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

35–920 PDF 2007

NATIONAL LEVEE SAFETY AND DAM

SAFETY PROGRAMS

(110–38)

JOINT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MAY 8, 2007

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

(

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

JULIA CARSON, Indiana 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

VACANCY 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

TED POE, Texas 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

(II)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of Columbia, Chairwoman 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

(Ex Officio) 

(III)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizaon 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

BOB FILNER, California 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

MICHAEL A ARCURI, New York 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

(Ex Officio) 

(IV)

CONTENTS Page

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

TESTIMONY 

Larson, Larry, Executive Director, Association of State Floodplain Managers .. 35

Maurstad, David I., Director, Mitigation Division and Federal Insurance Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency ..................................... 9

Moyle, John, Manager, Dam Safety Section, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Association of State Dam Safety Officials .................... 35

Roth, Larry, Deputy Executive Director, American Society of Civil Engineers . 35

Stockton, Steven L., Deputy Director of Civil Works, U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers .............................................................................................................. 9

Williams, Warren D. ‘‘Dusty,’’ Director, General Manager-Chief Engineer, 

National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies .......... 35

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Altmire, Hon. Jason, of Pennsylvania .................................................................... 50

Baker, Hon. Richard H., of Louisiana .................................................................... 51

Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri ......................................................................... 56

Cohen, Hon. Steve, of Tennessee ............................................................................ 58

Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois .......................................................................... 59

Ehlers, Hon. Vernon J., of Michigan ...................................................................... 61

Hirono, Hon. Mazie K., of Hawaii .......................................................................... 63

Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona ....................................................................... 65

Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota ................................................................. 70

Tauscher, Hon. Ellen O., of California ................................................................... 73

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Larson, Larry ........................................................................................................... 75

Maurstad, David I. .................................................................................................. 88

Moyle, John .............................................................................................................. 94

Roth, Larry ............................................................................................................... 109

Stockton, Steven L., ................................................................................................. 116

Williams, Warren D. ‘‘Dusty’’ .................................................................................. 119

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Stockton, Steven L., Deputy Director of Civil Works, U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers:

Response to question from Rep. Norton ............................................................. 19

Response to question from Rep. Norton ............................................................. 21

Response to question from Rep. Napolitano ...................................................... 30

vi


35920.001
vii


35920.002
viii


35920.003
ix


35920.004
x


35920.005
(1)

JOINT OVERSIGHT HEARING ON NATIONAL 

LEVEE SAFETY AND DAM SAFETY PROGRAMS 

Tuesday, May 8, 2007, 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC

BUILDINGS AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, JOINT WITH THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND

ENVIRONMENT, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Doris O. Matsui presiding. 

Ms. MATSUI. I would like to call the Subcommittee to order. 

Today, we are going to have a joint hearing on national levee 

safety and dam safety programs before the Subcommittee on Water 

Resources and Environment and the Subcommittee on Economic 

Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management. 

I would like to welcome today’s witnesses to our hearing on national levee safety and dam safety programs. We will hear from 

representatives of Federal and State agencies and national associations. 

In the aftermath of the 2005 hurricane season, the American 

public again focused on the importance of adequately designed, constructed, and maintained flood control infrastructure. The images 

of flooded streets, homes, and businesses continue to be a vivid reminder that we cannot take our Nation’s infrastructure for granted. 

The potential for loss of life and property are too great to be ignored. 

Unfortunately, no one entity has a complete inventory or understanding of the Nation’s flood control infrastructure. There has 

never been a comprehensive review of the adequacy of the levees 

that protect so many at-risk communities around the Country. 

Since receiving authorization and funding in the Fiscal Year 

2006 supplemental appropriations bill, the Army Corps of Engineers has begun to review the status of levees in the United States. 

This initial review of over 2,000 levees found 56 percent to be acceptable, 38 percent minimally acceptable, and 6 percent or 122 

levee segments at risk due to unacceptable maintenance. My home 

State of California has also conducted an initial review of its levees 

and identified 29 critical sites. 

In the fall of 2006, California passed a $4 billion general obligation bond dedicated to levee repair work. Additionally, last month 

in my district of Sacramento the voters passed a local assessment 

2

by 82 percent that will raise an additional $326 million dedicated 

for current and future flood protection projects. We in Sacramento 

understand that there has to be a local share. 

These results point to the terrific need for a comprehensive review and approach to maintain our Nation’s vast flood control infrastructure. While I am encouraged that we are making some 

progress in addressing these long-range flood protection issues, I 

firmly believe that better coordination from a policy perspective 

and a resource allocation perspective needs to be put in place. I am 

also glad that FEMA is here with us today. FEMA and the Corps 

share responsibility for the protection of communities behind the 

levees. FEMA, through its management of the National Flood Insurance Program, and the Corps, through its role in certifying the 

condition of flood control levees for structural soundness, determine 

the minimum level of protection in the 100-year flood plain. 

I look forward to hearing more about how the two agencies are 

collaborating and what ways things can be improved. I also look 

forward to the ideas that our non-Federal witnesses can offer for 

how all affected parties can better work together for the protection 

of our at-risk communities. 

Flood protection has been my top priority since taking office. Sacramento is the most at-risk river city in the Country for catastrophic flooding. How we proceed in developing a comprehensive 

national policy has direct impact on my constituents. I am committed to working with congressional leaders as well as industry 

leaders in an effort to streamline an over-arching flood protection 

policy that meets our Nation’s long-term needs as well as our communities immediate vulnerabilities. 

This hearing is a good first step. I look forward to hearing from 

today’s witnesses. 

At this time I would like to recognize Ranking Member Baker for 

any opening comments. 

Mr. BAKER. Thank you, Madam Chair. I certainly appreciate the 

convening of this hearing on what is an extraordinarily important 

topic. I do not know that any State delegation has more sensitivity 

to the issue of levee integrity than the State of Louisiana and the 

lessons unfortunately learned by the failures there in 2005. What 

is extraordinary I believe is the recognition that dam structures 

and levees exist everywhere in this Country and that many were 

built 35, 40, 50 years ago without any modern standard of engineering or materials specifications and that they continue to be the 

barrier between significant new residential development and disaster. 

The bill that has been introduced by the gentlelady from Ohio, 

Mrs. Schmidt, which would at least begin the process of 

inventorying all of these structures around the Country, seems almost incredibly way overdue; and then secondly, to assess the 

structural integrity of those structures, again almost seems incredibly late at this point. 

In Louisiana, we have a combination of distressing circumstances. We reside in an area where the land is literally sinking as a result of the depositional activity of the Mississippi River. 

Much of our State was constructed by that process over many millions of years. And so as we build a levee to a designated height, 

3

over time the levee sinks. But the higher you build the levee, which 

means the bigger the material base must be, the more weight you 

have and the faster it sinks. 

Some people look at that and say, well, why would anyone want 

to live there, and what responsible person would want to live behind a levee given those dynamic problems. Well, we have an environment which is extraordinarily rich in oil and gas, seafood, and 

other assets, and I constantly point out to my friends across the 

Country that 70 percent of the Nation’s grain harvest goes through 

the Port of Orleans to destinations around the world. 

And so there is economic necessity for people to live in this region. In fact, it is estimated that within a few years almost 90 percent of the American population will be within some reasonable 

drive of an American coastline. So it is a trend that is not likely 

to be reversed. Therefore, assessing the integrity of drainage and 

flood protection structures is an absolute necessity. 

I guess the ultimate question is how we are going to pay for all 

the improvements that ultimately are going to be determined to be 

necessary. Madam Chair, I read with great interest one estimate 

of the assessment of cost per mile of levee is $60,000. Now this is 

not to do anything, this is just to look at them. I have got to get 

a better understanding of how much looking you get for $60,000. 

But in any event, it tends to lead me to conclude that this is going 

to be a very expensive proposition to rectify. Unfortunately, it is 

going to be a great deal more expensive if we do not. I yield back. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you, Mr. Baker. 

Now I would like to recognize Chairwoman Norton, Chair of the 

Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and 

Emergency Management, for any opening remarks. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Madam Chair. I, too, want to welcome 

you to today’s hearing on dam and levee safety, which is an integral part of a national plan to ‘‘reduce risks to life and property 

from dam failure in the United States.’’

As you know, the National Dam Safety Program Act was passed 

in 1996 with the stated goal of reducing risk of life and property 

through the establishment and maintenance of an effective national dam safety program to bring together expertise and resources of Federal and non-Federal communities. The Army Corps 

of Engineers works closely with State and local dam safety officials, 

FEMA, and various other agencies to update information on over 

79,000 dams currently in the United States and Puerto Rico. 

As would be expected, safety regulation is an indispensable part 

of reducing hazards associated with dams. The responsibility for 

safety rests entirely with the States and every State except Alabama has a dam safety program. Most State programs include safety evaluations, a review of plans and specifications for dam construction, periodic inspections, and review and approval of emergency action plans. 

Through the National Dam Safety Program, States receive 

grants directly from FEMA and can use these funds to supplement 

State budgets to hire much-needed personnel, buy equipment for 

dam inspections, and perform safety analysis. These grant funds 

have been used to successfully train State personnel and to carry 

out in the field training for dam owners to conduct annual mainteVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:06 Apr 11, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35920 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
4

nance reviews. Further, FEMA funds have been used to revise and 

update State maintenance and operation guidelines to identify and 

operate dams to be repaired or removed. 

Almost a year ago, on July 26, this Subcommittee met to discuss 

amendments to and reauthorization of the National Dam Safety 

Program Act. I am eager to hear from today’s witnesses about the 

progress this program has made since its reauthorization, and 

what, if anything, still needs the attention from the authorizing 

Committee. 

I thank you again, and welcome today’s witnesses. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you. At this time I would like to recognize 

the gentlelady from Ohio, Mrs. Schmidt, for any opening remarks. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you for recognizing me and for holding this important hearing on levee and 

dam safety programs. 

The terrible devastation of Hurricane Katrina underscores the 

need for reliable hurricane and flood protection infrastructure. An 

inventory and assessment of our Nation’s levees is long overdue 

and it is shocking that we do not yet have one. 

I was pleased to support legislation that passed our Committee 

by voice vote last Congress, and in consultation with Congressman 

Duncan and our Committee leadership, was pleased to reintroduce 

this legislation this past March. This legislation, H.R. 1587, would 

greatly strengthen our levee safety infrastructure by providing inventory, inspection, and assessment of our Nation’s levees. It would 

establish the National Levee Safety Program Act, which is modeled 

after the National Dam Safety Program Act. 

Thanks to the Dam Safety Program Act, we know a great deal 

more about our Nation’s dams. When it comes to our Nation’s levees, however, we know very little. We do not know how many we 

have, where they are located, and often do not know their condition. In addition to significant health and safety concerns, this lack 

of information is also frustrating as we try to prioritize future 

spending on flood protection. We often do not know what our levees 

are protecting or at what level of risk is associated with them. Establishing an inventory and assessment will enhance safety and 

help us prioritize future spending on flood protection so taxpayer 

dollars are spent as wisely as possible. The legislation I reintroduced to establish the National Levee Safety Program Act will 

allow us to develop a national inventory of levees, and work with 

States, local officials, and private entities to develop and strengthen levee safety programs. 

Thanks again for holding this hearing. I have talked or met with 

many of the experts who are testifying. I look forward to hearing 

more from them today. I know there are some ideas about how we 

can improve upon the legislation I introduced. As we move forward, 

I am optimistic that we will hopefully soon send the strongest possible bill to the House floor. Thank you. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you. I would now like to recognize the 

gentlelady from California, Mrs. Napolitano, for any opening remarks. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for 

holding this very important hearing. As the Chair of the SubVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:06 Apr 11, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35920 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
5

committee on Water and Power, this is of great interest to me for 

a number of reasons. 

We need to be more proactive about how we protect those areas 

that will affect the water delivery, the power delivery, and also the 

economy of many of our Nation’s best resources. So I am very much 

looking forward to hearing the testimony and seeing how we can 

dovetail some of the efforts, because the dams produce electricity, 

which then goes to the grid. We are looking at global warming effects on those dams. And, of course, the levee protection, protects 

our economy, especially in California, and we saw what happened 

in Louisiana and some of those areas. 

So I am very much looking forward to this, Madam Chair, and 

thank both of you for opening it up. I yield back. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you. Now I would like to recognize the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Brown, for opening remarks. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I thank both you 

and the Subcommittee for calling this important hearing today. 

Levees and dams serve an important purpose for both providing 

safety protection of communities, but also in providing other services such as recreation. While one may not think of coastal South 

Carolina as home to many dams, there are 59 dams in my district 

providing important services for their owners and thereby communities. Unfortunately, 12 of them are considered high hazard dams, 

and each is privately owned. 

My coastal district knows the impact of floods and storm surges. 

So I am pleased to see that this hearing is additionally focused on 

the needs to improve our Nation’s levees. The coast of my whole 

district depends upon beaches, marshes, and barrier islands to protect it from hurricanes and many areas have levees to provide additional protection. We must get a better handle on the conditions of 

our levees across the Nation and we must do it in a way that cuts 

through the bureaucracy that has clouded decisionmaking on this 

issue up until now. 

Madam Chairman, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. 

Thank you for coming. 

Ms. MATSUI. I would now like to recognize the gentleman from 

New York, Mr. Hall, for opening remarks. 

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

thank all of our witnesses today. 

I represent a district, all five counties of which are now under 

a FEMA and State Disaster Declaration. Dutchess County, Westchester County, Putnam County, Orange County, and Rockland 

County, New York, straddling both sides of the Hudson River, were 

hit very hard about two weeks ago by the nor’easter that came up 

through the eastern seaboard. I feel that we are living in an experiment. I also sit on the Select Committee on Energy Independence 

and Global Warming and we have heard testimony most recently 

from the insurance companies and their representatives and from 

reinsurance experts about how they are computing the future damage likely to be caused by increased storm severity and frequency. 

We had in the last 18 months three 50 year floods, according to the 

farmers in Orange County who I have met with whose fields are 

still drying out. 

6

Obviously, all of us need to be concerned, and we in the 19th District need to be concerned about the dams, about water projects in 

general, river clearing and snagging and channeling, and levees 

when necessary. We do not have that many of them in our part of 

the Country, but I certainly support the restoration and maintenance of those in parts of the Country where they are essential. I 

also share with my fellow Congressman Napolitano the concern 

that she voiced about the potential or the actuality of low-head 

hydro-electric power or even larger scale hydro-power being generated when possible. But the first thing is to assess the safety of 

the structures for those living downstream. 

Yesterday, I visited three dams in my district, all of which are 

over a hundred years old. The Whaley Lake Dam has burrows on 

the surface of it. It is a dam that is largely earth and rock with 

some concrete structure. It has a frozen relief valve for the emergency release, a 48 inch pipe, and that valve is in the middle of 

the dam where it would not be accessible were the dam being overtopped by high water. Also at the Beaver Dam in Orange County, 

and Veterans Memorial Park Lake Dam in Putnam County. In this 

latest storm, there was severe damage to Wappinger’s Falls Dam 

where there is a low-head hydro plant. 

How we catch up is the question. My understanding from speaking to representatives of the Corps of Engineers is they feel that 

the budget that was presented for this year by the Administration 

does not give them adequate flood control funding. I am interested 

in hearing about that. And then as long as we are out doing assessments for safety, I am curious to know how much extra time or effort is involved in doing an assessment at the same time for hydroelectric potential. 

So I am glad you are here. I am looking forward to your testimony. Thank you Madam Chair. I yield back. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you. At this time I would like to recognize 

the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Salazar, for opening remarks. 

Mr. SALAZAR. I want to thank the gentlelady. Thank you, Madam 

Chair. I appreciate that we are addressing the safety issues of our 

Nation’s levees and dams. I believe there is no question that having a safe and secure infrastructure is vital to our Country’s overall 

well-being. 

Many of our Nation’s dams are aging and deteriorating. Currently, there are over 3,300 unsafe dams across the United States. 

Look no further than last month when dam failures caused major 

problems in both New Hampshire and New Jersey. 

This morning’s front page news in the Pueblo Chieftain talks 

about Fond Creek floods embankment fails. Much of Pueblo was 

flooded yesterday because of unsafe levees. 

It is unacceptable that our Nation’s dams receive a D from the 

American Society of Civil Engineers in their 2005 Report Card for 

America’s Infrastructure. I believe that dam safety affects millions 

of people, and I am pleased to be sponsoring the Dam Rehabilitation and Repair Act of 2007 along with my good friend on the other 

side of the aisle, Mr. Randy Kuhl from New York. Our bill, H.R. 

1098, will help our local communities fix their high hazard deficient dams. Many of these dams, all State or locally owned, have 

7

been neglected for years and now pose a great risk to their nearby 

communities. 

In my State of Colorado, we have over 1,800 dams, 741 of them 

are in my district. Of those, 340 are classified as high hazard dams, 

which means they are near people and can potentially endanger 

life. An additional 19 dams are deficient and the State has determined that they are in serious need of repair. H.R. 1098 is a modest start to addressing the safety of our Nation’s dams. We should 

continue to be proactive in funding rehabilitation of critical infrastructure, and dams should be no exception. 

I look forward to today’s testimony. Thank you. I yield back. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you. At this time I would like to recognize 

the gentlelady from Hawaii, Ms. Hirono, for opening remarks. 

Ms. HIRONO. Chairwoman Matsui and Chairwoman Norton, 

thank you very much for holding this very important hearing. I 

represent a district with 136 regulated dams. On March 14 of 2006, 

one of these, the Kaloko Dam on the Island of Kauai, was breached 

after an unusually heavy rain of 40 days. This resulted in the failure of the dam and 1.6 million tons of water crashing down from 

the reservoir, resulting in the deaths of seven people including a 

young child and a woman who was eight months pregnant. In addition to the tragic loss of life, this catastrophe led to an ecological 

disaster with significant damage to streams, reefs, and coastal waters, not to mention the hardship on the farmers who relied on 

their irrigation from the dam. 

Kaloko Dam was not even characterized as a high hazard dam, 

although it was categorized as a regulated dam. It was supposed 

to be regularly inspected. Unfortunately, this did not happen. This 

dam, like the majority of old earthen dams in Hawaii, was constructed and maintained for many years by Hawaii’s formerly 

strong sugar industry. After the closure of many of these sugar 

companies, what we were left with was a dam owned by one party, 

the irrigation ditches by another party, and users of the water were 

a number of small farmers. And so the oversight formerly performed by the sugar company was simply nonexistent. 

The tragedy of Kaloko Dam focused the attention of the State of 

Hawaii on the need to assess the condition of the many old earthen 

dams in the State. And with the critically important assistance of 

the Army Corps of Engineers, all 136 regulated dams have now 

been inspected. However, the need for funds to repair, renovate, 

and in some cases demolish these dams is significant. This is why 

I have cosponsored, with our fellow Committee Member Representative Salazar, his bill H.R. 1098, the Dam Rehabilitation Repair 

Act of 2007. This bill provides Federal funding to assist States to 

address urgent needs to repair dams that pose a significant threat 

to public health and safety. I am hopeful that our Committee will 

consider H.R. 1098, which provides much needed assistance for our 

States in meeting this very urgent safety challenge. 

I yield back my time. Thank you. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you. I would like to recognize now my colleague from California, Mr. McNerney. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. I thank the Chairs and the Ranking Members 

for holding this important hearing. I represent a portion of the central valley in California just South of Sacramento, including the 

8

major city of Stockton that, like Sacramento, is very susceptible to 

levee flooding. Our district either contains or abuts a large number 

of the 122 levees that the Corps has determined to have unacceptable maintenance. So I clearly have a keen interest in today’s hearing. 

In the last few weeks, a delegation of local representatives from 

San Joaquin County and local jurisdictions within the county came 

to visit us to push for Federal funding on several issues. But the 

one issue that they stood out upon was levee failure and the levee 

security. I hear the same thing when I talk to members of my community, of the residents, they are all genuinely concerned that an 

earthquake or other natural disaster could cause major flooding 

and the disastrous consequences for decades in our area. 

We had a failure in 2004 of the levee Jones’ Tract and it took 

$90 million dollars to repair that levee. That should have been a 

wake-up call. Estimates are that a massive or multiple simultaneous failures caused by earthquake or similar event would cause 

$40 billion dollars in damage, undermine the environmental integrity of the entire delta, and shutting off water to approximately 23 

million Californians. It is a matter of time before we have this sort 

of event in California. I want to make sure we are doing everything 

we can to make sure we prevent that sort of event from being a 

catastrophe. 

I am looking forward to your testimony today. I appreciate that 

you are willing to come down here and talk to us. I yield back the 

balance of my time. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you. Now I would like to recognize the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Carnahan, for opening remarks. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. It is great to be here 

with my colleagues to talk about this key issue. I am here today 

after we have all seen the news about the Missouri River in my 

State that made it within a few feet of the historic flood crest of 

1993. 

I am very concerned and I just want to express in my opening 

remarks the lack of a nationwide inventory of all the locations for 

Federal and non-federal levees and their condition. Levees protect 

the human lives, agriculture, commercial/residential property from 

flooding on our Nation’s treasured waterways. There is absolutely 

no excuse for the Federal Government’s lack of understanding of 

the condition of every levee. For that reason, I support the creation 

of a National Levee Safety Board. 

I would also like to express my opinion regarding the need of coordination among levee districts. These levee districts are responsible for the maintenance of Federal levees but often do not sufficiently coordinate with neighboring districts. Because floods in our 

major waterways can affect numerous levee districts, Congress 

must encourage these districts to better coordinate their efforts. 

With that, I am going to ask that the remainder of my opening 

remarks be submitted for the record. I look forward to hearing this 

panel today. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you. 

We will now proceed to our witnesses. We are so pleased to have 

a very distinguished panel of witnesses on our first panel here this 

morning. First we have Mr. David Maurstad, Director of the MitiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:06 Apr 11, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35920 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
9

gation Division and Federal Insurance Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. We also have Mr. Steven L. 

Stockton, Deputy Director of Civil Works of the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers. We are pleased that you could join us this morning. 

Your full statements will be placed in the record. We ask that witnesses try to limit their testimony to a five minute oral summary 

of their written statements as a courtesy to other witnesses. 

Mr. Maurstad, please proceed, and then we will follow with Mr. 

Stockton. 

TESTIMONY OF DAVID I. MAURSTAD, DIRECTOR, MITIGATION 

DIVISION AND FEDERAL INSURANCE ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY; STEVEN L. 

STOCKTON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CIVIL WORKS, U.S. ARMY 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Good morning. My name is David Maurstad. I 

am the Assistant Administrator for Mitigation in the Department 

of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency. I 

am honored to appear before you today to discuss FEMA’s National 

Dam Safety Program and the Agency’s policies as they relate to 

levees and areas of residual risk. 

The December 22, 2006 reauthorization of the National Dam 

Safety Program will greatly benefit the States and enable the program to continue effectively addressing the risks associated with 

the more than 79,500 dams across the Nation. 

Through grants, training support, research, data collection, and 

other activities, the program provides a much needed impetus for 

the continued safeguarding and protection of people, property, and 

the dams themselves. 

The National Dam Safety Program provides critical support for 

the operation, maintenance, and improvement of the Nation’s 

dams. Thanks to the recent reauthorization, the program continues 

to improve. 

The States regulate approximately 95 percent of the Nation’s 

dams. From fiscal year 2004 through 2007, FEMA distributed a 

total of approximately $12.9 million in grant assistance to 49 participating States and Puerto Rico for dam safety. The number of 

State regulated high-and significant-hazard potential dams with 

emergency action plans, or EAPs, has increased by about 50 percent since 1998, to approximately 8,000 dams. State dam inspections have also increased from 13,000 to 15,000 inspections per 

year. This increase is particularly impressive considering that 

State dam safety budgets have been declining. 

The National Dam Safety Program also funds research projects 

in support of dam safety. To guide funding decisions, the National 

Dam Safety Review Board developed a five year strategic plan 

which ensures that priority is given to research projects that demonstrate a high degree of collaboration and expertise and will yield 

products that contribute to dam safety in the United States. Other 

important areas of focus are training and exercise initiatives, funding information technology projects, and collaboration with Federal 

agencies on dam safety and security issues. 

Federal agencies responsible for dams owned or operated by the 

Federal Government have made significant strides in ensuring the 

10

safety of dams within their jurisdictions. Federal and State coordination has also increased in many areas, including emergency action planning, inspection, research and development, training, and 

information exchange. 

Despite the program’s achievements, the dam safety community 

continues to face many challenges, most critical the aging of America’s dams. Recent data indicates that the number of deficient dams 

in the U.S. has increased by more than 33 percent since 1998 to 

more than 3,500. It is also estimated as of 2002, 85 percent of the 

dams across the Country were 50 years or older. 

The dam safety community is working on a number of options to 

remediate dam deficiencies and progress is being made. Some examples include: model loan programs for the repair of dams, dam 

removal projects, and rehabilitation programs. The program also is 

working to address the identification and classification of dams and 

to ensure that all 50 States participate in the program. Alabama, 

the only State not participating, is developing legislation needed to 

provide State participation in the program complete. 

Finally, let me turn to a significant challenge FEMA is now facing, how to depict areas situated behind levees on the agency’s 

flood insurance rate maps. These maps are currently being updated 

through FEMA’s Map Modernization Program. They are important 

community planning tools that depict flood risk levels and enable 

FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program to set fair and affordable rates. Accurately depicting levee protected areas has become 

a critical matter. Some firm panels may depict levees that have 

never been evaluated for compliance with applicable mapping criteria, yet the map modernization budget does not include resources 

for levee evaluations. In the case of private levees, the levee owner 

is responsible for providing documentation that the levee complies 

with regulatory requirements. In the case of federally-owned levees, the Federal owner agency is responsible. 

If FEMA, the National Flood Insurance Program, and our floodplain management partnership do not address this matter judiciously and wisely, the production of modernized maps could be significantly delayed. Of course, we must balance this concern with 

the need to provide levee owners enough time to evaluate levees 

and to submit required data to appropriate authorities. FEMA is 

doing all that it can to make sure that the risks in communities 

with levees are properly documented and communicated, and that 

areas behind decertified or failed levees are mapped in a manner 

that clearly identifies risk to life and property. 

Let me conclude by indicating to effectively prioritize and address issues of concern, we believe that a comprehensive national 

levee inventory system and database should be developed, monitored, and maintained. FEMA is encouraged by the Army Corps of 

Engineer’s initiative to develop a national levee inventory and we 

are working closely with the Corps at the headquarters, regional, 

and local level to address flood risk and insurance implications of 

levee certification. Thank you. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you, Mr. Maurstad. 

Mr. Stockton, you may proceed. 

Mr. STOCKTON. Thank you, Chairwoman Matsui, Ranking Member Baker, and Members of the Subcommittee. I am Steve StockVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:06 Apr 11, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35920 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
11

ton, Deputy Director of Civil Works for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and a registered professional engineer. 

I am pleased to be here today and to have the opportunity to 

speak to you about the National Dam Safety Program and the proposed National Levee Safety Program. My testimony today will provide a brief discussion on the benefits of the programs, the need for 

establishment of a National Levee Safety Program, an update for 

the current Corps of Engineers Levee Safety Program, and the coordinated efforts between the Corps, FEMA, and others in the 

Flood Risk Management Program. 

Following the failure of Teton Dam, Kelly Barnes Dam, and others in the 1970s, there was an emphasis placed on inventorying 

and inspecting dams and the need for a coordinated Federal and 

State program for dam safety. Through the years following these 

catastrophes, the program has developed into the National Dam 

Safety Program that FEMA administers, and State programs exist 

today with 49 of the 50 States. Like the dam failures in the 1970s, 

the levee and flood wall failures associated with Hurricane Katrina 

and the major levee repair needs in California, emphasize the need 

for a National Levee Safety Program and State levee regulatory 

agencies. 

The National Dam Safety Program provides benefits to the Nation by reducing risks to life and property from dam failure 

through an effective program that brings together the expertise 

and resources of the Federal and non-federal communities in 

achieving hazard reduction. These benefits are being achieved 

through the publication of various technical documents, through 

the training of dam safety professionals, through cooperative research, and through publication of the National Inventory of Dams. 

The program has allowed the Corps to leverage its resources 

through work with other Federal agencies and with the various 

States. The program has improved dam safety programs by providing a forum for the States to share information as well. 

Just as the National Dam Safety Program has improved dam 

safety across the Country, the establishment of a parallel National 

Levee Safety Program would improve levee safety. Such a program 

would provide support to new State agencies being established to 

regulate levees. This program would bring the expertise and resources of the Federal and non-Federal communities together in 

achieving levee safety hazard reduction. Development of the program will not be overnight. It has taken 25 years for the dam safety program to grow to maturity, but the levee safety program will 

use the lessons learned from the development of the dam safety 

program as a basis to allow for quicker implementation. 

The first step in establishing a levee safety program will be 

inventorying and assessing the levees. The Corps is taking the first 

step with supplemental appropriations provided in Fiscal Year 

2006 to inventory levees in the Corps program and to develop risk 

based methodology for the assessment of these levees. At present, 

we have accounted for all levees in our program and by the end of 

this Fiscal Year we will have completed detailed surveys of over 

two-thirds of all levees. Assessment methodology development is 

ongoing and is currently being beta tested. It will be ready for use 

in risk assessments in Fiscal Year 2008. 

12

Notwithstanding the Administration’s concern with the proposed 

Water Resources Development Act currently under consideration 

by Congress, I would like to present the Corps’ factual assessment 

of that bill’s proposed National Levee Safety Program. The proposed program is modeled after the current National Dam Safety 

Act. The legislation would establish a national committee of Federal, State, tribal, local, and private representatives to advise the 

Secretary of the Army on levee safety matters. The committee 

would lead the development of Federal and State standards for 

levee safety and the establishment of a model for State levee safety 

programs. The committee would draw on the expertise and knowledge of the National Dam Safety Review Board and the Interagency Committee on Dam Safety in the development of the program. Substantial changes that were added to the National Dam 

Safety Act in 2006 would be included in the levee program from its 

beginning. 

The inclusion of an assessment of each levee in the inventory 

could enhance the value of the inventory when used by various 

emergency agencies and local governments during times of natural 

disasters. The assessments could allow the first responders to focus 

their actions in critical areas where failures are most likely to 

occur. This could save time and possibly lives in emergency situations. In addition, these assessments could provide information to 

assist local governments, public utilities, and private individuals 

when making investment decisions concerning property protected 

by the levees. 

If the proposed legislation is enacted in its current version, authorization of appropriations would be included that are consistent 

with the appropriations that have been provided over the years for 

the National Dam Safety Program. 

We are committed to continuing to improve the safety of Federal 

dams and levees, continuing to cooperate with other Federal and 

non-Federal agencies to reduce the risk to public safety in areas located below dams and behind levees, continuing to help decisionmakers set priorities for future dam and levee safety investments, 

and continuing to ensure that all Americans can make more informed decisions on building homes, locating businesses, and purchasing flood insurance based on the actual risk of flood and storm 

damages where they live. 

This concludes my statement. Again, I appreciate the opportunity 

to testify today. I would be pleased to answer any questions. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you very much. I would like to begin by asking Mr. Stockton a question about watersheds in a sense. We all 

know that we cannot look at an area just segment-by-segment because every area affects every other area. And we are looking more 

at watershed planning, how one area affects the other, and what 

we do in the various areas. So I was wondering what changes to 

existing authorities or new authorities will be needed for the Corps 

to better analyze cumulative impacts of flood control projects and 

better incorporate these projects into more realistic watershed 

plans. 

Mr. STOCKTON. Thank you, ma’am. Coming out of Hurricane 

Katrina, we did, in fact, find that we had a hurricane protection 

system in name only. The projects had been authorized as indiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:06 Apr 11, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35920 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
13

vidual components. A lot of our policies drive us to work with nonFederal sponsors to authorize and then to construct individual 

projects. What we are hoping to do is develop a more comprehensive, integrated systems approach to planning; manage all of the 

projects within a watershed to achieve multiple purposes; look at 

life safety as being the primary objective; and really improve our 

ability at risk communication and lifecycle management of infrastructure. 

As far as the needed authorities, I think we have many authorities now that allow us to take a step in that direction. One of the 

main obstacles to doing watershed planning has been the provisions that require non-Federal sponsors cost-share those studies. 

We were funded in Fiscal Year 2006 to do five pilot watershed 

studies at 100 percent Federal funding, and I think those experiences and the lessons learned out of those five pilot watershed 

studies will inform future decisions on what additional authorities 

may be needed. 

Ms. MATSUI. To follow up, would you be considering some nonstructural elements as you are proceeding in analyzing watersheds, 

not just the structural elements of levees and dams? 

Mr. STOCKTON. Absolutely. 

Ms. MATSUI. I have a question for Mr. Maurstad about the 100-

year floodplain. Is it an appropriate level of protection for most 

flood control decisions? I know it is as far as a marker for flood insurance. But is it an appropriate level of protection? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. I think the thing to keep in mind relative to the 

100-year level or the 1 percent annual chance is that it is a minimum Federal requirement for the Flood Insurance Program. That 

has become a marker for making other decisions, other policy decisions which may or may not be appropriate. I think we need to continue to move forward in making sure that people understand that 

as we communicate what a 1 percent annual chance is, that is just 

the minimum level. We want to continue to encourage communities 

to base decisions on higher levels and reward them for doing that 

through the community rating system and providing discounts to 

policyholders in their particular area. 

A similar issue to the one that you have raised is to make sure 

that people understand and that we look toward recognizing residual risk behind levees and dams, and that people understand that 

the levee and the dam is providing a particular level of protection 

up to a particular design for a particular size of storm. But, again, 

that is just a guide for us to use, it is not an absolute as to whether 

or not you have protection for every and all events that may occur. 

So I think we need to better communicate. I think we need to 

make sure local and State governments base their decisions that 

this is the minimum Federal requirement, that the private sector 

also look at it and recognize that there may be issues of risk that 

they need to take into account as they make decisions on development. So communication, identification, and analysis of the risk I 

believe we just need to continue to improve upon. 

Ms. MATSUI. For both of you. I know that FEMA and the Corps 

work pretty well together. I see this in Sacramento a lot. But what 

changes would you like to see to improve program efficiency and 

interaction between the Corps and FEMA? 

14

Mr. MAURSTAD. Well, I will start in saying that there has been 

a very good working relationship between FEMA and the Corps 

historically. I believe that with the support of Administrator 

Paulison, General Strock, General Riley, we have raised that to a 

higher level, going back to August of 2005 when senior leadership 

began meeting and working in conjunction with the Association of 

State Floodplain Managers and NAFSMA on how we can better coordinate our programs so that the end user—communities, States, 

and local citizens—can better understand the relationship and the 

responsibilities and the role of the respective agencies. 

We have done more than just meet at that level. We also have 

taken steps together with General Riley to have greater working 

relationships at the field level with the FEMA regions and the 

Corps districts so that there is a better coordination and consistency throughout the Country on policies that affect both FEMA and 

the Corps of Engineers. 

So I think we had a good foundation. We have built on that foundation for greater communication and collaboration. Part of why we 

are doing this is so that we can identify those areas that we do not 

need additional legislation to better provide service to the Country. 

And in those areas where there may be changes in regulation or 

guidance, that we do it in cooperation and collaboration instead of 

individually, and then finally, if there are areas that need legislative remedy, that we bring that to the attention of decisionmakers. 

Mr. STOCKTON. I could not agree with Mr. Maurstad more. I 

think collaboration has been excellent at the national level and at 

the regional level. Before we go out with policies on certification of 

levees, or vegetation management policies on levees, or issuance of 

flood risk maps, we coordinate those very, very closely so we do not 

confuse the public by having different policies. So, a very good collaborative relationship. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you. I would now like to have Ranking Member Baker ask questions. 

Mr. BAKER. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Stockton, I want to 

engage in a more detailed discussion about Katrina assessments. 

Since the event of the storm and the extensive work the Corps has 

engaged in, which has been monumental, to restore and improve 

the levee system, does the Corps now have a database of levee integrity to know where we still have identifiable problems, or is 

there insufficient data yet to make a levee system assessment? 

Mr. STOCKTON. Specifically within New Orleans and vicinity, we 

have that information. We have done detailed assessments of the 

Hurricane and flood damage reduction systems in that vicinity. 

Mr. BAKER. How granular is that? Is it just by drainage basin? 

Can we get to neighborhood? In other words, if I am a homeowner 

and I want to know what my circumstance looks like, what kind 

of risk assessment am I as a homeowner able to make by calling 

the Corps, or do we need more data? 

Mr. STOCKTON. I would say within the next month we, in collaboration with FEMA, will be issuing risk maps, that try to take a lot 

of the technical information that has been acquired through assessments of the levee systems and be able to communicate that and 

inform the public about that residual risk. So we are probably 

15

about a month out from being able to really issue those maps and 

that information in an understandable form. 

Mr. BAKER. Okay. Were there are actually two parts here. One 

is I guess the FEMA part, which is the hydrology, storm surge kind 

of assessment. I am more interested in the structural side. If the 

entity that is there is sitting on top of a clay and we have got a 

T-wall barrier that might get tilted with the storm surge and the 

water seeps down the front, all of a sudden you have got that 

leveraging effect that causes failure. Do we have a good understanding about the structural integrity of the levee as separated 

from the overall storm management risk issue, which is the FEMA 

part? 

Mr. STOCKTON. Yes. We have completed the detailed assessments 

and we are now in the design phase for those areas that are deficient and implementing remedial designs for those areas. 

Mr. BAKER. Based on that assessment, and I know that the system varies from section to section as to what level storm it is competent to withstand, Orleans area only, are we now back to preKatrina level? Are we at 90 percent? What is your assessment of 

our condition in a categorical sense? 

Mr. STOCKTON. Today, we are back to pre-Katrina levels. The 

pre-Katrina levels after the Interagency Performance Evaluation 

Team looked at the entire system were not as high as we thought 

they were pre-Katrina. So they are higher than they were prior to 

Katrina but they are not as high as we thought they were because 

of a lot of factors. 

Mr. BAKER. I know there is litigation pending, but have we made 

any determination on the governmental side about prior failure to 

meet design standards by contractors constructing any element of 

the levee system? I know you may not be able to say in some cases 

because there is some litigation about this ongoing I understand. 

But I will make it easier. As opposed to construction and adequacy, 

or design and adequacy, or design built to the 100-year level and 

the storm simply overwhelmed appropriate design based on that 

frequency of storm, what is the most common problem in assessment of the post-Katrina event: contractor deficiency; design deficiency; and maybe I ought to add a fourth, lack of maintenance to 

maintain the integrity; or an unpredictable storm that simply overwhelmed the generally accepted standard for protection? 

Mr. STOCKTON. Sir, I think those are all contributing factors. As 

you know, we have produced our Interagency Performance Evaluation Team Report that was peer reviewed by the American Society 

of Civil Engineers and which is being reviewed by the National 

Academy of Science. All that information on the engineering 

forensics of what happened and why, is publicly available, it is 

posted on the IPET website. So the information is out there. I cannot give you a breakdown of the root causes from each of those contributing factors, but they all come into play. 

Mr. BAKER. Equally? There is no predominant observation as a 

result of the storm there is one area we need to be more concerned 

about than others? 

Mr. STOCKTON. I think if there is one predominant area, it was 

the overwhelming nature of the storm. It exceeded the design 

16

standards in many areas. But there were other contributing factors. 

Mr. BAKER. And it was a 3 storm that hit rather than a 5. Thank 

God for that. Going forward, we have another Katrina on the horizon, and this is maybe a FEMA contributing response as well, but 

assume for the moment it is that 3-plus storm this season, are 

there areas where we should have particular concerns? There is a 

balance here. People will not leave more than three days in advance. If you maximized outflow for three days from the Orleans 

area, there is not enough concrete to get everybody out under sort 

of the existing protocol that is usually adopted. Has there been any 

modification, FEMA, your agency, as to how we notify in this particular locale the people with better information earlier on, a more 

sophisticated risk quantification? So that we know there is a problem with the levee, we know this storm has a high likelihood, and 

we know we have got too many people to get out. What can we do 

to avoid that, and what structural, organizational, informational 

changes have been made since Katrina going into this storm season? 

Mr. STOCKTON. Sir, as you know, we are continuing to build the 

system stronger and better. Every day that goes on, we continue 

to complete work that provides additional protection. These risk 

maps that will be published within a month will show at different 

points in time how much risk is reduced based upon——

Mr. BAKER. Excuse me. I am way over my time and I want to 

get the point in. 

The publication of the map a month from now is certainly helpful 

and will give people with the ability to make their own personal 

independent assessment. What I am speaking to is the public service notifications that come across the media based on your structural and engineering knowledge, complemented by FEMA’s own 

assessment of the severity of the storm to give people more adequate warning to take actions on their own to avoid what happened 

before. 

I will point out, you said we are back to pre-Katrina levee construction standards which were less than what we thought they 

were, which, in my view, is probably inadequate to withstand a 

storm of the severity which we faced two years ago. I hope my assessments are incorrect. But in light of that, do we have a better 

ability to notify people of the pending risk so that they can get the 

heck out in a more deliberate time? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Mr. Baker, I would say we certainly do, built 

upon the work that was started this time last year, fine tuned 

throughout the year, and again working on as we approach hurricane season again this year by the Louisiana Transition Recovery 

Office in New Orleans, working very closely with the State and 

very closely with New Orleans on refining and making sure that 

the community has an evacuation plan that encompasses all the 

various needed components to identify, as you have talked about, 

if a certain situation exists, how are we going to assist, how is the 

community going to evacuate for that particular set of circumstances, including at-risk individuals that may not be able to 

evacuate themselves, better sheltering in place, and a whole variety of components that make up a good, sound, solid evacuation 

17

plan. Of course, primary responsibility for that, with the support 

of FEMA and the State, is the City. 

Mr. BAKER. Madam Chair, I thank you for your indulgence in the 

time. This is an area where we have a lot of work yet to do I am 

afraid. 

Ms. MATSUI. I understand, Mr. Baker. At this time I would like 

to recognize Chairwoman Norton for her questions. 

I know we have another panel following this. I would like to try 

to limit the questioning to five minutes. Thank you. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Mr. Stockton, 

I could not help but notice, I hope you noticed, in the New York 

Times yesterday a report where one of the critics of the dam construction in New Orleans offered more criticism. This, of course, is 

Robert Bee, the professor of engineering from the University of 

California at Berkeley, who was concerned about erosion on a levee 

by the Mississippi River Gulf outlet. This is a navigation canal that 

helped channel water into New Orleans during the storm. He indicated that the Corps had done good work and he could not be certain without further inspection, and did not want to cry wolf, but 

he did say he also did not want to ignore what he calls potentially 

important early warning signs. 

Now what he points to is the use in the levees in New Orleans 

of a dense clay-rich soil that is supposed to resist erosion, and he 

cites recent work in the Netherlands that suggest that clay-capped 

levees with a porous core were prone to a failure in high water. 

My question is, why did the Corps reject the suggestion that the 

levee should be armored with rock or concrete against overtopping 

and instead use this porous clay-rich soil which may erode over 

time? 

Mr. STOCKTON. Ma’am, as I stated earlier, our number one priority is public safety. I, too, read the article. We imported most of 

the clay-rich soil because it is more resistant than some of the——

Ms. NORTON. I am asking a very specific question. Why the soil 

rather than the rock or concrete? Do you disagree that the rock or 

concrete overtopping would have been more secure? I understand 

that you are doing your best. I want to know why you chose one 

material over the other. 

Mr. STOCKTON. We have some funds included in there to provide 

overtopping protection. We do not have enough funding to provide 

overtopping protection everywhere. That said, we are importing 

high-quality materials, they are meeting ASTM standards, and 

they are being built to very high standards. You can always build 

things better and stronger if you have enough money to build them 

better and stronger. 

Ms. NORTON. So I take it you are not using the rock or concrete 

topping anywhere in the levees in the Gulf region? 

Mr. STOCKTON. No, we are in many areas. 

Ms. NORTON. So how do you determine where to use it? How do 

you determine, given the limited funds which I think you cite as 

a reason for not using them universally, how do you determine 

when to use them and where to use the rock or concrete overtopping? Where are they being used, for example? 

Mr. STOCKTON. In the highly dense urban areas, we have now 

modified our structures to prevent erosion on the backside of those 

18

levees where there is high risk and high consequences to human 

life and property. In other areas, we have used lesser standards 

where there are lower consequences. 

Ms. NORTON. Would you within 30 days submit to this Committee an indication of where the rock or concrete overtopping is 

being used and where the porous clay is being used, and what percentage have rock or concrete overtopping? I understand what you 

are saying and also understand that you have very severe funding 

issues. 

[Information follows:]

19


35920.006
20

Ms. NORTON. Finally, let me ask, I am depending here upon one 

of your critics, and he has been a critic for some time, even though 

he says he is trying to be balanced here and gives you some considerable praise, the question is suggested whether or not there is any 

systematic peer review of the work of the Corps, or whether we are 

always dependent upon your critics, because here in the New York 

Times article, some said it looks all right to me, some say it did 

not. Here I am a Member of Congress trying to make a judgement. 

Is there any peer review system that the Corps uses? 

Mr. STOCKTON. Yes, ma’am. Every product we produce has an 

independent technical review of that product, and depending upon 

the risk and consequence, we will use other societies, like the 

American Society of Civil Engineers, as we did on the Interagency 

Performance Evaluation Team, the National Academies. For general design things, we will have architect engineer firms design 

them. So we are very open. We want the best possible solutions to 

problems. 

Ms. NORTON. And this has been peer reviewed, the use of the 

clay reinforcements has been peer reviewed and has been approved? 

Mr. STOCKTON. I am not familiar with the specific allegations 

and locations. All I know is that the new designs that we are constructing go through an independent technical review process. If 

this is in a location where we are instituting a new design, it will 

go through that process. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Stockton. I am very concerned. We are going to have in my Subcommittee hearings on the 

over-arching issues that we think will keep or help repopulation of 

New Orleans, in particular. One of the things we are looking at, 

for example, is insurance, because if people cannot get insurance, 

I do not care what you do or what anybody does, it is not going 

to occur. 

And another thing we are looking at is the levees. Unless people 

believe that this is not going to happen to them again, people can 

keep saying come home, but people are not going to come home. So 

I am going to ask you to get to my Committee within 30 days what 

the peer review details are. Who did the peer review for the use 

of the clay-rich soil that is now being used on the levees around 

New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, which agency, National Academy 

of Sciences, the Association of Civil Engineers, whichever one. 

Please get that and a copy of the peer review to our Subcommittee 

within 30 days. 

I thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

[Information follows:]

21


35920.007
22


35920.008
23

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Norton. 

Now I would like to recognize Mr. Boustany. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I will stick to the 

five minute rule as well. I do want to refer to an article that came 

out in the New York Times yesterday that Ms. Holmes Norton referenced. The initial response by the Corps was that the engineer 

from the University of California at Berkeley was overstating the 

risk. But the Corps issued a statement saying that they would basically go back and reinspect these areas where there was so-called 

rills or furrows. And granted there is some ongoing erosion as you 

construct levees, has the Corps completed the reinspection of those 

areas? And is there still a disagreement about the risk? And what 

can be done? 

We are talking about potential lives here going into the next hurricane season. We are also looking at the specter of law suits. How 

can we get everybody together on determining what these risks are 

so that we can construct appropriate levees? Mr. Stockton, would 

you answer that please. 

Mr. STOCKTON. I cannot respond specifically to the allegation. 

Now I need to explain something about levees. They are designed 

to a certain height, and they are designed to be durable, and sustainable. But there is always going to be a certain amount of residual risk that there could be a potential storm that will exceed that. 

So what you want is a levee, that if overtopped, won’t fail catastrophically, that it will resist erosion. And it becomes then a balancing act—do you build it higher within the resources you have 

available, or do you build it lower but more durable to sustain that 

overtopping at a lower level. You are trying to strike the right balance because you can never build something high enough or strong 

enough to resist all possible storm events. So there is always a certain amount of residual risk which falls into the Flood Insurance 

Program to cover. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Clearly, there are designs that you take into account and then there are also the soil conditions. I was just curious 

to know, after reinspection have you come out with any further 

statements with regard to the allegations that were made by this 

University of California engineer. Is the Corps talking to others in 

academia who have looked at this independently to see if we can 

come to some kind of an agreement as to what needs to be done? 

Mr. STOCKTON. We work very closely with others, and this gets 

back to the independent technical review. This IPET study had 

over 150 individuals, engineers, scientists from inside the Federal 

Government, academia, outside the Corps of Engineers; we have 

Dutch experts involved in our design teams, we have internationally renowned architect engineer firms helping us with not only the 

design but the peer review. It is very difficult to respond to allegations that are in the New York Times when you do not know exactly where it is, or what they are referring to, or the time that 

they were referring to it. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. I understand. 

Mr. STOCKTON. So, we take it very seriously. Public safety is our 

primary concern. We are going to provide the best possible flood 

damage reduction, and reduce the risk within the resources we 

have available. 

24

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Stockton. I yield back. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you. I would like to recognize now Mr. Hall. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a question for Mr. 

Stockton. Would you support assessments of dams for low-head 

hydro-electric power generation? And how much extra time or effort would that take if you were assessing a dam for safety and 

your people are there anyway? I am aware of at least one project 

in Pennsylvania where the Corps is currently involved in a lowhead hydro project. So there is obviously experience and expertise. 

The question is, while we are at it, how much would that add to 

your job? 

Mr. STOCKTON. Thank you, sir. I think it is really two separate 

issues. When you are doing the dam safety assessment you are 

looking at the structural integrity of the project. To look at a hydropower potential assessment, I know about 20 years ago we did 

a nationwide assessment of hydro potential throughout the United 

States. 

But that is more hydrologic, economic evaluation of the quantity 

of water, the amount of head you have, and then looking at what 

kind of capital investment you would want to make to produce that 

hydropower. So I think they are two separate activities. I do not 

think they could be bundled together to do them concurrently. 

There would not be a lot of common purpose in doing them. I think 

it is a great suggestion that we do evaluate them for hydropower 

potential, but it would be a different group of people having to do 

that with different skill sets. 

Mr. HALL. Okay. But would it be cheaper or would it not if, say, 

a spillway or a release pipe were being repaired or installed, to, if 

one were going to do a hydro application at that dam, to do that 

at the same time that the repair is being made? 

Mr. STOCKTON. Absolutely. 

Mr. HALL. Okay. And are you, and I guess this would also be a 

question for Mr. Maurstad, are you planning currently for increased storm severity and frequency due to climate change? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. We are. Currently, Congress is looking at whether or not we should be moving more forward in doing that right 

now. As we utilize the information that we have available to us to 

determine the premiums for national flood insurance policies, we 

look at what the current circumstances are, what the current risk 

is, and with the current program limitations, what premiums can 

we charge. Clearly, that is one component of the overall assessment. Do we need to do more in looking at what the potential is 

for future damages as a result of climate change? Arguably, we do. 

We currently insure about a trillion dollars worth of property 

throughout the 50 States and Territories. So we know what the potential downside risk is. Are storms going to increase in severity, 

increase in frequency, and what effect does climate change have on 

that, we are going to look at that more closely. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Stockton, you do not have to add to that, but you 

can if you would like. 

Mr. STOCKTON. I just wanted to say that we have always been 

in the business of attenuating the hydrograph peaks and valleys 

with droughts and floods. And we continue to adopt and update 

25

based upon changing hydrologic records, depending upon the severity and frequency of those events. So, yes, we are adjusting. 

Mr. HALL. We have in my district in the Wallkill River Valley 

a multistage project that the Corps did over the course of the last 

century, the most recent installment of a three-part planned 

straightening, clearing and snagging, and channeling of the river 

and its tributaries was completed in 1984 and there has been no 

work done since then. This is one of the areas where black dirt 

farmers were completely underwater and their planting season was 

severely disrupted. 

The question is, since the upstream part of the project is what 

remains to be done, how does FEMA or the Corps assess whether 

to straighten a stream or a river, and/or to place levees on it versus 

encouraging development to move out of the flood prone areas? Obviously, we have got a lot of not just farmers, but homes being built 

now because of the extension North out of the city. Is there a decisionmaking process as to whether you straighten a stream, do a 

project, or induce people to move out of that area based on the likelihood of flooding? 

Mr. STOCKTON. Yes, sir, we have a very comprehensive, technically rigorous planning approach where we will look at the 

project, develop alternative solutions, and we will look at all those 

things, look at moving folks out of the floodplain, we will look at 

nonstructural solutions, we will look at structural solutions. We 

will evaluate all of those different options and, in conjunction with 

our local sponsor, we will make recommendations, investment recommendations to the Administration and Congress based upon all 

of those factors, and it is very project-by-project. 

Mr. MAURSTAD. FEMA will provide assistance to local communities in the development of a local mitigation plan that will look 

at situations and circumstances like you have described. But the 

decisions as to development and whatnot are left at the local level. 

Mitigation projects, by the same token, are developed at the local 

level to determine if there are areas that the community would like 

to have folks relocate from, turn back to green space. Again, local 

decisions. But we have mitigation funding programs that are available to help assist with the economic aspects of those decisions 

made at the local level. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you. I would now like to call upon the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. I had 

the privilege of chairing this Subcommittee for six years up until 

this Congress. In the last Congress, we reauthorized the Dam Safety Program Act. Also, I introduced the original National Levee 

Safety Program Act, although we did not complete the work on 

that. Congressman Costello and I a little over a year ago toured 

various water projects for a week in California and part of that 

time we spent in Sacramento and we saw the flooding and the 

levee problems they have had there. So I know how important this 

work is. 

I guess one of the things I would like to point out is that we have 

had a lot of people working on these programs in the past. These 

are not new all of a sudden type situations we are talking about 

26

here. In fact, I notice in our briefing paper it says the Congress directed the Secretary of the Army to undertake a national program 

on the inspection of dams in 1972. Then we authorized the first 

Dam Safety Program in the WRDA Act of 1996. The Corps, as one 

of our key staffers said to me a few minutes ago, the Corps wrote 

the book on levee construction and got into it in the early 1800s, 

and the Dutch even sent their experts over here to learn about levees from us. 

So Mr. Stockton, there are a lot of people that are already working on all of these program about dam safety and levee construction and problems in the Corps right now and have been for many 

years. Is that correct? 

Mr. STOCKTON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DUNCAN. But then I see that the estimate is it would take 

$100 million, $60,000 a mile, just to assess the 1,600 miles of levees in the central valley of California. Now the Corps, by our information, has constructed 9,000 of the 15,000 miles of levees in this 

Country. Is that correct or fairly accurate? 

Mr. STOCKTON. I am not familiar with those specific numbers, 

but it sounds close. 

Mr. DUNCAN. That is what we have in our information here, so 

I assume it is fairly close to being correct. You know, I guess the 

point I want to make is, this work is very important and needs to 

be done, but it also needs to be done in a cost-effective way that 

keeps the taxpayers in mind. You know, when you say $100 million, I bet that if we put out a contract for $50 million to do these 

assessments that companies would be jumping to get it. Also, you 

might want a Rolls Royce or a Mercedes, but a Chevrolet might do 

just as well to transport you to and from where you are going. So 

I hope that we try to do these things in a cost-effective. We need 

to do them, but I hope we do them in a cost-effective way that is 

fair to the taxpayers. 

In addition to that, because we have had so many people working 

on these things for so long, surely we know where the greatest 

threats are or where the biggest potential problems are. Do we not 

have information about that already, Mr. Stockton, since we have 

so many people working on these things already? 

Mr. STOCKTON. Yes, sir. What we have done is we have tried to 

divide this into groups and it really has to do with ownership. 

There are the levees that we designed and constructed and we still 

own, the ones we have turned over to local entities to operate and 

maintain, and then those categories of levees that we have adopted 

into our rehabilitation and inspection program. We have a pretty 

good grip on those and those are the ones we are currently 

inventorying. We are also taking steps to get the cost of these assessments down. We produced numbers about a year ago based 

upon not knowing that fourth category of levees, all the non-Federal ones—who constructed them, where they are, or even how 

many there are—and we came up with some rough order of magnitude cost estimates. We are going to conduct five beta tests the 

latter part of this year to test the risk assessment methodology and 

to get the rough order of magnitude cost estimates down to a reasonable number. 

27

But as you can imagine, some of these levees were designed to 

current engineering standards, others where you might have a 

farmer’s levee out there that you have no technical information on 

when or how it was constructed. And so I think through these beta 

tests of our risk assessment methodology we will come up with a 

much more economical way of doing these assessments. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. My time is up. All I am saying is let us 

just use a little commonsense on this very important work. Thank 

you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you very much, Mr. Duncan. I would like 

now to recognize Mrs. Napolitano for questions. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am very interested in all of the discussion over the dams. Of course, Mr. 

Maurstad, in your testimony you indicate that the Dam Safety Act 

budgets have been declining, and you give information about 2003, 

2004, but you do not give any information on 2005 or 2006 of 

whether or not it is still continuing to decline. That is one area. 

I note the fact that the American Society of Civil Engineers gave 

a 2005 report with a D for the status of the infrastructure of America’s dams. And following along with Mr. Duncan’s line is the 

prioritization of areas where we know that you have a greater risk, 

whether it is earthquake or flood, hurricanes, et cetera. How do we 

tell the States you are not putting a focus, you are relying on the 

Federal Government for bailout or for assistance knowing full well 

that you are in an area where you are at risk for a catastrophe of 

some kind. Would you address that. 

Mr. MAURSTAD. I will try. The reference in the testimony I believe was to the declining support at the State level for dam safety 

programs, and that information I believe we generated from the 

National Dam Safety Review Board information. I do not think we 

necessarily solicited that information. It is more of a general comment as to this is the environment that exists in the States with 

some of the States that have had revenue shortfalls in the previous 

years. The support for the National Dam Safety Program from the 

Federal Government has remained fairly level during that period 

of time. We continue to do what we can to support the States in 

their efforts. 

If I did not fully address your question, maybe you could——

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, have you been able to identify those 

States whose budgets are getting lower or continue to decline? Are 

those areas where you know they are at risk? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. I would have to go back and see if we could generate that information on specific State-by-State support of the 

Dam Safety Program in their particular State. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Chair, may I ask the Committee to 

get some information on that. 

The other question I have, and we do not touch on that, is personnel issues, for both of you, whether you have continued to decline in personnel, professional personnel that you can rely on to 

be able to carry out the duties or the work that needs to be done 

for the safety of the dams. 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Well our level of personnel has not changed during my tenure that I am aware of. We continue to have very competent people that are working to assist the Dam Safety Program. 

28

Throughout my particular directorate, of course, we all face transition and folks coming in and going out of Federal Government service, but I think it has been fairly stable in the dam safety area, and 

of good quality people. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Has your budget been as stable? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Again, the budget has been relatively stable over 

the course of the last few years. We continue to try to put forth the 

necessary resources. The grants have remained fairly level. We recognize that there is always a need for greater support and we continue to try to find ways to do that. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I am sorry but my time is running out, sir. I 

really wanted more focus on whether you are getting enough funding to be able to do the review of the safety of the dams with the 

personnel that you have. Every year I know almost every agency’s 

budget has been cut. So how then would you be able to do the job, 

if that is happening to your agency? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. This is not an area where the budget has been 

cut. I think we have remained fairly close to the authorized levels. 

This is an area where there is a great need out there. It is a relatively small program that has done fairly well with the resources 

that it has been provided. The statistics in my testimony I think 

indicate that a lot has been done. There is still more that needs 

to be done. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. If you have been able to put in some kind of 

format the catastrophes that have happened in the last, say, five 

years that have indicated an increase of need of services, an increase in budget for services, because we have had some major catastrophes, and how can we look forward to dealing with those in 

the future? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Well, again, it really would be necessary to go 

back and see which of those disasters were less than whatever the 

design level for the particular control structure would be. Again, I 

have to harken back to we have developed a risk consequence equation in the Country that bases resources, both Government and private sector, on trying to withstand a 1 percent annual chance flood 

event. And let me just speak to the area of flooding. There are 

many events that occur every year that exceed a 1 percent annual 

level of opportunity to occur. That is the balance that we try to 

pose. That is why we strongly encourage communities and individuals to mitigate against greater storm levels than that. That is just 

a minimum Federal level requirement. It is not an indication that 

a community or an individual is not at risk for flooding or other 

type of hurricane-related event. 

The Dutch has been mentioned a couple of times. After their 

great catastrophe over half a century ago, they developed a system 

that is not a 1 percent annual level, but a one one-hundredth of 

1 percent annual level. We have a different attitude toward risk in 

this Country. I am not quite sure why. But to be able to answer 

your question more pointedly, a great deal of research would have 

to be done on the disasters that were caused, that were less than 

the 1 percent annual chance. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would ask Mr. 

Stockton if he could reply in writing to any of the questions that 

he may. 

29

Mr. STOCKTON. Yes, ma’am. 

[Information follows:]

30


35920.009
31

Ms. NORTON. [presiding] I thank the gentlelady very much. Mr. 

Dent. 

Mr. DENT. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mr. Maurstad, my 

question deals with some issues I have been confronting in eastern 

Pennsylvania. As you are aware, we have had some major weather 

events in eastern Pennsylvania; three significant floods in the past 

two years. There has been quite a bit of public discussion about the 

reservoirs up in New York State and at what level of capacity they 

should, and that if we had less water in the reservoirs and provide 

for releases of water, that might somehow mitigate flooding downstream or down the Delaware. This has been the source of a number of debates and discussions among the Delaware River Basin 

Commission, FEMA officials, Department of Environmental Protection officials. I have had meetings and a lot of conversation about 

it. I just want to get your take on this, about releases of waters 

from reservoirs, in this case the ones up in New York State that 

feed New York City. How do you think that would impact on flood 

mitigation efforts on rivers like the Delaware? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Well my reaction would be that our programs 

can be affected by the decisions that are made by State and local 

governments. And as a result, we certainly want to be a part of 

those discussions to know how our programs, specifically, National 

Flood Insurance Program, and our policyholders would be affected 

by that. 

I do not have the expertise to know the proper level of a particular reservoir in a circumstance like that. Again, we try to look 

at and understand and assess what the risk is in a particular area 

against the 100-year level flood that I talked about before. But it 

is really outside the scope of the National Flood Insurance Program 

to weigh in on that, sir. 

Mr. DENT. I guess my main comment would be we would like to 

continue to see an active FEMA presence in these discussions as 

we wrestle with the issues of flooding along the Delaware, which 

has become more pronounced in recent years. 

My second question also to Mr. Maurstad. Last year when we 

held a similar hearing, we heard that FEMA was having difficulty 

developing specific criteria to define what a State regulated dam is 

for purposes of allocating State assistance awards. Has FEMA developed a definition? And if not, how is this being addressed? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. I believe the criteria that you requested is currently under review by the National Dam Safety Board. I think a 

draft has been developed, it is going through the decisionmaking 

process of the Board, and would anticipate that a proposal will be 

provided to the Dam Safety Review Board when it meets in June, 

and we will know the outcome at that point to that draft performance guidance. 

Mr. DENT. Thank you. The National Weather Service too has advised that the eastern part of the United States is in a tropical 

weather pattern where we should anticipate additional extreme 

storm events. Has FEMA developed any strategies under the National Dam Safety Program for mitigating against an increased 

likelihood of these floods? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Well I think we expect that there is going to be 

activity, and so the prospect or the likelihood does not drive our acVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:06 Apr 11, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35920 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
32

tions as much as just making sure that we do what we can to be 

prepared—to have planned, to have exercised, to have programs in 

place—so that if an event happens in a particular dam area, the 

community and individuals will know what actions to take. Part of 

that is to try to encourage individuals and communities to take actions today that will reduce their vulnerability in the future. So I 

would say our actions are less driven by forecasts and more driven 

by what we understand events are going to happen somewhere in 

this Country and we have to be prepared for them. 

Mr. DENT. I thank you, Mr. Maurstad. Mr. Stockton, the Corps 

recently produced an inventory of levees at risk of failure due to 

lack of proper maintenance. What can be done to ensure that levees are properly maintained by the responsible parties once they 

are built? 

Mr. STOCKTON. Yes, we have put out guidance to more strictly 

enforce our existing standards. What we have is our Public Law 84-

99, Rehabilitation and Inspection Program. And under that, if a 

levee owner’s levee is in that program, we will actually rebuild and 

restore that levee if it is damaged to 100 percent of what its prestorm condition was. So we encourage them and incentivize the 

non-Federal owners to maintain them at a high standard so they 

can stay within this program. If they are levees of maintenance 

concern where they do not maintain them to a certain standard, 

then they are no longer in that program. 

Mr. DENT. Thank you, Mr. Stockton. Madam Chair, I yield back 

at this time. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Dent. Mr. McNerney. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Maurstad, you 

stated that FEMA is evaluating levee safety and decertification and 

the impact that will have on insurance. A lot of my constituents 

are going to be impacted by this, so I would like to develop some 

degree of comfort with the outcome. 

What are the timelines? I see my notes say there is going to be 

about two-thirds of the levees will be inspected and judged by the 

end of this year. 

What sort of scientific tools are going to be brought to bear on 

this? For example, $20 million was spent on a levee in our district 

recently and now they are worried that it is going to be decertified. 

So we need to know that if money is spent on these levees that it 

is not going to be decertified soon afterwards. 

And will the outcome be used to decide what the priorities are 

for levee work from the Corps of Engineers? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Thank you. I can answer part of that question 

and part of it may be more in Mr. Stockton’s area. FEMA does not 

certify the levee. What we are doing, in coordination with the 

Corps’ levee assessment, is as we are going through a mapping 

process in a particular county or a particular jurisdiction, we are 

asking the owners of the levees to provide to FEMA certification 

that that levee either meets or continues to meet the 1 percent annual chance standard. We develop processes during the map development to allow communities the adequate time, if they believe 

that their levees are certifiable, to provide us with that information. And we are coordinating, again, with the Corps while that 

process is going on. 

33

Our role in this is to make sure that as we develop new modernized, digital flood maps that they accurately relay the risk of flooding to that particular jurisdiction. Because we think it is important 

that people know what their risk is to property and to life associated with the levee, and that the levee in fact does provide the 

level of protection that people believe that it does. So it is that coordination that is occurring with Corps that I hope provides you 

with the assurance that you need. 

Mr. STOCKTON. Yes, sir. We provide standards for levee certification for them to resist the one year exceedance flow event. We 

do that certification for levees which we own. It is the non-Federal 

owner’s responsibility to do the certification for their levees based 

upon those standards. 

I think the scenario you are describing is where the situation 

changes; you have a new hydrologic record, a different flow frequency, you might have new information on the under-seepage underneath the levee, you might have erosion, you might have incomplete maintenance. So that is why we have the Inspection of Completed Works Program, to annually reassess whether those levees 

are meeting the standards, and where they are not they become decertified. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Okay. I yield back at this point. 

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

Carnahan. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thanks again to 

the panelists for being here. I just had a couple of quick questions 

I wanted to continue with. In my home area in St. Louis, Missouri, 

we have a very large levee called the St. Louis Flood Protection 

System, which I am sure you are familiar with. During the great 

flood in 1993, a section of the flood wall failed even though the 

water level was below the height for which the flood wall was designed. 

Today, 14 years later, the problem has still not been fixed. My 

constituents, thousands of acres of commercial/industrial property, 

railroad tracks and roads would be affected if that were to fail. 

Some insurance experts have estimated that $3 billion worth of 

claims could result during the next disastrous flood if the wall were 

to fail. 

The Army Corps has expressed an understanding of the severity 

of the situation, yet the leadership refuses to spend the necessary 

resources because it classifies the flood wall as ‘‘designed efficiency.’’ If the Corps does not address this problem immediately, 

the City of St. Louis and the economy of our entire region could be 

devastated during the next great flood. Our actions now will determine whether or not the next great flood is the next great disaster. 

During Fiscal Year 2006, the Army Corps spent $30 million on 

levee inventory. Can you give me, this is for Mr. Stockton, what is 

the status of that inventory, and is the Corps making an effort to 

prioritize those levees within that inventory? 

Mr. STOCKTON. Yes, sir. As I said in my statement, we are about 

two-thirds of the way through the inventory of those levees within 

our system. Once we know how many levees we have, and where 

they are, then we can begin the assessment phase. We have half 

a dozen of these pilot studies to test the assessment risk methodVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:06 Apr 11, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35920 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
34

ology that we are going to use to assess the levees. We will be moving into that phase and we really have not yet begun doing the assessments, we are just doing the inventory at this point. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. And are you looking at all levees, or just only 

Corps levees? 

Mr. STOCKTON. We are looking at levees that are in our program. 

Those are the federally owned levees, they are levees that we have 

constructed and turned over to the local entities to operate and 

maintain, and we are looking for ones that have been constructed 

by non-Federal entities and have been brought into our Rehabilitation and Inspection Program. It does not include the universe of 

levees that have been constructed by local entities that are not in 

our program and are not in the National Flood Insurance Program. 

One of the reasons for doing the inventory is to figure out the size 

and magnitude of the problem, where all the levees are. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. And what is the plan for looking at those levees 

that do not fit into that universe? 

Mr. STOCKTON. Well, once we know where they are, once we do 

the inventory, we will have a better sense of how many there are, 

the extent, and locations. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Because one of my concerns also is about the 

lack of coordination among local levee districts. They often are very 

focused on their parochial needs of their own particular levee district. But there seems to be a real hodgepodge of communication 

between those various districts where one’s failure or success could 

really impact the others along in their area of the river. Do you see 

a need for increased coordination among these districts, and do you 

have any recommendations on how to address that? 

Mr. STOCKTON. Yes, sir. That was one of the key lessons learned 

coming out of our engineering forensics after Katrina. We did not 

have a truly integrated, comprehensive system. We had a collection 

of individual projects that were at different stages of completion, at 

different heights, and there were gaps between them. Part of that 

has to do with local responsibilities in each levee district. Each entity is responsible for their own funding, their own operations, their 

own maintenance, their own repair, and there is no integrated approach at the State level. 

Now the solution in the case of New Orleans was to consolidate 

a lot of those individual levee boards into an east bank and west 

bank levee board, which gives you fewer levee entities to actually 

work with so you get more uniformity in policy, and construction, 

and operations, and maintenance. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

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

I want to thank both of these witnesses again. Very helpful and 

informative testimony. Thank you. 

Ms. NORTON. I invite the next witnesses to the table. 

Mr. Larry Larson, Executive Director, Association of State Floodplain Managers; Warren Williams, Director, General ManagerChief Engineer, National Association of Flood and Stormwater 

Management Agencies; Larry Roth, Deputy Executive Director, 

American Society of Civil Engineers; John Moyle, Manager, Dam 

Safety Section, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Association of State Dam Safety Officials. 

35

Mr. Larson, if you want to go first, you may proceed. I will ask 

the witnesses to keep their testimony within five minutes, if at all 

possible, recognizing that your full testimony will be entered into 

the record. 

TESTIMONY OF LARRY LARSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ASSOCIATION OF STATE FLOODPLAIN MANAGERS; WARREN D. 

‘‘DUSTY’’ WILLIAMS, DIRECTOR, GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF 

ENGINEER, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FLOOD AND 

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AGENCIES; LARRY ROTH, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL 

ENGINEERS; JOHN MOYLE, MANAGER, DAM SAFETY SECTION, NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, ASSOCIATION OF STATE DAM SAFETY OFFICIALS 

Mr. LARSON. Thank you, Chairwoman Norton. Thanks to both 

Subcommittees for holding this joint hearing on this important 

matter. 

My name is Larry Larson. I have worked for 40 years at the 

local, State, and national level to reduce flood losses. I managed 

the levee safety and dam safety programs for the State of Wisconsin for 30 years. I am a registered professional engineer in California and Wisconsin. 

We all know that levees can lead to catastrophic losses and that 

not just the levees in New Orleans that we saw in 2005. We have 

had a lot of discussion about levees elsewhere in the Nation today, 

including Sacramento where the levees are in far worse shape than 

they were in New Orleans prior to Katrina. We must have programs, policies, and institutions that can adequately handle these 

events and efficiently use taxpayer money and build a sustainable 

future. 

One thing I would like my testimony to do today is to hopefully 

disabuse anyone of the notion that our current system of managing 

flood risk in this Nation is working. It is not. And we are not going 

to solve it by tweaking around the edges. And we are not going to 

solve it by throwing a bunch of money at it. We need an approach 

that is entirely different than our current model. 

Our current model is the Federal top-down model, where locals, 

through the Congress, come up and ask for levees and dams, Congress provides the money, the Corps builds it, and then turns it 

over to the local sponsors for operation and maintenance; then 

things start to fall apart. We have no entity to oversee and continue to oversee those activities and ensure that levees and dams 

continue to be safe. The only way we are going to get there is to 

put the entity in charge of that activity that has the actual authority in the Constitution to do it, and that is the States. 

Why are States and locals not doing more? Mainly because they 

think this is a Federal Government problem. They have gotten to 

that notion because of the 1936 Flood Control Act, the National 

Flood Insurance Program, the Disaster Relief Act, and now we are 

talking about the Dam Safety Act that has been around for 10 or 

12 years. And as you just heard, FEMA is testifying that as local 

and state governments assume the Federal Government is doing 

something on dam safety, the State governments start to back 

36

away from providing funding for dam safety. That is not a model 

that is working. 

We need to put the States in charge and we need to do it in a 

way that has incentives and disincentives. The States have the 

ability to prevent future disasters. Under the Constitution, they are 

the only ones that have the ability to do things like land-use management, building codes, regulatory authority over levees and 

dams. The Federal Government does not have that authority, only 

the States have that. If we get them to do it and do it right, we 

are going to reduce Federal disaster costs, and that is what we are 

all seeking. 

ASFPM has always urged the Nation to seek other alternatives 

than levees. Levees should be the option of last resort. And if we 

invest in levees at all at the Federal level, it ought to be levees 

that provide 500-year protection. As we discovered, 100-year protection is not doing it, and it will not do it especially where you 

have critical facilities like hospitals, police and fire stations, emergency shelters, water supply, all the rest of that. We need to 

change what we are doing and build only 500-year or higher levees 

with Federal dollars. 

In terms of incentives and disincentives to get States and locals 

to act, we have always favored a sliding cost-share. States and 

locals that do more should get a better cost-share in Federal programs. Right now that is topsy-turvy—those that do the least get 

the most Federal money. We need to change that. The States and 

locals that spend money to reduce risk should be able to bank that 

money, for example, toward the non-Federal share of the next disaster: 

Disincentives can be provided in Public Law 84-99 program, for 

example, needs to be properly administered so that it withholds 

support for those levees that are not properly operated and maintained. 

The first steps in this program could be we suggest that you instruct the Corps to complete the national levee inventory. That is 

essential so that we know the size of the problem and the people 

and property at risk, and then to establish a National Levee Safety 

Committee that could design a program and provide it to you as 

a suggestion for subsequent legislation to set up the actual program itself. 

We do not support use of the current dam safety model as the 

approach to use. We do not believe it has the appropriate teeth to 

ensure that dams have become safer in our Nation, you have seen 

the data on that, nor are States building up their dam safety programs. But we think there are approaches that can be used, and 

we are here to do what we can to help you support moving ahead 

in that respect. Thank you very much. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Larson. Mr. Williams. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. While I represent 

the flood control district of Riverside County, a rapidly urbanizing 

county in southern California, located about 50 miles east of Los 

Angeles, I am here appearing before you today also representing 

NAFSMA, the National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies. 

37

NAFSMA is a national organization which represents more than 

100 local and State flood control agencies across the Nation, serving a total of more than 76 million citizens. As a result, we have 

a strong interest in the issues the Committee is addressing today. 

We thank you for the opportunity to address this Committee. 

Well before Hurricane Katrina, NAFSMA was concerned about 

the impact of levee safety on both the Corps of Engineers’ flood 

management program and FEMA’s Map Modernization Program. 

We commend both FEMA and the Corps for the commitment to 

tackle these difficult issues and for their efforts to work closely together to define and coordinate their messages to the local and 

State flood management agencies. 

NAFSMA has strongly stressed the need for and supported the 

creation of a federally-funded national levee inventory program. 

Since this issue was first raised, the Corps and FEMA have made 

a great deal of progress in identifying deficient levees throughout 

the Country and have set up a process for certifying levees. While 

NAFSMA applauds the interagency efforts in this direction, we are 

concerned that the allotted time for correcting problems and 

achieving certification is insufficient and that there is a lack of resources available to accomplish this effort. 

While initially the mandated compliance period seemed reasonable, early indications are they may not be. Different interpretations of guidance documents are already occurring, causing much 

confusion. Adequate funding resources are not available at the Federal level to carry out these certifications. And in some areas local 

governments and regional entities are concerned about where to 

get the necessary funds. And there is a mounting worry as to 

whether we will be able to find private engineering firms willing 

to sign the needed certification documents due to liability concerns. 

It is clear that we need to move forward with a national levee 

Inventory and certification program, but it needs to be done in a 

thoughtful and pragmatic manner. The process needs to ensure 

both public safety and provide realistic expectations that can be 

met by the owners and operators of the levees. 

To that end, NAFSMA strongly supports the establishment of a 

National Levee Safety Commission. This commission will be 

charged to report back to Congress on the need, potential structure, 

and possible Federal, State, and local funding resources that 

should be directed to this program. Federal representatives, as well 

as appropriate representatives from States and local and regional 

governments, as well as the engineering community, need to be involved in this effort. 

Another issue I would like to bring to your attention is the need 

for streamlined permitting for maintenance activities of all flood 

control projects, including levees. Although maintenance issues 

such as addressing vegetation on levees and eliminating burrows 

within levees would seem simple at first, it is important to note it 

is often very difficult and time consuming to secure the necessary 

regulatory permits to carry out this work. These issues become 

even more difficult when the vegetation provides habitat for an endangered species or the burrowing animal happens to be endangered itself. 

38

Many of our levees are in areas with numerous endangered species. In Riverside County alone, for example, there are 91 species 

with a status of either endangered, threatened, or proposed for listing. Our agencies have often been delayed in carrying out routine 

maintenance activities needed to keep their flood management system operating at optimal levels by their inability to obtain necessary Federal permits in a timely manner, if at all. Local and regional agencies have even been faced with one Federal agency telling them that a flood control facility must be cleared or any flood 

insurance claims will be subrogated against them while at the 

same time another Federal agency was preventing them from obtaining the necessary permits to do the work. Clearly, there must 

be a means to coordinate these conflicting concerns to meet the 

over-arching national and interstate responsibility of ensuring protection. 

For existing flood control projects, we need to develop a mechanism to ensure the necessary regulatory permits will be provided 

for operation and maintenance in a timely manner, and that endangered habitat and species are protected and water quality regulations are met. For new federally-partnered projects, the needed 

regulatory permits need to be part of the original design and the 

maintenance manual. And in cases where emergencies exist or potentially could exist, streamlined permitting processes must be 

made available to local agencies. 

The last issue I would like to speak to today is the need to continue adequate funding for FEMA’s Map Modernization and mitigation programs. Although I have focused much of my testimony on 

the Corps’ role in a national levee safety program, it is critical to 

note that accurate Flood Insurance Rate Maps are an essential 

part of national levee safety and flood risk management activities. 

To ensure that these maps are available to all levels of government 

as soon as possible, NAFSMA strongly supports continued adequate funding of FEMA’s Map Modernization Program and its mitigation programs. 

In closing, NAFSMA very much appreciates the opportunity to 

present our thoughts on these critical national issues to the Subcommittee for consideration. We stand ready to work with you on 

these important issues and would welcome your questions. Thank 

you. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Williams. Mr. Roth. 

Mr. ROTH. Madam Chair, my name is Larry Roth. I am the Deputy Executive Director of the American Society of Civil Engineers. 

I am a licensed professional engineer and a licensed geotechnical 

engineer in the State of California. Before joining ASCE staff, I had 

30 years of experience in water resources engineering, including 

dams, levees, and canals. 

I am very pleased to appear here today to testify for ASCE in 

strong support of H.R. 1098, the Dam Rehabilitation and Repair 

Act of 2007, which would amend the National Dam Safety Program 

Act to provide critically needed funding for repairs to publicly 

owned dams across the United States. 

ASCE also supports enactment of a national levee safety program modeled on the National Dam Safety Program. We believe 

that H.R. 1587, the National Levee Safety Program Act of 2007, inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:06 Apr 11, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35920 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
39

cludes all the necessary components for a vital nationwide levee 

safety program. 

Like all man-made structures, dams deteriorate. Deferred maintenance accelerates deterioration and causes dams to be more susceptible to failure. As with other critical infrastructure, a significant investment is essential to maintain the benefits and assure 

safety. 

In 2005, ASCE issued the latest in a series of assessments of the 

nation’s infrastructure. Our 2005 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure found that the number of unsafe dams in the United 

States increased by a stunning 33 percent between 1998 and 2005. 

There are now more than 3,300 unsafe dams nationwide. An 

alarming number. 

The nation’s dam safety officials estimate that it would cost more than $10 billion over the next 12 years to upgrade the physical condition of all critical non-Federal dams. The problem of hazardous 

dams is enormous. As the Congressional Research Service stated 

recently, unsafe dams represent a serious risk to public safety. The 

CRS study said: ‘‘While dam failures are infrequent, age, construction deficiencies, inadequate maintenance, and seismic or weather 

events contribute to the likelihood of failure.’’ To reduce the risk, 

regular inspections are necessary to identify deficiencies and then 

corrective action must be taken. 

Although catastrophic failures are rare, there were over 1,000 

dam safety incidents, including 129 failures, between 1999 and 

2006. The number of high hazard dams, dams whose failure would 

cause loss of human life, is increasing dramatically, largely because 

of downstream development. By 2005, the number of high hazardpotential dams totaled more than 11,000 across the Nation. 

The National Dam Safety and Security Act of 2002 provides 

funding that has improved dam safety programs. Unfortunately, it 

does not provide financial assistance for needed repairs. According 

to the results of a study by the Association of State Dam Safety Officials, the total investment needed to bring U.S. dams into safety 

compliance or to remove obsolete dams tops $30 billion. 

That is why the bill sponsored by Representatives John Salazar 

and Randy Kuhl, H.R. 1098, the Dam Rehabilitation and Repair 

Act of 2007, is so badly needed. The bill would provide a modest 

$200 million over five years for the repair, rehabilitation, or removal of non-Federal, high hazard publicly owned dams. ASCE 

strongly recommends that Federal legislation like H.R. 1098 be enacted to provide a funding source for the repair and rehabilitation 

of dams in the United States. 

ASCE recently provided a detailed external review of the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineer’s performance evaluation of the New Orleans hurricane protection system during and following Hurricane 

Katrina. We have summarized our findings and a recommendation 

in this report, The New Orleans Hurricane Protection System: 

What Went Wrong and Why?, which will be released to the public 

on June 1. 

One of our key recommendations is that Congress should enact 

legislation to establish a national levee safety program that is modeled on the successful National Dam Safety Program. ASCE strongly supports the enactment of Federal and State legislation to proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:06 Apr 11, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35920 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
40

tect the health and welfare of citizens from the catastrophic effects 

of levee failure. A bill introduced by Representative Jean Schmidt 

of Ohio would satisfy virtually all of these important requirements. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. That concludes my statement. I 

would be pleased to answer any questions. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Roth. Mr. Moyle. 

Mr. MOYLE. Good afternoon. My name is John Moyle. I am a licensed professional civil engineer with the New Jersey Department 

of Environmental Protection. I am responsible for New Jersey’s 

dam safety program and flood control program. I am past president 

of the Association of State Dam Safety Officials and a member of 

the National Dam Safety Review Board under FEMA. 

On behalf of the Association, I would like to thank Chairwoman 

Norton and the Members of the Subcommittee for having this hearing. The Association and I are very pleased to have been afforded 

the opportunity to provide testimony concerning the condition of 

the Nation’s dams and the critical role of the Federal Government 

in the safety of dams. 

The Association is a national nonprofit organization of more than 

2,300 members including State, Federal, and local dam safety professionals dedicated to improving dam safety through research, 

education, and communication. The Association represents the dam 

safety programs of the States and our goal is to reduce the loss of 

lives by establishing strong dam safety programs. 

The State dam safety programs regulate 86 percent of the 83,000 

dams in the United States. Table 1 of our written testimony provides a breakdown per State. The States and these programs look 

to Congress and the Federal Government for their continued leadership and support toward strong dam safety programs. Dramatic 

incidents and dam failures in the United States have shown that 

impounding water is a hazardous activity. 

While the National Dam Safety Program has greatly improved 

the safety of our Nation’s dams, the safety of dams requires more 

attention from national policymakers. Events over the past few 

years illustrate the need. The years of 2005 and 2006 saw the levee 

failures in New Orleans, the emergency evacuation of the town of 

Taunton, Massachusetts, below the failing dam, the failure of the 

Taum Sauk Dam in Missouri, the fatal collapse of the Kaloko Dam 

in Hawaii where seven people lost their lives, the public outcry 

from the looming threat posed by the Wolf Creek Dam in Kentucky, and just three weeks ago in New Jersey during the 

nor’easter and Presidential Declaration, we had a State highway 

embankment fail which formed an earth dam for Rainbow Lake. 

These events have again brought focus to the vulnerability and potential consequences of deteriorating and unsafe dams. 

The National Dam Safety Program exists today and is administered by FEMA. For ten years the program has provided valuable 

assistance to State dam safety programs, funding critical training 

for State engineers and providing technical research. Additionally, 

the program directs the Corps of Engineers to maintain a national 

inventory. 

The modest increases authorized for the National Dam Safety 

Program last year have not been budgeted as part of FEMA’s mitigation program. In fact, funding levels for the State Assistance 

41

Grants have been creeping downward for the past five years. These 

grants need to be fully funded. I ask you to take a look at Table 

2 where it shows the average State grant is approximately $50,000 

per year. Should an increase in this budget occur, it will allow for 

the hiring of more dam safety inspectors, provide better emergency 

action planning, and encourage States to do more enforcement on 

unsafe structures. I also suggest that you look at Table 3 where the 

States have identified what additional measures could be implemented if there was additional funding into the program. 

Dam safety, however, requires more than what the National 

Dam Safety Program provides. Inspections and education alone will 

not substantially improve dam safety. Reconstruction funding is 

needed for both public and privately owned dams. H.R. 1098, the 

proposed national dam rehabilitation funding program, is a great 

beginning to address publicly owned dams. 

According to reports submitted by the 50 States, the number of 

deficient dams has risen by 80 percent since 1998. Also of concern 

is a dramatic nationwide increase in the number of high hazardpotential dams since 1998. The number of high hazard dams have 

increased by 28 percent. This increase is not due to the construction of new dams, but the increased development downstream of 

existing dams. 

Dam repair costs throughout the United States is estimated by 

the Association to be over $30 billion. Table 4 shows potential funding assistance that each State could receive under H.R. 1098 to repair unsafe public dams. Currently, New Jersey has a low interest 

program to fund dam repairs and the Federal program would leverage these costs so that we could improve more critical dams in New 

Jersey. 

Thank you again for your time and giving us this opportunity to 

discuss this important topic. The Association requests that the 

Subcommittee recognize the enormous value of our Nation’s dams 

and the increasing concerns for public safety. We request your support for an increase in funding to continue the National Dam Safety Program, and for passage of H.R. 1098. We would also like to 

thank Congressman Salazar and Kuhl for their commitment and 

support through the introduction of H.R. 1098. The Association is 

grateful for the reauthorization which extended and increased 

funding, but we need to have a more aggressive management of 

this program and proper funding to achieve the results the people 

downstream below these dams expect. The Association also supports the establishment of a national levee program. Within our 

written testimony we outline seven principles for implementing an 

effective program. 

Thank you. If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer. 

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

Let me ask, actually all of you are qualified to answer this question, but it is the American Society of Civil Engineers that indicates that independent peer review should be required for every 

levee or significant modification of a levee system. Perhaps you 

heard me inquire about peer review, given some emerging criticism 

of the levees in and around New Orleans that is now developing. 

42

Have any of you advised, given peer review, or know of peer review 

on any of the Gulf levees now under construction? Mr. Roth? 

Mr. ROTH. No, ma’am. ASCE has not been involved in peer review of levees that are currently under construction. Of course, 

IPET, which Mr. Stockton referred to, the Interagency Performance 

Evaluation Task Force by the Corps of Engineers to identify the 

reasons for the behavior of the hurricane protection system in New 

Orleans, ended up providing results that are being incorporated 

into construction, and that IPET study was peer reviewed by 

ASCE. But we have not been involved directly in the peer review 

of construction documents for the repairs. I might add, Ms. Norton, 

our policy on peer review does not require peer review for every 

levee, just for levees that pose a significant risk to human health 

and safety. 

Ms. NORTON. Well you would certainly categorize, or would you, 

the levees being constructed around New Orleans and the Gulf 

Coast as meeting that standard? 

Mr. ROTH. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. Are any of you aware of any peer review that is 

taking place of the construction of any of those levees? It is important for us to just understand what the profession understands to 

be the case. The fact is that I think you could discern from the responses of the Corps of Engineers representative that the problem 

did not seem to be that they would have chosen the particular reinforcement that is used, but it is a question of funding. 

Some of us are very worried, particularly in light of global warming, the unpredictable nature of flooding generally today, and are 

worried particularly about a city that is under water, in any case 

below sea level, excuse me, and certainly was under water. Costs 

are a significant factor but it boggles the mind to imagine what we 

would all think of ourselves if there were a major storm. 

I am very aware of the Corps and what it has gone through—

the Corps is directly responsible for much of what was done in the 

District of Columbia for a hundred years because there was not any 

home rule here—and of the need to strike a balance. One wonders 

what the balance should be in a city, a major American city that 

provides oil to the United States of America, a major American city 

which was the major city before Katrina for providing revenue for 

the entire State. 

One wonders how one should proceed, particularly given, let us 

face it, all kinds of cost considerations that we ourselves impose, 

particularly now that there is a new Congress submitting ourselves 

to what we call pay-go, something we have not had for the last 

dozen or so years. Very, very strict discipline, as it says, hey, anything you want to do you have to pay for. This is a most difficult 

process. 

So I do not ask this except to find some objective way, now I am 

not sure all of you are objective either, some of you have a vested 

interest also, but maybe the National Academy of Sciences. Ultimately you get people from the profession in any case to tell you 

what the real deal is. But I do believe that somehow or the other 

Congress has to come to grips with what we are doing there and 

of what we are requiring of the court to do. 

43

There was testimony I think from you, Mr. Larson, about the 

top-down notion. You were very clear that this just is not working, 

that the system we have in place is not working. That we give 

money to those that do not do as well. I do not know, I would have 

to take a look at them. They also may be the people, the States 

who are least able to do as well. 

I have no idea whether they would have a good excuse or whether they are becoming, as some of you imply in your testimony, more 

dependent on the Federal Government. Hey, you need not. Under 

pay-go, all I can tell you is that you need not. We will be fortunate 

enough to do what we should do at the levels that are even now 

expected of us, which are nowhere near what they should be. 

But there is State responsibility largely here. As I said in my 

opening statement, there is one State that does not have any system. Imagine that. I do not understand why Alabama does not, but 

it does tell you that States can go from very substantial levels of 

responsibility to none. But if there is a dam failure, everybody will 

look to FEMA. My Subcommittee has jurisdiction over FEMA. 

So I really have two questions flowing from this. First, with responsibility largely in the States, which I assure you it will continue to be, this is a Federal system, we believe in federalism, but 

we also have the obligation to protect the taxpayers. Mr. Larson 

says, well, you ought to be paying more attention to the floodplain, 

implying less attention perhaps to the dam itself. I want to hear 

from him on that, number one. 

Number two, in light of the fact that a dam giving away leaves 

us with a version of Katrina, with huge, huge impact on taxpayers, 

the question becomes, what is the response? How does the Federal 

Government, given the State system in place, carry out its responsibility to protect the taxpayers and to protect the citizens from the 

impact of dam failure? Would, for example, more rigorous Federal 

regulations help accomplish some of this purpose regarding safety 

perhaps? 

So if you would take that two-part question. Those are essentially my questions and they are for any or all of you. 

Mr. LARSON. I will start, Congresswoman. I think you have 

thrown out some real concerns that the Nation faces at how we are 

going to deal with this issue. Remember what the Corps of Engineers just testified to. In New Orleans, they now have a level of 

protection that was pre-Katrina and they have now determined 

that is about a 100-year level of protection. That means you have 

a one in four chance of that levee overtopping in a 30 year period. 

Is that adequate protection for the City of New Orleans? I surely 

would not think it was. I would not live there, I guarantee you 

that. And I do not think that we should expect that we are going 

to protect highly urbanized areas with those levels of protection. 

But now there is a real problem. If that is not adequate, we need 

a 500-year level in New Orleans. What is the cost of that and how 

are we going to pay for it? Those are critical issues. 

There are two basic concepts that ASFPM supports. One is, those 

people who live at risk should pay the cost of living at risk. Now 

we tend to spread the costs a lot in this Nation among those at 

risk. With more and more knowledge about where risk exists, we 

can help people make those kinds of decisions. But we are not 

44

doing that. We are letting people build where they want to and 

then we are backing them up with Federal disaster relief and so 

on. We have got to reach a better balance on that. 

Also, we have got to put the States’ feet to the fire. They are the 

ones who have the authority. The Feds cannot go out and regulate 

dams and levees. They do not have land-use authority. You cannot 

pass a law that says the Corps of Engineers should go out and regulate these levees. They can have carrots and sticks in their programs to say if you do not do this you will not get this help and 

so on, but they cannot regulate. The States can do that. But we 

must get the States to the table in a shared program approach so 

that they accept the responsibilities and then provide them incentives and disincentives for doing that. And until we reach that 

point, we will continue to lose. Before Katrina, the average annual 

flood losses in this Nation were going up; they were four times bigger in 2000 than they were in 1900, in real dollars. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Larson, we could say, for example, with respect 

to funds that we give, that there is some contingency in terms of 

regulations on safety. 

Mr. LARSON. That is right. 

Ms. NORTON. We certainly could say you are not going to get 

these funds unless a certain degree of national safety perhaps at 

a minimal level is met. 

Mr. LARSON. Right. And the farther you go beyond that, the better cost-share you will have on Federal programs. So we can provide incentives and say here is the base, as you indicated, but we 

can even go beyond that if you do more than that. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Williams? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Madam Chairman, I agree with most of what Mr. 

Larson said. I would add to it that it is the reason for the commission and our support of the commission. One size will not fit all. 

And to try to ascertain what all the answers to your questions are 

at this point, I think it is premature. 

We have to identify what all the problems are. A case in point, 

the levees in New Orleans are not the same as the levees in California. The levees in California are not the same throughout the 

State. In your area, we have the Bay Delta area, in my area we 

have Palm Springs protected by levee. They are both levees, they 

both have the basic same function, but they are entirely different 

in the way they should be assessed and the way they should be 

maintained. 

Ms. NORTON. Granted, Mr. Williams. But it is not rocket science. 

Now again, New Orleans is below sea level. How many cities are 

below sea level, particularly when the Nation is dependent upon 

them for a vital resource like oil? You could compare that, and I 

realize the difficulty, you are engineers, you do very fine computations all the time, but I am not sure why we do not have a data 

system that could tell us the difference. 

There could be other areas below sea level but they might not 

have a vital resource, they might not be the center of the State’s 

revenue. I do not understand why this would be—I understand why 

it is difficult for dummies like me, but for fellows like you who are 

used to rating things by data and mathematically, it does seem to 

me that would be possible. 

45

Mr. WILLIAMS. I cannot disagree with anything you said, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. Has anyone ever attempted to do such a measurement, saying, okay, here are all the criteria, now we are going to 

put in there the most significant areas of the United States where 

dam failure would occur, and then to chart then the criteria, I have 

named some of them, and say, okay, this is what we say, we are 

professionals, you know, we are not seeking funds from the Federal 

Government, this is where we come out. Would that be useful to 

our Country at this point? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I believe it would be and I believe we are at the 

beginning of developing that. Why it does not exist now, I could not 

answer other than it is such a diverse Country. But I think different areas have different levels of that inventory. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Moyle wanted to respond right then. 

Mr. MOYLE. I was going to respond to your question about looking at hazards associated with dams. One of the tools we use is we 

have emergency action plans and those plans develop those inundation areas downstream. We are working with the Department of 

Homeland Security to look at which are the most critical dams as 

far as what are the greatest impacts or consequences downstream. 

So it is a tool that we are beginning to start——

Ms. NORTON. What do you mean, critical dams? 

Mr. MOYLE. Those that have the greatest consequences to population below the dam, other interdependencies down below that 

dam, whether it is a water treatment plant, it is a school, it is a 

hospital, you would take into consideration all those other impacts 

downstream and those dams would be the ones that need to be protected from a national security standpoint. 

Ms. NORTON. I am also on the Homeland Security Committee. 

We had to pound the Homeland Security Department to do precisely that for terrorism. So now they have all these fine notions, 

they did not come out so well when they did the funding last year, 

and New York and the District of Columbia went through the ceiling, but they have these fine measurement risk consequences about 

how we ought to fund the terrorism grants. Now you see the way 

we were doing this, we were doing that on a kind of per-capita 

basis. 

The fact is that every single jurisdiction is subject to some kind 

of natural disaster. We even had a flood here in the District of Columbia which is not exactly a floodplain. But when it came to a terrorist disaster, any layman could tell you where Al Queda is likely 

to be looking. So, first of all, we are a Federal Republic and so everybody wants a little piece of the pie. But then after Katrina, 

shame on everybody if we have anything approaching that again. 

Mr. Roth, finally, did you want to give an answer? I will go on 

to Mrs. Schmidt after. 

Mr. ROTH. I did, thank you. You pose some very difficult and 

thought-provoking questions regarding the future of New Orleans 

and its hurricane protection system. Ms. Norton, I would just like 

to draw your attention to our report which will actually be released 

to the public on June 1st. I would like to personally offer you a 

copy. It does have many answers I believe that will satisfy some 

of your concerns regarding New Orleans. 

46

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Roth, do not think I did not notice that I had 

provided you from the last question a lead-in to indicate, what I 

must tell you I am very grateful for, your upcoming report, I want 

an autographed copy, if you would, What Went Wrong and Why, 

or words to that effect. But do you have anything—you see what 

I am looking for. I am looking for something comparable, what will 

go wrong and why if we do not prepare for the next flood, in effect. 

Mr. ROTH. That is precisely our point. We try to make the point 

extremely well in here that the reason we face the situation that 

we faced in New Orleans following Katrina is that as a society, 

State and local government, Federal Government, we put safety, either unintentionally or intentionally, on the back burner. We simply cannot do that. Our levee systems, first and foremost, protect 

people. If we do not pay attention to them, we do not inspect them, 

we do not maintain them, they are going to fail, and when they fail 

they are going to take precious lives with them. 

Katrina was an incredible wake-up call. That was said many 

times I think today or several times today. What was not said was 

we cannot hit the snooze button. We have got to pay attention to 

the lessons from Katrina and take action not only in New Orleans, 

but in California, in the Mississippi Valley, in Atlantic Coast where 

levees are protecting people. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Roth. I want to thank each of you 

on this panel. You advise is very valued for us because you are professionals. 

I want to move to Mrs. Schmidt. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I have a couple of 

questions. The first one is for Mr. Williams. Sir, one of the critiques 

of my bill is level of funding is not adequate. How much money 

should be authorized to undertake my effort? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, ma’am, or no, thank you. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I do not know and I do not think anybody knows 

for sure. Our concern is both timeframe and money, that if we rush 

into this levee certification and levee inventory program too quickly, we will come out with a result that is not entirely adequate and 

what we are all looking for. The flip answer is, adequate funding 

to make the right report. I do not know what that is. 

Our concern is mainly time right now, but resources certainly 

have to be there. That is why we recommend that the commission 

have the ability to look at what resources are available, not just 

in the Federal Government but in a cost-share manner from the 

locals and from the State. It is going to take all those resources together to really make this program worthwhile I believe. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Thank you. I have two questions, depending upon 

the way Mr. Larson answers the first one, I may only have one. 

Mr. Larson, in your testimony you suggest States need financial incentives from the Federal Government to undertake levee safety 

programs. Some could say this means that States need financial incentives to provide for the health and welfare of their citizens. Why 

do we need to provide Federal financing incentives for States to do 

the right thing? 

Mr. LARSON. Well, if we have the will at the Federal Government 

level to say you do not get any disaster relief from the Federal GovVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:06 Apr 11, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35920 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
47

ernment because flooding and public safety is not only the function, 

but the primary duty of State and local government, then we would 

not need incentives. 

But I doubt that is going to happen. Politically, that is a very, 

very difficult thing to do, and you know that better than I do. But 

we now have a system where we have reliance on Federal backstops for disaster relief and the rest. So I do not think you are 

going to turn that around by just simply saying to the State and 

local government you ought to do this. 

We tried that in a number of programs. In dam safety, for example, we tried that, but as you heard Mr. Maurstad say, the amount 

of money States are putting into their dam safety programs has actually decreased in the last ten years. So unless we turn that 

around I think with some sort of incentive or disincentive, it can 

work both ways, we are not going to get that shared responsibility 

that we are going to have to have that Mr. Williams talks about, 

that we do need to have that shared Federal/State/local approach 

to it. It cannot be Federal. We are not going to solve this problem 

at the Federal level. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Thank you. In another part to your testimony you 

suggest that the Federal Government, including the Corps of Engineers, should not be performing the detailed engineering assessments for non-federal levees. Who should be responsible for these 

assessments, and why? 

Mr. LARSON. The levee owners. We believe that the levee owners 

have—you have to remember that local communities requested levees. This was their option on how they choose to address flood risk 

in their community. And now we are providing communities, and 

we always have, with options about how we can assist you to do 

that. Some options communities are using now is to relocate populations out of risk areas, to elevate structures and do other things, 

but not to put structural measures in. 

Structural measures have a long-term obligation not only at the 

local level where they have to operate and maintain those, but as 

we now see, even when they do not do that, who do they come back 

to? They come back to the Federal treasury to say, gee, we did not 

have enough money to operate and maintain, help us out. 

So, it is our opinion that if you made that choice at the local level 

to build a structural measure, such as a levee, and you provided 

assurance that you were going to operate and maintain that levee, 

then you should do that. And part of that operation and maintenance is getting that levee certified and of assessing the adequacy 

of the levee, and providing that information to those of us at the 

Federal level who credit those kinds of structures. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Thank you. Does anyone wish to add to that? Yes, 

sir? 

Mr. MOYLE. Larry mentioned the National Dam Safety Program, 

which is an incentive program, and in that program you have to 

be able to have the State authority to inspect, enforce, and issue 

permits for dams, and that is the incentive. Currently, the levee 

program, I believe there are only 20 States that even have regulatory authority. So the incentive program may be to get those 

States to think more proactively about having a regulatory program oversight over levees. 

48

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Thank you. Anybody else? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. If I may add. I would agree with Mr. Larson in 

most cases, but there are cases, well, actually, a lot of cases where 

the levees were federally partnered in the construction. In such 

cases, NAFSMA would advocate that the Federal Government still 

be involved, on a cost-shared basis, of course, in the certification. 

They are the original levee constructors. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Thank you. I do not have any other questions. 

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

My own Ranking Member of the GSA Subcommittee, the FEMA 

Subcommittee is here. Mr. Graves, do you have any questions of 

this panel? 

Mr. GRAVES. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I apologize for being 

late. I have actually been up close and personal to the levee issue 

the last two days. I live in northwest Missouri where we have gotten a lot of rain. And when I left this morning, on our farm the 

water was six feet deep. 

But we had major breaks. Over Sunday, I was sandbagging to 

try to stop breaks in private levees, and we lost that fight, and 

then yesterday, Monday, we were sandbagging the Missouri levee 

down around St. Joe area. We are expecting the crest today sometime around, well, right about now, as a matter of fact. No loss of 

life, good news, just mostly property damage. But it is an issue we 

are dealing with both on public levees and private levees. And it 

is quite interesting that we have this hearing today in just being 

able to deal with it. 

I do not have any questions at this point, Madam Chairman. I 

appreciate your having this hearing. I am going to read through 

the testimony. I would like my original statement to be submitted 

to the record, if that is possible. I very much appreciate your concern and your insight into this issue. 

Ms. NORTON. Glad to receive your statement, Mr. Graves, particularly as a case in point, perhaps of a different order of magnitude, but I am not sure farmers in your area would consider it 

so. It does tell us the continuing issue this raises, Mr. Graves. Of 

course, as a farmer, you can imagine what it must mean. I certainly hope it is not at a time when crops have been spoiled and 

that that region of the farm was not underwater. 

Every time I think, gentlemen, about the catastrophes we have 

seen, and you see it on television, perhaps it is because I studied 

history in college, I get new appreciation for early America, for 

19th century America, for 20th century America for that matter, 

when I see what happened in I believe Kansas with a little town 

blown away. Just think about that. Before there was a FEMA, before the Federal Government took any responsibility for anything 

like this, which did not happen until around the time of the New 

Deal, and FEMA was created, when, in the 1970s. 

I have in mind people leaving the East Coast and just going to 

the next part of the Country and being glad that they were expanding the frontier, then finding hurricanes of the kind they never experienced in the East, floods that wiped away whole, huge sets of 

Americans who came here seeking their fortune, went West seeking their fortune. 

49

I do not know if we really appreciate without a reading of history, which too often centers on battles, on perhaps biography, and 

less often on what Americans suffered to build the great American 

economy and each and every great city. Whether you are talking 

about New York City or a small town in Kansas, if it occurred 

much before the 1970s, these areas were on their own. The loss of 

life was huge and largely unreported. 

What we are trying to do now is bring all of these issues into a 

21st century context, right as everything may be changing from 

under us as notions of global warming throw everything up in the 

air. Your professional understanding and expertise is ever so much 

more valued today, and your testimony is particularly important to 

the Committee. 

Agencies come in, they are after all under the discipline of being 

a part of an Administration, whether it is Democratic or Republican. They are doing the best they can. You hear me asking about 

peer review, because Congress needs to step back and find some 

way to truly understand, consistent with cost, what we have to do, 

and when we have to do it, and how much time experts think we 

have to do it. 

You have in coming today and offering candid testimony and new 

ideas helped us immeasurably as we seek what for us will be large 

answers to even larger questions. Again, thanks to each and every 

one of you for your testimony. 

I thank the Members for attending. 

This joint Subcommittee hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

50


35920.010
51


35920.011
52


35920.012
53


35920.013
54


35920.014
55


35920.015
56


35920.016
57


35920.017
58


35920.018
59


35920.019
60


35920.020
61


35920.021
62


35920.022
63


35920.023
64


35920.024
65


35920.025
66


35920.026
67


35920.027
68


35920.028
69


35920.029
70


35920.030
71


35920.031
72


35920.032
73


35920.033
74


35920.034
75


35920.035
76


35920.036
77


35920.037
78


35920.038
79


35920.039
80


35920.040
81


35920.041
82


35920.042
83


35920.043
84


35920.044
85


35920.045
86


35920.046
87


35920.047
88


35920.048
89


35920.049
90


35920.050
91


35920.051
92


35920.052
93


35920.053
94


35920.054
95


35920.055
96


35920.056
97


35920.057
98


35920.058
99


35920.059
100


35920.060
101


35920.061
102


35920.062
103


35920.063
104


35920.064
105


35920.065
106


35920.066
107


35920.067
108


35920.068
109


35920.069
110


35920.070
111


35920.071
112


35920.072
113


35920.073
114


35920.074
115


35920.075
116


35920.076
117


35920.077
118


35920.078
119


35920.079
120


35920.080
121


35920.081
122


35920.082
123


35920.083
124


35920.084
125


35920.085
126

Æ


35920.086