for 41 

percent of the continental United States, everything from the Continental Divide in Colorado to the Western tip of New York State 

and even two Canadian provinces. Any rainfall event that occurs 

in that area comes right by our house in Arkansas. So that system 

is set up in a much different dynamic than anything else in the 

country. 

And so my entire concern, and you well know this, the entire 

concern is that as these isolated flooding events, as occurred in 

Millington and in Nashville and in other areas, in 41 percent of the 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

32 

continental United States, you will have isolated flooding events. 

However, when it came past our house within the confines of the 

floodway, within the confines of that, we still had 18 feet of levee 

remaining as that river crested with the results of all those isolated 

flooding events. 

So it is a different dynamic. It is a different project and we don’t 

feel that FEMA is adequately reflecting that level of protection. I 

have heard mention of the 100-year level of protection and the 100- 

year flood and how it is portrayed on the maps. There is nothing 

that portrays anything from 100 years up, and the areas in our entire district have been taken out of that 500-year flood zone, or 

500-year flood protected area and placed in this Shaded Zone X, 

which gives an element of concern that does not exist. 

Senator PRYOR. I have a couple more questions for you, and then 

I am going to turn it over to Senator Tester, and then I have a few 

follow-ups with the rest of the panel. 

You said in your opening statement that you think the Mississippi River and Tributaries, MR&T, should either be exempted 

from the flood mapping or at least treated differently. 

Mr. RASH. Yes, sir. 

Senator PRYOR. Is that why, because of the huge Federal investment and basically because of the track record of the system? 

Mr. RASH. Yes, sir. And I understand the need that FEMA has 

mentioned and that Congress has mentioned of warning people of 

the risk, and I understand that. We want it accurately warned. I 

have seen the number on the 26 percent chance of having flood 

events occur in a 30-year mortgage. That is a blanket probability 

or statistic across the country. It applies the very same in Denver, 

Colorado, as it does in the Everglades. And so the difference in the 

two, it is not taken into account, the protective measures that are 

there. 

And the MR&T has a history of protection and it needs—in my 

opinion, there needs to be a separate designation that says this 

area protected by the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project, 

that would serve the purpose of warning people of the risk of living 

behind the levee, but it would also say that this area is protected 

above the 500-year level of protection. 

Senator PRYOR. Let me ask one last question to you, and that is 

on the map that we have there that has the Shaded Zone X, the 

whole map is shaded gray area, there is that note that encourages 

people to purchase flood insurance. What is your concern about basically this entire county and other counties like it being in the 

Shaded Zone X? 

Mr. RASH. We had a meeting in West Memphis. It was June 21, 

2010, and representatives from FEMA Region VI came to display 

the flood maps. And even the FEMA representative there in his 

presentation made this statement, that FEMA is—their minimum 

standard is to recommend flood insurance in the Shaded Zone X 

area, but they are finding that the lenders, the mortgage companies, are requiring it. And so our concern was solidified by that 

statement. 

Senator PRYOR. So here you have the problem of people paying 

their levee taxes—— 

Mr. RASH. Yes, sir. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

33 

Senator PRYOR [continuing]. Paying for their levee district, paying for the protection, and then also having to pay flood insurance. 

Mr. RASH. Yes, sir. And in the MR&T and in our entire levee system, please understand that there is a $13 billion Federal investment in that system and there is a $17 billion investment of local 

people’s money in that system over the last 100 years, 115 or 150, 

depending on the area you are looking at. So it was noted in the 

1928 Flood Control Act that there was no cost sharing to be done 

by the local people because they had already paid their cost share 

up front. So the money expended by the local people from 1928 to 

now is the day-to-day operations and the maintenance on these 

levee systems themselves, and those are substantial investments. 

Senator PRYOR. Senator Tester. 

Senator TESTER. As long as Senator Pryor has you warmed up, 

Mr. Rash, we will keep going. 

Mr. RASH. Yes, sir. 

Senator TESTER. You said you live up in this area. 

Mr. RASH. Yes, sir. 

Senator TESTER. When did it change from the diagram on your 

left to the Shaded Zone X? 

Mr. RASH. The map, I believe, becomes effective October 6. We 

were granted a 90-day extension, so—— 

Senator TESTER. October 6? 

Mr. RASH. Yes, sir. 

Senator TESTER. On the map on the left, did you need to buy 

flood insurance? 

Mr. RASH. No, sir. 

Senator TESTER. You did not. The map on the right, you are saying the realtors are saying you have to buy health insurance—you 

have to buy flood insurance? 

Mr. RASH. Yes, sir. It is—the indication is that the mortgage 

companies will require it. 

Senator TESTER. Did anything change with the levees? 

Mr. RASH. No, sir. As a matter of fact, we have received 58 continuous outstanding maintenance awards from the Corps of Engineers, 58 straight years on those levees. 

Senator TESTER. OK. Do you have a loan on your house? 

Mr. RASH. Yes, sir, I do. 

Senator TESTER. Are you going to have to buy flood insurance? 

Mr. RASH. Yes, sir. 

Senator TESTER. Do you have any idea what flood insurance is 

going to cost you? 

Mr. RASH. I do not, actually. I was looking at this preferred risk 

policy, which under that Shaded Zone X and because the levees are 

certified, we would fall under that, and it states here that for a 

$100,000 home, it is about $600 per year. 

Senator TESTER. OK. Thank you very much. 

Mr. RASH. Yes, sir. 

Senator TESTER. Before I go on with some questions for Representative Mehlhoff, I do want to say thanks to Secretary Darcy 

and Dr. Knight for being here for this portion. I very much appreciate you folks sticking around. That speaks well of you. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

34 

Representative Mehlhoff, I appreciate you coming here. As I said 

earlier, it is a long ways from Montana to Washington, D.C. I also 

appreciate your tireless effort on this issue for your constituents. 

You have seen in the levee certification inspection from a local 

perspective. Would you please let me know or explain to me what 

you see as a potential solution? 

Mr. MEHLHOFF. Thank you, Senator Tester, for your efforts, too, 

on this. What I would see from the local perspective that we have 

is, first of all, we are also—our flood levee system was designed for 

a 500-year flood, and we have had very little change in our area 

over the years. Like, some areas have an awful lot of new development. Ours looks about like it did 50 years ago. So we have had 

very little change upstream. In fact, modern farm practices with 

no-till farming is holding the moisture even more in place, which 

should result in even less chance of runoff in the spring. 

But what I see as a solution to this is the Corps of Engineers 

needs to take over responsibility for levee certification. The Corps 

has the data all the way back to the construction of our two levee 

systems in Cascade County, plus data from annual and periodic inspections. 

Second, when the annual and periodic inspections are completed, 

the Army Corps should require their contractors to collect enough 

data to meet FEMA’s certification requirements. That would result 

in a great cost savings to our local taxpayers. 

Third, the local levee district elected officials need to be given 

back their original responsibility of overseeing levee maintenance 

only. They are, for the most part, unpaid people that thought when 

they took the job for the local districts their only responsibility was 

going to be to maintaining levees, and that is a very good responsibility for them because they see the levees on a day-to-day basis. 

Now they are told they are the owners, they are responsible, and 

they have some liability problems, and they are saying, wait a 

minute. We are not getting paid for doing this and we are risking 

personal liability problems? That is a real dilemma. 

And last, the Corps of Engineers should do a risk assessment on 

all Corps-sponsored levees around the Nation and FEMA should 

exempt levee systems designed to withstand a 100-year or more 

flood that the Corps deemed to be of low risk. 

Everybody is being treated as one here, one shoe fits all, and has 

been said by Mr. Rash, that is the problem that we are facing, is 

that is not the case in many areas. Some areas have levees that 

do have a lot of problems, but our area and apparently Mr. Rash’s 

area are living under levees that have been well maintained and 

should be put in a different category to make the certification process much easier. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you. Before I head out, and I appreciate 

those recommendations, I want to thank everybody on this panel. 

I usually ask everybody a question or two, but the fact is, I think, 

that the explanations you gave from your perspectives add a lot to 

this hearing and they are critically important. 

I would like to think this issue will be resolved after we come 

back from the August recess, but I have a notion it won’t be, and 

so I appreciate you folks presenting your opinion and being open 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

35 

1 Chart referenced by Senator Pryor appears in the appendix on page 46. 

to talk about the situation from your perspective. So thank you all 

for being here. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you, Senator Tester. 

I have a few follow-up questions. You all don’t worry about those 

buzzes there. That is just telling us what is going on the floor. 

Let me start, if I may—I will go ahead and start with you, Ms. 

Medlock, because I have a question about this sheet here1 and I 

just don’t understand the policy, the rates, how they are set, etc. 

But, for example, you have seen in this map here in Marion, Arkansas, you see that we are in the Zone X, the shaded area there, 

what we call Shaded Zone X. And if I understand this right, if you 

are in—say you have a $100,000 home and you are in Zone A, 

which is within the 100-year floodplain, if you are in Zone A, it is 

going to be $794 a year. But if you are in Zone X, it is going to 

be $593 per year. So that is still about 70 percent of the higherrisk flood area. Do you know how these rates are set? 

Ms. MEDLOCK. Well, first, I would draw on the expertise of 

FEMA folks and folks within the Flood Insurance Administration 

to give detailed response. But generally, based on my expertise and 

experience on this, and also as Dr. Knight explained earlier that 

it is based on the characteristics that are there and you have basic 

rates that are set, and then the policies are rated farther based on 

things that are unique to that structure, for example, its proximity 

to the flooding source and, importantly, its depth. 

If I understand your question, it sounds like—and I might ask 

you to clarify it, but it sounds like you are asking, if you are outside of an identified Special Flood Hazard Area—— 

Senator PRYOR. Right. 

Ms. MEDLOCK [continuing]. Then what is that risk based on. 

Senator PRYOR. Right. 

Ms. MEDLOCK. OK. I sensed that, and basically what it comes 

down to is the fact that there is still residual risk. And even if you 

are outside a Special Flood Hazard Area, particularly if you are in 

an area subject to inundation when a levee fails, you have still got 

a risk back there, and the policies and the rates and the premiums 

are going to reflect that risk. 

Senator PRYOR. I understand that. I think what troubles me 

about this is there is not a very big change. Again, it is about a 

70 percent difference, or it is a difference of $593 versus $794, and 

I haven’t done the math, but that seems to be about 70 percent or 

so to me. That if you are in, say, a 500-year flood area versus a 

100-year flood area, it would seem to me there would be a really 

big drop-off in your premium because the risk would be so much 

less. Is that not how it works? 

Ms. MEDLOCK. It will vary a little bit. And again, I am answering 

based on my expertise as a Certified Floodplain Manager (CFM) for 

9 or 10 years. But the difference between the so-called 100-year 

and the so-called 500-year really may not actually be that different 

because the ratings are not just about probability. The ratings are 

also about the value of the property that is at risk. And for a more 

detailed response than that, I would really need to rely on the exH605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

36 

perts within the Flood Insurance Administration or do some more 

digging. 

Senator PRYOR. Right. I mean, I understand that, but you can 

just see, given these maps, see the really dark gray areas? Those 

would be the Zone A areas. And then the lighter gray, the shaded 

areas would be the Zone X areas. And you can see they are right 

next to each other. In terms of the property values, they really 

shouldn’t be all that significantly different, maybe a little bit here 

and there, but not that significant. It is one community. But nonetheless, we can follow up on that more for our previous panel in 

written questions. 

Let me ask you, Dr. Suhayda, as I understand your testimony before, you were saying that someone that you are aware of went 

through the appeal process. Was that someone locally down there? 

Mr. SUHAYDA. There have been about five different communities 

that did submit a formal appeal and are in the process of being resolved. 

Senator PRYOR. How does that appeal process work? 

Mr. SUHAYDA. There was usually a pre-release of the digital 

Flood Insurance Maps, well before the 90-day official period started 

so that the communities had some forewarning of what the maps 

might look like. 

Senator PRYOR. Were those posted on the Internet or were they 

sent to the courthouse or how did people get hold of those? 

Mr. SUHAYDA. Those, as I participated in, were actually delivered 

at a meeting that FEMA called to give a preview. Then there was 

the official time when those maps were released to the community 

that triggered the 90-day appeal period. But we had already seen 

the maps before that, in most cases. 

Senator PRYOR. OK. And then if you wanted to appeal, if you 

didn’t agree with what was on the map, how did you actually go 

through that appeal? 

Mr. SUHAYDA. As described by Dr. Knight, we would look for 

technical and scientific deficiencies. We were able to redo many of 

the wave calculations, and in some cases storm surge calculations, 

which are required, and then submit updated BFEs. That is, we 

redid certain panels—— 

Senator PRYOR. When you say ‘‘we’’—— 

Mr. SUHAYDA. The community, the individual parishes—— 

Senator PRYOR. And you paid for that? 

Mr. SUHAYDA. They spent an aggregate about $1 million. It ran 

about $250,000 to $300,000 per community to do this. 

Senator PRYOR. So the communities paid for that out of their resources, whatever—— 

Mr. SUHAYDA. That is correct. Just to illustrate a point, the V 

Zone issue for the State tied up, and I am using rough numbers 

because they were never real clear, hundreds of millions of dollars 

of public assistance projects. So there was no doubt that there was 

going to be a strong motivation on the part of our parishes to at 

least look into the validity of those V Zone designations. 

Senator PRYOR. OK. And then what do you do? Do you write a 

letter to FEMA? How does the appeal process actually work? 

Mr. SUHAYDA. We prepared an appeal report, which is a detailed 

presentation of criticism, identification of deficiencies, and then 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

37 

presentation of new data, and then a replacement set of calculations, and then ultimately the new flood zones and elevations. So 

we had to recompute the flood zones and elevations within the 90 

days. 

Senator PRYOR. And that was all at your own expense? 

Mr. SUHAYDA. All at the community’s expense. 

Senator PRYOR. And how much did the maps change after your 

appeal process? 

Mr. SUHAYDA. We are not through all of them. The first response 

we are getting related to Cameron Parish is that many of the V 

Zones appear to be remapped in a subsequent set of maps as A 

Zones, and that was a major issue for Cameron Parish. 

Senator PRYOR. And so that is an improvement? 

Mr. SUHAYDA. That is an improvement. I think more accurate, 

but it also addresses the expenditure of this public assistance 

money not only for the current situation, but the next time we have 

a problem in Cameron Parish. The V Zone issue now, I think, has 

been properly addressed. 

Senator PRYOR. Was there ever a third party? I mean, I know 

you had to hire a third party, but was there a third party that participated in this appeal in terms of someone who reviewed FEMA’s 

work versus your work, or did FEMA just evaluate the work that 

you turned in to them? 

Mr. SUHAYDA. They evaluate it, but, of course, they have a number of contractors. They have a separate contractor, separate from 

the contractor that developed the maps, they have a separate contractor that handles appeals. And so we dealt with the contractor 

that deals with appeals directly. 

Senator PRYOR. And did you feel that you were being treated 

fairly during the appeal process? I know they are not all over yet, 

but so far, have you felt like you have been dealt with fairly? 

Mr. SUHAYDA. I would say it started off kind of slow, but did improve and that we are at a point now where I think our involvement is much more effective than the first, actually within the 90 

days. 

Senator PRYOR. And how long has the appeal been going on? The 

appeals, how long have they been going on? 

Mr. SUHAYDA. Oh, my gosh, some of them—we submitted the— 

a year or more, in some cases 18 months. 

Senator PRYOR. Is there any sort of stay in the meantime in 

terms of flood insurance and other issues? 

Mr. SUHAYDA. Yes. Until we get that letter of final determination, we are in the process of dealing with appeal issues. And then 

there is, of course, a six-month period of time after that before they 

have to be enacted, so—— 

Senator PRYOR. I think you are touching on something that 

FEMA can’t fix right now, or no one else can fix right now except 

the Congress, and that is that I think that there is something that 

we need to fix, and that is FEMA pretty much controls this whole 

process, start to finish. They get the Corps of Engineers to do the 

technical work on the maps. FEMA makes decisions on the maps. 

They run the Flood Insurance Program. They set the premiums. 

They feel like they have a fiduciary duty under the Flood Insurance 

Program. If there is an appeal, it goes to FEMA, and if it is not 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

38 

FEMA itself, there is a FEMA contracted entity, whoever that may 

be. 

I just think that FEMA controls this process from start to finish 

and I am not sure that is healthy, especially considering the fact 

that FEMA has, quite frankly, an incentive to sell insurance, sell 

flood insurance. But that is not really the subject of this hearing 

because that might actually fall under the Banking Committee in 

terms of reworking the National Flood Insurance Program, which 

I think we probably need to do much sooner rather than later. 

Let me ask you, Mr. Mehlhoff—again, thank you for coming from 

Montana—have you had any dealings with FEMA during this process? 

Mr. MEHLHOFF. Yes, Senator, I have, and I would just like to say 

that your last comments, I totally agree with. I think that is something that needs to be done. 

FEMA has come to Great Falls two different times to meet with 

us. We have been told different things each time they are in. We 

seem to have a moving target on acceptable data. At their first 

meeting, they seemed to say that the data you originally had when 

the levee was certified should work for certification. The next time, 

they started backtracking on what they said. Now, we are not exactly sure where we stand. 

We haven’t had a flood since these levees were built in 1978, 

when they were finished—or 1987, I am sorry. Our last flood was 

in 1975. So the data that was originally given to us should be 

workable, but nobody seems to be able to make that decision to 

say, yes, go ahead. We can accept what you have, or you need this, 

this, and this, and then we are ready to go. 

Senator PRYOR. I think we have had that experience in Arkansas, too. I have heard from Mr. Rash and many others who have 

been in the process that it has been very hard to get clear guidance 

and clear communication from FEMA on how all this is going to 

work, and there are a lot of particulars that seem to change. 

Did you want to add to that, Mr. Rash, before I move on? 

Mr. RASH. Yes, sir. We have worked with FEMA, as well, on the 

certification process. We currently have sections of levee on the 

tributary that are awaiting analysis on the Corps’ recommendation 

for that certification and how it is going to be interpreted by 

FEMA. 

I would like to say something else. Dr. Knight has been very 

helpful and worked with us recently on some of these issues, so I 

do want to say that and that we did meet with them Monday. We 

went through a number of issues that we have addressed here 

today and they are looking at them. But we have worked with 

them much better recently and they have been much, much more 

receptive to our concerns. 

I also would like to say that I left out earlier, not one acre of 

area protected by MR&T levees has ever had—has flooded since 

1928, since the Federal Government took over the construction of 

them. 

Senator PRYOR. OK. Let me ask, Mr. Rash, while I have you, one 

last question for you, and that is tell us—you have how many miles 

of levee in your system? 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

39 

Mr. RASH. Two-hundred-and-thirty-five in the St. Francis—in our 

district. 

Senator PRYOR. OK. And your district also connects with other 

districts, is that right? 

Mr. RASH. That is correct, sir. 

Senator PRYOR. And what would happen if, say, hypothetically, 

there is a district that is not in yours, but in an adjacent district 

that may have a problem, even if it is a minor problem, and they 

can’t get their levee, whether it be certified or whatever the technical term may be. What impact would that have on you? 

Mr. RASH. Well, we are waiting on that very determination now 

in that scenario, Senator. We have an area north of us in Dunklin 

County, Missouri, that has been found under these new guidelines 

to be inferior and have issues and problems. The Corps—originally, 

we started off where the entire area was going to be decertified, everything downstream. Since then, the Corps has done some analysis to show the actual effects if there were a levee breach. They 

have done a breach analysis on that particular section of levee. We 

are waiting for FEMA to decide what the ultimate effects on the 

other hydrologically connected sections are going to be. 

The best case scenario is that the area of confinement where the 

breach analysis shows to be affected would receive the higher rate 

or the higher Special Flood Hazard Area designation. The remainder would get an acceptable rating and be certified. 

The worst case scenario is that the entire 111 miles of levee 

would be decertified and everything that would be protected by 

that would be in the highest rate of insurance or the highest flood 

risk. And it could fall anywhere in between and it is based on how 

FEMA takes the Corps—how FEMA interprets the Corps recommendation. 

Senator PRYOR. OK. And do you know when you will find out 

how that is going to be resolved? 

Mr. RASH. I do not, Senator. When we talked Monday with 

FEMA, they did say that they were under—they had just received 

the report. In all fairness, they just received the report and so they 

are looking at all of the aspects of it and told us that they would 

get back to us on their determination. 

Senator PRYOR. OK. Dr. Maidment, let me ask you, this is from 

my standpoint a technical question. For you, it may be just a lay 

question. But there is a term called Base Flood Elevation. 

Mr. MAIDMENT. Mm-hmm. 

Senator PRYOR. And if I am not mistaken, in Arkansas, we don’t 

have a Base Flood Elevation. It is not determined. Is that right? 

Mr. MAIDMENT. Well, the determination of whether a map has a 

Base Flood Elevation or not is made—— 

Senator PRYOR. And can you tell us the significance of that as 

you are explaining what it means? 

Mr. MAIDMENT. OK. So Base Flood Elevation is that elevation 

that the water will achieve when a 1 percent annual flood happens. 

So if the 100-year flood happens, it refers to the water service elevation above a geodetic data. I mean, that is what the term Base 

Flood Evaluation means. 

The significance of that is the term that is used by local entities 

for regulating floodplain development. So the houses have to have 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

40 

their base—their first floor elevation above the Base Flood Elevation, sometimes just immediate or sometimes a foot above the 

Base Flood Elevation. 

Senator PRYOR. OK. Well, we have—I guess on this map, I am 

looking at Zone A. It says, no Base Flood Elevation determined, but 

then Zone AE, it said Base Flood Elevation is determined. 

Mr. MAIDMENT. That is right. So AE means you have Base Flood 

Elevations and A means you don’t. 

Senator PRYOR. OK. Based on that Base Flood Elevation designation, do other things happen as a result of that, or is that just pretty much local building codes and zoning, things like that? 

Mr. MAIDMENT. Yes, it is basically to support local building codes 

and zoning. 

Senator PRYOR. OK. Well, you all have been great. Oh, I did have 

one more question for you, Dr. Maidment, and that is you talked 

about the U.S. Geological Survey—— 

Mr. MAIDMENT. Mm-hmm. 

Senator PRYOR. And apparently they had done a lot of maps in 

the past and they have a pretty old average age at this point. 

Mr. MAIDMENT. Mm-hmm. 

Senator PRYOR. Is there a reason why they didn’t do these maps 

here for this round? Do you know why the Corps of Engineers did 

that and not U.S. Geological Survey? 

Mr. MAIDMENT. No, sir, I don’t. 

Senator PRYOR. OK. Do you know who is better at making maps, 

or are both good at their own map making? I mean—— 

Mr. MAIDMENT. Well, I would say the two agencies have different 

responsibilities. The fundamental contribution of the U.S. Geological Survey is the base map input information. So, in other words, 

in a flood map you have three things. It is where are things horizontally, where are they vertically, and the USGS supplies basic information that defines that. Then you put the water layer on top, 

and that is where the Corps of Engineers and FEMA come in. It 

is that hydrology expertise that supplies the third piece of the puzzle. 

Senator PRYOR. OK. Well, that is helpful. 

I want to thank all of you for your testimony today. What we are 

going to do is we are going to leave the record open here for 15 

days, and I can almost guarantee you each of you will get questions, as well as the earlier panel will get follow-up questions from 

the Committee, either folks who are here today or who couldn’t be 

here today, and we would love to get those responses from you as 

quickly as possible. 

I just want to thank you all for your attendance and your preparation and the time. This is an important issue. It is not just a 

local issue, it is a national issue, and we appreciate all your contributions to it. 

So with that, I will adjourn the meeting and thank you for your 

help. 

[Whereupon, at 5:09 p.m., the Subcommittees were adjourned.] 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

(41) 

A P P E N D I X 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.001
42 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.002
43 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.003
44 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.004
45 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.005
46 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.007
47 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.008
48 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.009
49 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.010
50 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.011
51 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.012
52 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.013
53 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.014
54 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.015
55 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.016
56 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.017
57 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.018
58 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.019
59 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.020
60 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.021
61 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.022
62 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.023
63 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.024
64 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.025
65 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.026
66 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.027
67 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.028
68 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.029
69 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.030
70 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.031
71 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.032
72 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.033
73 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.034
74 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.035
75 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.036
76 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.037
77 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.038
78 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.039
79 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.040
80 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.041
81 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.042
82 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.043
83 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.044
84 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.045
85 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.046
86 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.047
87 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.048
88 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.049
89 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.050
90 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.051
91 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.052
92 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.053
93 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.054
94 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.055
95 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.056
96 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.057
97 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.058
98 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.059
99 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.060
100 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.061
101 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.062
102 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.063
103 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.064
104 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.065
105 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.066
106 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.067
107 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.068
108 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.069
109 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.070
110 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.071
111 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.072
112 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.073
113 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.074
114 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.075
115 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.076
116 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.077
117 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.078
118 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.079
119 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.080
120 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.081
121 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.082
122 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.083
123 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.084
124 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.085
125 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.086
126 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.087
127 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.088
128 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.089
129 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.090
130 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.091
131 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.092
132 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.093
133 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.094
134 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.095
135 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.096
136 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.097
137 

Æ 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


58405.098