EXTREME WEATHER 

EVENTS

Limiting Federal Fiscal 

Exposure and Increasing 

the Nation's Resilience 

Statement of Mark Gaffigan, Managing Director

Natural Resources and Environment

Testimony 

Before the Committee on Homeland 

Security and Governmental Affairs, 

U.S. Senate

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EST

Wednesday, February 12, 2014

GAO-14-364T

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-14-364T, a testimony 

before the Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate 

February 12, 2014 

EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS

Limiting Federal Fiscal Exposure and Increasing the 

Nation's Resilience

Why GAO Did This Study

According to the United States Global 

Change Research Program, the costs 

and impacts of weather disasters 

resulting from floods, drought, and 

other events are expected to increase 

in significance as previously “rare” 

events become more common and 

intense. These impacts pose financial 

risks to the federal government. While 

it is not possible to link any individual 

weather event to climate change, these 

events provide insight into the potential 

climate-related vulnerabilities the 

United States faces.

GAO focuses particular attention on 

government operations it identifies as 

posing a “high risk” to the American 

taxpayer and, in February 2013, added 

to its High Risk List the area Limiting 

the Federal Government’s Fiscal 

Exposure by Better Managing Climate 

Change Risks. GAO’s past work 

identified a variety of fiscal 

exposures—responsibilities, programs, 

and activities that may either legally 

commit the federal government to 

future spending or create the 

expectation for future spending in 

response to extreme weather events. 

This testimony is based on reports 

GAO issued from March 2007 to 

November 2013 that address these

issues. 

GAO is not making new 

recommendations but made numerous

recommendations in prior reports on 

these topics, which are in varying 

states of implementation by the 

Executive Office of the President and 

relevant federal agencies.

What GAO Found

The federal government has opportunities to limit its exposure and increase the 

nation’s resilience to extreme weather events. Since 1980, the U.S. has 

experienced 151 weather disasters with damages exceeding 1 billion dollars

each. This testimony focuses on 4 areas where the government could limit its 

fiscal exposure. 

• Property and crop insurance

•

. The financial risks from two federal insurance 

programs—the National Flood Insurance Program administered by the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Federal Crop 

Insurance Corporation (FCIC)—create a significant fiscal exposure. In 2012, 

the NFIP had property coverage of over $1.2 trillion and the FCIC had crop 

coverage of almost $120 billion. As of December 2013, FEMA’s debt from 

flood insurance payments totaled about $24 billion. For various reasons, 

FCIC’s costs more than doubled from $3.4 billion in fiscal year 2001 to $7.6 

billion in fiscal year 2012. In 2007, GAO found that the agencies responsible 

for these programs needed to develop information on their long-term 

exposure to climate change. The Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act 

of 2012 requires FEMA to use information on future changes in sea levels

and other factors in updating flood maps used to set insurance rates. Private 

insurers are also studying how to include climate change in rate setting. GAO 

is currently examining the extent to which private and federal insurance 

programs address risks from climate change.

Disaster aid

•

. The federal government does not fully budget for recovery 

activities after major disasters, thus creating a large fiscal exposure. GAO

reported in 2012 that disaster declarations have increased to a record 98 in 

fiscal year 2011 compared with 65 in 2004. Over that period, FEMA obligated 

over $80 billion for disaster aid. GAO’s past work recommended that FEMA 

address the federal fiscal exposure from disaster assistance. 

Owner and operator of infrastructure

•

. The federal government owns and 

operates hundreds of thousands of facilities that a changing climate could 

affect. For example, in its 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, the 

Department of Defense (DOD) recognized the risk to its facilities posed by 

climate change, noting that the department must assess the potential 

impacts and adapt. GAO plans to report later this year on DOD’s 

management of climate change risks at over 500,000 defense facilities. 

Provider of technical assistance to state and local governments. The federal 

government invests billions of dollars annually in infrastructure projects that 

state and local governments prioritize, such as roads and bridges. Total 

public spending on transportation and water infrastructure exceeds $300 

billion annually, with about 25 percent coming from the federal government 

and the rest from state and local governments. GAO’s April 2013 report on 

infrastructure adaptation concluded that the federal government could help 

state and local efforts to increase their resilience by (1) improving access to 

and use of available climate-related information, (2) providing officials with 

improved access to local assistance, and (3) helping officials consider 

climate change in their planning processes.

View GAO-14-364T. For more information, 

contact Mark Gaffigan at (202) 512-3841 or 

gaffiganm@gao.gov. 
 

Page 1 GAO-14-364T 

Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Coburn, and Members of the 

Committee:

Thank you for inviting me to discuss our work on opportunities for the 

federal government to reduce the fiscal exposure and financial risks 

posed by extreme weather events.1 According to the United States Global 

Change Research Program (USGCRP), the impacts and costliness of 

weather disasters—resulting from floods, drought, and other events such 

as tropical cyclones—are expected to increase in significance as 

previously “rare” events become more common and intense due to 

anticipated changes in the global climate system.2 Typically, climate 

change is described as average annual changes in temperature or 

precipitation, and is associated with shifts in the frequency and severity of 

extreme weather that can impose substantial costs on society. The 151 

weather disasters since 1980 with overall damages exceeding $1 billion 

each illustrate these vulnerabilities.3

 

1

Our past work identified a variety of fiscal exposures—responsibilities, programs, and 

activities that may either legally commit the federal government to future spending or 

create the expectation for future spending. Fiscal exposures vary widely as to source, 

extent of the government’s legal commitment, and magnitude. Further, some of these 

factors may change over time. For example, the government’s response to an event or 

series of events can strengthen expectations that the government will respond in the same 

way to similar events in the future. For additional information, see Fiscal Exposures: 

Improving Cost Recognition in the Federal Budget, 

While it is not possible to link any 

individual weather event to climate change, these events provide insight 

into the potential climate-related vulnerabilities the United States faces.

GAO-14-28 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 

29, 2013).

2

Thomas R. Karl, Jerry M. Melillo, and Thomas C. Peterson, eds. Global Climate Change 

Impacts in the United States (Cambridge University Press: 2009). USGCRP coordinates 

and integrates the activities of 13 federal agencies that conduct research on changes in 

the global environment and their implications for society. USGCRP began as a 

presidential initiative in 1989 and was codified in the Global Change Research Act of 1990 

[Pub. L. No. 101-606, § 103 (1990)]. USGCRP-participating agencies are the Departments 

of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Interior, Health and Human Services, State, 

and Transportation; U.S. Agency for International Development; Environmental Protection 

Agency; National Aeronautics and Space Administration; the National Science 

Foundation; and the Smithsonian Institution.

3

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center 

tracks and evaluates climate events in the United States and globally that have great 

economic and societal impacts. Additional information on billion dollar weather disasters is 

available here. 
 

Page 2 GAO-14-364T 

Federal, state, and local policymakers increasingly view adaptation—

adjustments to natural or human systems in response to actual or 

expected climate change—as a risk-management strategy to protect 

vulnerable sectors and communities that could be affected by extreme 

weather events and changes in the climate. For example, adaptation 

measures may include raising river or coastal dikes to protect 

infrastructure from sea level rise, building higher bridges, and increasing 

the capacity of storm water systems. As stated in a 2010 National 

Research Council (NRC) report, even though uncertainties exist 

regarding the exact nature and magnitude of impacts, mobilizing now to 

increase the nation’s resilience can be an insurance policy against 

climate change risks.4

My testimony today is based on reports we issued from March 2007 to 

November 2013. We conducted work for these reports in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. Our issued reports 

have detailed information about our scope and methodology.

Among other impacts, climate change could threaten coastal areas with 

rising sea levels, alter agricultural productivity, and increase the intensity 

and frequency of severe weather events such as floods, drought, and 

hurricanes that have cost the nation tens of billions of dollars in damages 

over the past decade. For example, Congress provided around $60 billion 

in budget authority for disaster assistance after Superstorm Sandy.5

 

4

NRC, America’s Climate Choices: Panel on Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change, 

Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change (Washington, D.C.: 2010). NRC is the 

principal operating agency of the National Academy of Sciences and the National 

Academy of Engineering. 

These impacts pose significant financial risks, but the federal government 

is not well positioned to address this fiscal exposure, partly because of 

the complex nature of the issue. Given these challenges and the nation’s 

fiscal condition, in February 2013, we added Limiting the Federal 

5

Congress temporarily increased the borrowing authority for the National Flood Insurance 

Program by $9.7 billion and provided about $50 billion in appropriated funds for expenses 

related to the consequences of Superstorm Sandy.

Limiting Federal 

Fiscal Exposure and 

Financial Risks from 

Extreme Weather 

Events by Increasing 

the Nation’s 

Resilience
 

Page 3 GAO-14-364T 

Government’s Fiscal Exposure by Better Managing Climate Change 

Risks to our list of high-risk areas.6

Climate-related impacts will result in increased fiscal exposures for the 

federal government from many areas, including, but not limited to its role 

as (1) the insurer of property and crops vulnerable to climate impacts, (2) 

the provider of aid in response to disasters, (3) the owner or operator of 

extensive infrastructure such as defense facilities and federal property 

vulnerable to climate impacts, and (4) the provider of data and technical 

assistance to state and local governments responsible for managing the 

impacts of climate change on their activities.

The financial risks from two important federal insurance programs—the 

National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) administered by the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Federal Crop 

Insurance Corporation (FCIC) administered by the United States 

Department of Agriculture (USDA)—create a significant fiscal exposure. 

In 2012, the NFIP had property coverage of over $1.2 trillion and the 

FCIC had crop coverage of almost $120 billion. NFIP has been on our 

High Risk List since March 2006 because of concerns about its long-term 

financial solvency and related operational issues. While Congress and 

FEMA intended to finance NFIP with premiums collected from 

policyholders and not with tax dollars, the program was, by design, not 

intended to pay for itself. As of December 2013, FEMA’s debt from flood 

insurance payments totaled about $24 billion—up from $17.8 billion 

before Superstorm Sandy—and FEMA had not repaid any principal on 

the loan since 2010.7

 

6

GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, 

Further, the federal government’s crop insurance 

GAO-13-283, February 2013. Every 2 years at the 

start of a new Congress, GAO calls attention to agencies and program areas that are high 

risk due to their vulnerabilities to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement, or are most in 

need of transformation. Click here to access the Limiting the Federal Government’s Fiscal

Exposure by Better Managing Climate Change Risks content. The focus of this high-risk 

area may evolve over time to the extent that federal climate change programs and policies 

change. 

7

FEMA has authority to borrow money from Treasury to pay losses that exceed premium 

revenue and any accumulated surplus. Treasury charges FEMA interest on the 

outstanding debt. Before Superstorm Sandy, this borrowing authority stood at $20.725 

billion. In January 2013, Congress passed and the President signed into law a $9.7 billion 

increase in this authority to pay flood claims related to Superstorm Sandy, raising FEMA’s 

borrowing authority to a total of $30.425 billion. Pub. L. No. 113-1, § 1(a), 127 Stat. 3, 3 

(2013). 

Federal Government as 

Insurer of Property and 

Crops
 

Page 4 GAO-14-364T 

costs have increased in recent years for a variety of reasons, more than 

doubling from $3.4 billion in fiscal year 2001 to $7.6 billion in fiscal year 

2012.8

In March 2007, we reported that both of these programs’ exposure to 

weather-related losses had grown substantially, and that FEMA and 

USDA had done little to develop the information necessary to understand 

their long-term exposure resulting from climate change.9

In addition, we have previously reported on external factors that 

complicate the administration of NFIP and affect its financial stability.

We 

recommended that the Secretaries of Agriculture and Homeland Security 

analyze the potential long-term fiscal implications of climate change on 

federal insurance programs and report their findings to Congress. The 

agencies agreed with the recommendation and contracted with experts to 

study their programs’ long-term exposure from climate change. Both 

agencies have incorporated the findings of the reports into their climate 

change adaptation plans—as directed by instructions and guidance 

implementing Executive Order 13514 on Federal Leadership in 

Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance. We are currently 

examining how these programs account for climate change in their 

activities.

10 In 

June 2011, we reported that FEMA had not been authorized to account 

for long-term erosion when updating flood maps used to set premium 

rates for NFIP, increasing the likelihood that premiums would not cover 

future losses. We therefore suggested that Congress consider authorizing 

NFIP to account for long-term erosion in its flood maps.11

 

8

Subsequently, 

Congress passed the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 

2012 (Biggert-Waters Act), which requires FEMA to use information on 

GAO-14-28. 

9

GAO, Climate Change: Financial Risks to Federal and Private Insurers in Coming 

Decades Are Potentially Significant, GAO-07-285 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 16, 2007). 

10GAO, National Flood Insurance Program: Continued Attention Needed to Address 

Challenges, GAO-13-858T (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 18, 2013); GAO, Flood Insurance: 

Implications of Changing Coverage Limits and Expanding Coverage, GAO-13-568 

(Washington, D.C.: July 3, 2013).

11GAO, FEMA: Action Needed to Improve Administration of the National Flood Insurance 

Program, GAO-11-297 (Washington, D.C.: June 9, 2011). 
 

Page 5 GAO-14-364T 

topography, coastal erosion areas, changing lake levels, future changes 

in sea levels, and intensity of hurricanes in updating its flood maps.12

The Biggert-Waters Act also reauthorized NFIP through 2017 and made 

other significant changes to the program, including removing subsidized 

premium rates for certain properties, eliminating the grandfathering of 

prior premium rates when a property is remapped, and requiring FEMA to 

create a reserve fund. While these changes may help put NFIP on a path 

to financial solvency, their ultimate effect is not yet known. In addition, the 

program faces challenges in making the changes. For example, 

implementation of certain changes was delayed by provisions in the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014, and S. 1926, which passed the 

Senate on January 30, 2014, would delay the implementation of certain 

rate increases contained in the Biggert-Waters Act. As we have 

previously reported, such delays to rate increases may help address 

affordability concerns, but they would likely continue to increase NFIP’s 

long-term burden on taxpayers.13

In the event of a major disaster, federal funding for response and 

recovery comes from the Disaster Relief Fund managed by FEMA, and 

disaster aid programs of other participating federal agencies.14

 

12Pub. L. No 112-141, Div. F, Tit. II, Subtit. A, § 100216(b), 126 Stat. 405, 927 (2012) 

(codified at 42 U.S.C. 4101b(b)).

The 

federal government does not fully budget for these costs, thus creating a 

13GAO, Flood Insurance: Strategies for Increasing Private Sector Involvement, 

GAO-14-127 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 22, 2014).

14As reported by the Congressional Research Service in August 2013, Congress 

appropriates money to the Disaster Relief Fund to ensure that funding for disaster relief is 

available to help individuals and communities stricken by emergencies and major 

disasters. Congress also appropriates disaster funds to other accounts administered by 

other federal agencies pursuant to federal statutes that authorize specific types of disaster 

relief. The Disaster Relief Fund is generally funded at a level that is sufficient for what are 

known as “normal” disasters. These are incidents for which Disaster Relief Fund outlays 

are less than $500 million. When a large disaster occurs, additional funding for the 

Disaster Relief Fund may be provided through emergency supplemental appropriations. A 

supplemental appropriation generally provides additional budget authority during the 

current fiscal year to (1) finance activities not provided for in the regular appropriation or 

(2) provide funds when the regular appropriation is deemed insufficient. For more 

information, see Congressional Research Service, Disaster Relief Funding and 

Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief, R40708, (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 5, 

2013).

Federal Government as 

Provider of Disaster Aid
 

Page 6 GAO-14-364T 

large fiscal exposure. We reported, in September 2012, that disaster 

declarations have increased over recent decades to a record of 98 in 

fiscal year 2011 compared with 65 in 2004.15 Over that period, FEMA 

obligated over $80 billion in federal assistance for disasters. We also 

found that FEMA has had difficulty implementing long-standing plans to 

assess national preparedness capabilities and that FEMA’s indicator for 

determining whether to recommend that a jurisdiction receive disaster 

assistance does not accurately reflect the ability of state and local 

governments to respond to disasters.16 Had FEMA adjusted its indicator 

to reflect changes in personal income and inflation, 44 percent and 25 

percent fewer disaster declarations, respectively, would have met the 

threshold for public assistance during fiscal years 2004 through 2011. In 

September 2012, we recommended, among other things, that FEMA 

develop a methodology to more accurately assess a jurisdiction’s 

capability to respond to and recover from a disaster without federal 

assistance. FEMA concurred with this recommendation.

The federal government owns and operates hundreds of thousands of 

buildings and facilities that a changing climate could affect. For example, 

in its 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, the Department of Defense 

(DOD) recognized the risk to its facilities posed by climate change, noting 

that the department must assess potential impacts and adapt as 

required.17

 

15GAO, Federal Disaster Assistance: Improved Criteria Needed to Assess a Jurisdiction’s 

Capability to Respond and Recover on Its Own, 

We plan to report later this year on DOD’s management of 

climate change risks at over 500,000 defense facilities. In addition, the 

federal government manages about 650 million acres––nearly 30 percent 

of the land in the United States––for a variety of purposes, such as 

recreation, grazing, timber, and fish and wildlife. In 2007, we 

recommended that that the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, and 

the Interior develop guidance for their resource managers that explains 

how they expect to address the effects of climate change, and the three 

GAO-12-838 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 

12, 2012). 

16GAO, Managing Preparedness Grants and Assessing National Capabilities, 

GAO-12-526T (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 20, 2012). See also GAO, Disaster Response: 

Criteria for Developing and Validating Effective Response Plans, GAO-10-969T 

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 22, 2010). 

17The Quadrennial Defense Review is a legislatively mandated review of DOD strategies 

and priorities and is required to be conducted every 4 years.

Federal Government as 

Property Owner and 

Operator
 

Page 7 GAO-14-364T 

departments generally agreed with this recommendation.18 However, as 

we showed in our May 2013 report, resource managers still struggled to 

incorporate climate-related information into their day-to-day activities, 

despite the creation of strategic policy documents and high-level agency 

guidance.19

The federal government invests billions of dollars annually in 

infrastructure projects that state and local governments prioritize and 

supervise. In total, the United States has about 4 million miles of roads 

and 30,000 wastewater treatment and collection facilities. According to a 

2010 Congressional Budget Office report, total public spending on 

transportation and water infrastructure exceeds $300 billion annually, with 

roughly 25 percent of this amount coming from the federal government 

and the rest coming from state and local governments.20

Infrastructure is typically designed to withstand and operate within 

historical climate patterns. However, according to NRC, as the climate 

changes and historical patterns—in particular, those related to extreme 

weather events—no longer provide reliable predictions of the future, 

infrastructure designs may underestimate the climate-related impacts to 

infrastructure over its design life, which can range as long as 50 to 100 

years.

These projects 

have large up-front capital investments and long lead times that require 

decisions about addressing climate change before its potential effects are 

discernable. The federal government plays a limited role in project-level 

planning for transportation and wastewater infrastructure, and state and 

local efforts to consider climate change in infrastructure planning have 

occurred primarily on a limited, ad hoc basis.

21

 

18GAO, Climate Change: Agencies Should Develop Guidance for Addressing the Effects 

on Federal Land and Water Resources, 

These impacts can increase the operating and maintenance 

GAO-07-863 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 7, 2007).

19GAO, Climate Change: Various Adaptation Efforts Are Under Way at Key Natural 

Resource Management Agencies, GAO-13-253 (Washington, D.C.: May 31, 2013).

20Congressional Budget Office, Public Spending on Transportation and Water 

Infrastructure, Pub. No. 4088 (Washington, D.C.: November 2010).

21See, for example, NRC, Panel on Strategies and Methods for Climate-Related Decision 

Support, Committee on the Human Dimensions of Global Change, Informing Decisions in 

a Changing Climate (Washington, D.C.: 2009). 

Federal Government as 

Provider of Technical 

Assistance to State and 

Local Governments
 

Page 8 GAO-14-364T 

costs of infrastructure or decrease its life span, or both, leading to social, 

economic, and environmental impacts.

For example, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

estimates that, within 15 years, segments of Louisiana State Highway 1—

the only road access to Port Fourchon, which services virtually all deepsea oil operations in the Gulf of Mexico, or about 18 percent of the 

nation’s oil supply—will be inundated by tides an average of 30 times 

annually due to relative sea level rise. Flooding of this road effectively 

closes this port. Because of Port Fourchon’s significance to the oil 

industry at the national, state, and local levels, the U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security, in July 2011, estimated that a closure of 90 days 

could reduce the national gross domestic product by $7.8 billion.22

 

22Department of Homeland Security, National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis 

Center, Risk Development and Modeling Branch, Homeland Infrastructure Threat and 

Risk Analysis Center, Office of Infrastructure Protection, In Collaboration with the National 

Incident Management Systems and Advanced Technologies Institute at the University of 

Louisiana at Lafayette, Louisiana Highway 1/Port Fourchon Study (July 15, 2011).

Figure 

1 shows Louisiana State Highway 1 leading to Port Fourchon.
 

Page 9 GAO-14-364T 

Figure 1: Louisiana State Highway 1 Leading to Port Fourchon

Despite the risks posed by climate change, we found, in April 2013, that 

infrastructure decision makers have not systematically incorporated 

potential climate change impacts in planning for roads, bridges, and 

wastewater management systems because, among other factors, they 

face challenges identifying and obtaining available climate change 

information best suited for their projects.23

 

23GAO, Climate Change: Future Federal Adaptation Efforts Could Better Support Local 

Infrastructure Decision Makers, 

Even where good scientific 

information is available, it may not be in the actionable, practical form 

needed for decision makers to use in planning and designing 

infrastructure. Such decision makers work with traditional engineering 

processes, which often require very specific and discrete information. 

Moreover, local decision makers—who, in this case, specialize in 

infrastructure planning, not climate science—need assistance from 

experts who can help them translate available climate change information 

into something that is locally relevant. In our site visits to a limited number 

GAO-13-242 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 12, 2013). 
 

Page 10 GAO-14-364T 

of locations where decision makers overcame these challenges—

including Louisiana State Highway 1—state and local officials 

emphasized the role that the federal government could play in helping to 

increase their resilience.24

Any effective adaptation strategy must recognize that state and local 

governments are on the front lines in both responding to immediate 

weather-related disasters and in preparing for the potential longer-term 

impacts associated with climate change. We reported, in October 2009, 

that insufficient site-specific data—such as local temperature and 

precipitation projections—complicate state and local decisions to justify 

the current costs of adaptation efforts for potentially less certain future 

benefits.25

Our April 2013 report on infrastructure adaptation concluded that the 

federal government could help state and local efforts to increase their 

resilience by (1) improving access to and use of available climate-related 

information, (2) providing officials with improved access to local 

assistance, and (3) helping officials consider climate change in their 

planning processes.

We recommended that the appropriate entities within the 

Executive Office of the President develop a strategic plan for adaptation 

that, among other things, identifies mechanisms to increase the capacity 

of federal, state, and local agencies to incorporate information about 

current and potential climate change impacts into government decision 

making. USGCRP’s April 2012 strategic plan for climate change science 

recognizes this need by identifying enhanced information management 

and sharing as a key objective.

26

 

24To examine consideration of climate change in U.S. infrastructure planning, we visited a 

nonprobability sample of seven selected locations where decision makers had undertaken 

such planning—three locations focused on roads and bridges (Washington State Route 

522; Interstate-10 Twin Span Bridge near New Orleans, Louisiana; and Louisiana State 

Highway 1) , two locations focused on wastewater management systems (King County 

Wastewater Treatment Division in Washington and the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage 

District in Wisconsin), and two National Aeronautics and Space Administration centers 

(Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas, and Langley Research Center in Hampton, 

Virginia). 

In April 2013 we recommended, among other 

things, that the Executive Director of USGCRP or other federal entity 

25GAO, Climate Change Adaptation: Strategic Federal Planning Could Help Government 

Officials Make More Informed Decisions, GAO-10-113 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 7, 2009).

26GAO-13-242. 
 

Page 11 GAO-14-364T 

designated by the Executive Office of the President work with relevant 

agencies to identify for decision makers the “best available” climaterelated information for infrastructure planning and update this information 

over time, and to clarify sources of local assistance for incorporating 

climate-related information and analysis into infrastructure planning, and 

communicate how such assistance will be provided over time. They have 

not directly responded to these recommendations, but the President’s 

June 2013 Climate Action Plan and November 2013 Executive Order 

13653 on Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change 

drew attention to these issues.27

We also have work under way exploring, among other things, the risk

extreme weather events and climate change pose to defense facilities, 

public health, agriculture, public transit systems, and federal insurance 

programs. This work—within the framework of the February 2013 highrisk designation—may identify other steps the federal government could 

take to limit its fiscal exposure and make our communities more resilient 

to extreme weather events.

For example, the Executive Order directs 

numerous federal agencies, supported by USGCRP, to work together to 

develop and provide authoritative, easily accessible, usable, and timely 

data, information, and decision-support tools on climate preparedness 

and resilience.

Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Coburn, and Members of the 

Committee, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to 

answer any questions you have at this time.

If you or your staff members have any questions about this testimony, 

please contact me at (202) 512-3841 or gaffiganm@gao.gov. Contact 

points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may 

be found on the last page of this statement. Alfredo Gomez, Director; 

Michael Hix, Assistant Director; and Heather Chartier, Diantha Garms, 

Cindy Gilbert, Richard Johnson, Joseph Dean “Pep” Thompson, and Lisa 

Van Arsdale made key contributions to this testimony.

 

27More information on the June 2013 Climate Action Plan and Executive Order 13653 can 

be found here. 

GAO Contact and 

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(361557)
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

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

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.