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

50–358 2009

S. HRG. 110–932 

AN EXAMINATION OF THE NATIONAL FLOOD 

INSURANCE PROGRAM 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON 

THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM 

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2007 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

( 

Available at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/senate05sh.html 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS 

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut, Chairman 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

EVAN BAYH, Indiana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

ROBERT P. CASEY, Pennsylvania 

JON TESTER, Montana 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

ELIZABETH DOLE, North Carolina 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida 

SHAWN MAHER, Staff Director 

WILLIAM D. DUHNKE, Republican Staff Director and Counsel 

JENNIFER FOGEL-BUBLICK, Counsel 

JOSEPH R. KOLINSKI, Chief Clerk and Computer Systems Administrator 

JIM CROWELL, Editor 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2007 

Page 

Opening statement of Senator Carper ................................................................... 1 

Opening statements, comments, or prepared statements of: 

Senator Brown .................................................................................................. 2 

Senator Shelby .................................................................................................. 3 

Senator Reed ..................................................................................................... 5 

Senator Dole ...................................................................................................... 5 

Senator Casey ................................................................................................... 7 

Senator Allard ................................................................................................... 8 

Senator Schumer .............................................................................................. 9 

Senator Bunning ............................................................................................... 11 

Senator Martinez .............................................................................................. 11 

Senator Menendez ............................................................................................ 23 

Prepared statement ................................................................................... 46 

WITNESSES 

David I. Maurstad, Assistant Administrator for Mitigation and Federal Insurance Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department 

of Homeland Security .......................................................................................... 13 

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

Orice Williams, Director of Financial Markets and Community Development, 

Government Accountability Office ...................................................................... 15 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 54 

Response to written questions of: 

Senator Reed .............................................................................................. 150 

Chad Berginnis, State Hazard Mitigation Officer, Ohio Emergency Management Agency, on behalf of the Association of State Floodplain Managers, 

Inc. ......................................................................................................................... 30 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 83 

Donald L. Griffin, Vice President, Personal Lines, Property Casualty Insurers 

Association of America ......................................................................................... 32 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 106 

Response to written questions of: 

Senator Reed .............................................................................................. 151 

Gerald E. Galloway, Ph.D., Professor of Engineering, University of Maryland . 34 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 112 

J. Robert Hunter, Director of Insurance, Consumer Federation of America ...... 36 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 121 

Mark Davey, President and Chief Executive Officer, Fidelity National Insurance Company ...................................................................................................... 37 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 135 

Vince Malta, National Association of REALTORS ............................................. 39 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 138 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Letter from Enterprise Community Partners, Inc ................................................ 153 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING

dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

AN EXAMINATION OF THE NATIONAL FLOOD 

INSURANCE PROGRAM 

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2007 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met at 10:33 a.m., in room SD–538, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Thomas R. Carper, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR THOMAS R. CARPER 

Senator CARPER. The hearing will come to order. Good morning. 

Today’s hearing is on the National Flood Insurance Program. 

Senators will have 5 minutes for opening statements. I will then 

recognize Mr. Maurstad and Ms. Williams to offer their testimony 

to our Committee. Following Mr. Maurstad’s and Ms. Williams’ testimony, we will have two rounds of questions, then ask our second 

panel to come forward. Then we will break for dinner. 

[Laughter.] 

Actually, we are working on the defense appropriations bill, and 

I am not sure when we are going to have votes, but I am sure we 

will have some. 

The National Flood Insurance Program was established in 1968 

as a three-pronged program: insurance, mapping, and smart land 

use. The NFIP today provides insurance coverage to over 5 million 

property owners around the country. 

Prior to Hurricane Katrina, the NFIP was a self-supporting program. The 2005 hurricane season, though, resulted in FEMA borrowing $20 billion from the Department of the Treasury. In 1989, 

as Hurricane Hugo was bearing down on the East Coast, I was 

part of an effort over in the House of Representatives, I think with 

my colleague—maybe both of my colleagues on either the left or— 

when did you come to the Senate? 

Senator SHELBY. 1986. 

Senator CARPER. 1986. Well, you were already here. I think Senator Reed and I were over in the House, and we actually worked 

on legislation to reform the National Flood Insurance Program. 

At the time we were concerned about low participation rates in 

the Flood Insurance Program, and I had a proposal to increase participation by requiring mortgage lenders to escrow flood insurance 

payments, just like many do for homeowners’ insurance. 

We were also concerned about the fact that a small percentage 

of properties had been responsible for more than a third of all 

claims, costing about $200 million annually. Our proposal included 

a call for floodproofing or removing those properties and reserved 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
2 

a small amount of funds collected from flood insurance premiums 

to pay for this. 

We also sought to limit new construction in coastal areas that 

were quickly eroding, and our proposal sought higher, more appropriate premiums for those who lived in vulnerable locations. 

In 1989, a bill to reform the Flood Insurance Program was 

passed, one not as far-reaching as our earlier proposal, but at least 

a step in the right direction. It was passed by both the House and 

the Senate before running into trouble in conference where, unfortunately, it died. 

Last year, this Committee passed a comprehensive flood insurance reform bill, and, unfortunately, that bill also died—not in conference but on the Senate floor. Today, 2 years after Hurricane 

Katrina, we find ourselves again looking at the National Flood Insurance Program. Our main concerns: the low subscription rate, 

the repetitive-loss properties, the low premiums that do not reflect 

the vulnerability of the properties being insured. 

This time, the tragedy of Katrina will stay with us for a long 

time because the rebuilding will take, as we know, many, many 

years, causing us in Congress to continue writing checks for many, 

many years. 

While this is not something that any of us want, perhaps it will 

help keep the pressure on us long enough to pass a bill, improving 

the Flood Insurance Program this time—and not just pass a bill, 

but get a bill to conference, and actually report a bill and send it 

to the President, a bill that will require us to better consider where 

we build and rebuild, how we build, and how we allocate risk. 

I want to thank Chairman Dodd and our Ranking Member, Senator Shelby, for their leadership on this issue. I also want to thank 

Jen Fogel-Bublick and Jim Johnson for their hard work as members of our staff on this initiative as well. I do not think Senator 

Bunning has joined us yet. I know he has spent a fair amount of 

time on this as well, and my hope is that we can somehow pull together and address this. The authorization for this program I think 

expires in about a year, maybe at the end of next September, and 

we have plenty of time to get to work and pass a good, strong bill 

to send to the President. 

There is an old adage that goes something like this: Work expands to fill the amount of time that we allocate to do a particular 

job. And so we have got about almost 11–12 months to do this job. 

I do not want us to use all of that. I would like for us to be able 

to report a bill out of here by the early part of maybe next year, 

but this hearing today is helpful in sort of setting the stage for 

some movement on that bill. 

Senator Shelby, thank you. 

Senator SHELBY. Mr. Chairman, I know Senator Brown has got 

to go somewhere. I would be glad to swap places with him and 

yield to him now, and then take it back. 

Senator CARPER. That is very gracious. 

Senator SHELBY. Go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR SHERROD BROWN 

Senator BROWN. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, 

and also Senator Dodd, Senator Carper, and Senator Shelby. And 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
3 

thanks to the witnesses, especially Chad Berginnis, who is Ohio’s 

State Hazard Mitigation Officer, and I appreciate the work that he 

does and that so many of you do. 

I apologize for having to cut my time here so short because it is 

a topic that is so important to all of us. I have to go to Arlington 

today with some World War II veterans. Many of you have been 

watching the Burns piece on television—more than a piece, the 

long, long, long series that is so extraordinary. 

Many people think of flooding as a coastal problem until it hits 

your area, as Ohio has experienced a good bit of flooding a year 

ago, and much, much more, especially in Findlay, Bucyrus, Shelby, 

sort of northwest/north-central Ohio, in the last couple of months. 

Nine counties were declared a disaster area by Governor Strickland. Some areas saw the worst flooding in a century. Findlay 

talked about the last flood they had of any size like this was in 

1913, and it sort of begs the question of the whole National Flood 

Insurance Program. I, with the Governor, spent a day in Findlay 

back in August talking to people, you know, as they were sort of 

digging out. It was 2 days after the floods had crested, and they 

were cleaning their shops, businesspeople, homeowners, all, and 

few knew much about flood insurance. You know, you would guess 

that 100 percent of those people had fire insurance. The numbers 

are something like 10 percent have flood insurance. It is something 

we need to explain better; we need to sort of perhaps change our 

attitudes about it and educate people in areas that are prone to 

flooding better than we have. And it is a program that has worked 

when it is able to, and we ought to be able to make it work in more 

situations. 

Again, I appreciate what my predecessors have done on this 

issue and what we are going to be able to build on in the future. 

And I thank Senator Shelby for yielding. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Senator Richard C. Shelby. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY 

Senator SHELBY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The National Flood Insurance Program, as you mentioned, is currently $20 billion in debt and lacks the resources to service that obligation. Unfortunately, the program’s debt is only one of the many 

difficulties facing the future of the taxpayer-backed flood insurance. 

In recent years, there has been a population explosion, as you 

well know, in coastal areas all over this country. Millions of Americans now live and work in structures worth billions of dollars that 

are located in some of our Nation’s riskiest areas. It is likely that 

this phenomenon will continue and the demand for Governmentprovided flood insurance will grow. 

In light of this growing migration to our coastal areas, our examination of the flood program needs to be prospective as well as retrospective. We already know that the program has failed to meet 

the demands of the past. We must now determine whether the program is properly designed to handle trillions rather than billions 

of dollars’ worth of property loss. 

During the 109th Congress, this Committee held multiple hearings on the National Flood Insurance Program. After thorough examination, we unanimously—Democrats and Republicans unaniVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:42 Jan 15, 2010 Jkt 050358 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A358.XXX A358

dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
4 

mously—approved legislation intended to address many of the 

problems with the program. The bill eliminated subsidies on vacation homes, businesses, and severe repetitive-loss properties. It also 

established a process for the elimination of all subsidies in the future. The bill also addressed the insufficiencies in the existing 

maps by establishing stringent standards that the program must 

use to complete the modernization process, which is a must. 

The bill required State-chartered lending institutions to maintain 

flood insurance coverage for all mortgages located within the 100- 

year floodplain. The bill also enhanced the enforcement tools available to bank regulators at the Federal and State levels by requiring 

escrow of flood insurance premiums throughout the life of the mortgage and by increasing the civil penalties regulators may levy for 

failure to comply. Finally, the legislation created a mandatory reserve fund to pay future claims without additional contributions 

from the taxpayer. Unfortunately, as has been pointed out, the 

109th Congress failed to take up this legislation before it adjourned. 

In the interim, a number of studies looking at difficult facets of 

the program have been initiated. Two have been completed. Recently, the GAO completed the first part of a two-part examination 

of the public-private partnership between insurance companies and 

the Flood Insurance Program known as ‘‘Write Your Own.’’ The 

GAO is still looking at what this program costs private insurers to 

administer on behalf of the Government because FEMA, surprisingly, was unable to do so. 

When this partnership was created, the program was supposed 

to reimburse expenses for the Write Your Own carriers. Profit was 

not supposed to be part of the agreement. Initial indications are 

that many companies are not only profiting from this arrangement; 

property and casualty companies have been created solely for the 

purpose of administering this program. In other words, it is their 

only business. 

Another study produced by the Congressional Budget Office, or 

CBO, examined the value of pre-FIRM subsidized properties within 

the program. The Congressional Budget Office determined that 40 

percent—yes, 40 percent—of subsidized coastal properties in their 

study sample are worth more than $500,000 and 12 percent are 

worth more than $1 million, at a time when this program is $20 

billion in debt. These findings provided further validation of this 

Committee’s previous approach on taxpayer-funded subsidies. 

The National Flood Insurance Program is now at a crossroads. 

The 2005 hurricane season was most certainly a jarring wake-up 

call, but we cannot be guided only by the lessons of a single hurricane season as we move forward. We know demographic trends 

have placed and are likely to place more strains on the fiscal resources of the program. As those demands become more considerable, I think it is incumbent upon us to better understand the costs 

and the risks attached to this program. 

Last Congress, as I said, this Committee unanimously agreed on 

a way forward. I believe we can do so again. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Senator Shelby. 

Senator Reed. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
5 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JACK REED 

Senator REED. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

thank you and Senator Shelby for holding this hearing. I want to 

welcome the witnesses. I particularly want to welcome Dr. Galloway, who I appreciate not only for his service as an engineer but 

as a general officer in the United States Army, 38 years’ service, 

including service as Dean of the Academic Board at West Point. 

Thank you, Doctor General, for your work. 

Today, more than half the United States population lives in 

coastal counties, and that number will continue to grow in the future. Development is changing coastal ecosystems, and global 

warming will produce more intense storms and sea level increases. 

These events will place communities at greater risk, and reforms 

to the Flood Insurance Program are absolutely necessary. 

I believe that reforms must balance making the program actuarially sound with ensuring that working American families living in 

flood hazard areas have access to affordable flood insurance and 

take advantage of that insurance. 

Amid several concerns regarding the current National Flood Insurance Program, I will focus my comments very briefly on the 

issue of FEMA’s flood insurance rate maps, known as FIRMs. 

Floods are the most common and destructive natural disasters in 

the United States. Accurate flood maps should be the foundation of 

the NFIP. Flood insurance can mean the difference between a family having $250,000 to rebuild after a flood or literally being wiped 

out. 

As such, I have focused my attention in this legislation on the 

National Flood Insurance Program mapping program. I introduced 

the National Flood Mapping Act of 2005 during the last Congress, 

and I am pleased to see it included by the Committee in the NFIP 

legislation. I will continue to urge that this legislation be adopted. 

There is one particular issue I want to address now and I look 

forward to the witnesses’ comments on, and that is, my bill will require mapping of the 100-year floodplain plan along with the 500- 

year floodplain plan and areas of residual risk. Some have suggested that mapping the 500-year floodplain as part of FEMA’s 

Map Modernization Program could lead to delays in updating the 

100-year floodplain plan. I do not believe that. FEMA already includes a 500-year floodplain on its maps. Collecting this data and 

adding this information is absolutely the right approach and imperative to the public’s right to know about their flood risk, and we 

should not fragment these efforts. 

I am, again, very pleased that the Committee is taking up this 

issue, and I look forward to the testimony of the witnesses. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Senator Reed. 

And next let us turn to Senator Dole. You are next. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR ELIZABETH DOLE 

Senator DOLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Shelby. I appreciate your holding this hearing on the National 

Flood Insurance Program, which covers approximately 132,000 

homes in North Carolina. Many people who live in these homes 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
6 

have felt the impact of flooding in the wake of hurricanes like Isabel, Frances, Floyd, and Ivan. 

Researchers from NOAA forecasted a very active 2007 hurricane 

season. They forecasted 13 to 15 named Atlantic tropical storms, 

with as many as 9 expected to reach hurricane strength and 3 to 

5 growing into very dangerous hurricanes with winds of at least 

111 miles per hour. NOAA states, and I quote, that ‘‘Historically 

similar conditions have typically produced two to four hurricane 

strikes in the continental United States and two to three hurricanes in the region around the Caribbean Sea.’’ 

Of course, it is not possible to estimate the number of landfalling 

hurricanes. The bottom line is that we must be prepared. Government at every level must stand ready to provide assistance. 

We have been very fortunate that major hurricanes have not hit 

the United States during the past 2 years, but we cannot and 

should not wait for another major catastrophe before we reform the 

National Flood Insurance Program. 

Over the past 10 years, there have been many costly hurricanes 

that have weighed heavily on this program. In North Carolina, the 

program has been critical to our recovery from a number of major 

storms. In the fall of 1999, the eastern part of North Carolina was 

hit by Hurricanes Floyd and Irene. Floyd wreaked havoc, flooding 

many small communities. In Princeville, for example, the flooding 

completely swept away the town, leaving people to relocate or live 

in temporary housing until their homes could be rebuilt. To this 

day, in Greenville, North Carolina, you can still see the water lines 

on the buildings which mark the flood’s highest point. The National 

Flood Insurance Program paid out over $460 million for Hurricane 

Floyd, with approximately $200 million of it going to North Carolina. 

In recent years, our State has also experienced devastating flooding in the mountains. With rains from Hurricane Ivan, mountain 

valleys began to fill, with normally small creeks and streams turning into raging rivers. In total, the Flood Insurance Program paid 

out more than $1.5 billion in claims for this storm, of which $10 

million went to relief efforts in North Carolina. 

Though these and other storms have been quite costly for the 

Flood Insurance Program, no one could have foreseen the strains 

caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. To date, FEMA has handled 241,000 claims and has paid out approximately $16.3 billion 

stemming from the 2005 hurricane season. In March 2006, Congress raised the program’s borrowing authority to almost $21 billion. FEMA still anticipates paying approximately $21.9 billion in 

claims, more than the program has paid out in total over its 30- 

year-plus history. 

In North Carolina, we recognize our vulnerability to flooding, and 

our State is proactively undertaking one of the most advanced 

mapping programs in the Nation to better identify areas of risk. 

With FEMA’s support, our maps can provide local, State, and national officials with a clear picture of areas vulnerable to floods. In 

turn, communities can properly plan current and future development. While I had some concerns about last year’s Flood Insurance 

Reform and Modernization Act, I fear that inaction could result in 

a far worse situation. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
7 

Again, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Shelby, for 

devoting time to this very important program, and I look forward 

to hearing from our witnesses. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Senator Dole. 

Next if we could hear from Senator Casey, please, and he will be 

followed by Senator Allard. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT P. CASEY 

Senator CASEY. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and Ranking Member Shelby and our guests, the panelists who will be here 

today. 

I wanted to first of all give you a sense of the State I am from— 

Pennsylvania—where we have had more than our share of flooding, 

not just in the last couple of months and couple of years, but really 

for many, many generations, as far back as probably the most infamous and destructive inland flooding, which was in Johnstown, 

Pennsylvania, on Memorial Day of 1889. That community suffered 

several others many decades later, but there are other seemingly 

less dramatic examples of that. So we have suffered tremendous 

loss over many years. 

And I guess what we are trying to do with this legislation, any 

reform initiative, is to first of all be fair, to make sure, of course, 

that this program is actuarially or fiscally sound, and also to ensure that we are, as best we can, building in incentives for both 

existing homeowners and those who are seeking to develop in new 

areas of a particular community. And I think, of course, the mapping priority that is so prominent in this discussion is something 

we are very concerned about, getting the mapping right so we have 

accurate data. 

In our States, flood insurance policyholders receive the second 

highest total of claims—claims payments, I should say, in the 

United States after the 2004 hurricane season, and heavy summer 

rains and inland-moving tropical systems threaten homeowners 

throughout the State during the summer season virtually every 

year. In the past 10 years, Pennsylvania has experienced more 

than 15 flood-related federally declared disasters. In the period 

2002 to 2006, insured flood losses totaled more than $337 million. 

That gives you a sense of the dimension. 

But I visited a community in Allegheny County in the southwestern corner of our State, just outside of Pittsburgh, this summer—a community by the name of Millvale—that did not suffer 

enough losses to rise to the level of being awarded Federal help. 

But even in that instance, where, when you compare it to other examples, it may not seem as dramatic or as devastating, for that 

community there is a sense of hopelessness, a sense of helplessness, that sometimes Government itself cannot even respond to appropriately. And that is not necessarily the fault of the Federal 

Government all the time. It is not necessarily the fault of our laws. 

But we have got to make sure that as we reform this legislation 

and as we inform ourselves about the best way to do that, we remember the human trauma that these incidents cause in the lives 

of so many families. And I just want to make sure that we are cognizant of that as we are listening to the testimony. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
8 

We appreciate the expertise that is brought to bear on this hearing from our panelists, and I appreciate the opportunity to spend 

some time here this morning in this hearing. Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. Senator Casey, thank you very much. 

Senator Allard, you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD 

Senator ALLARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to also 

thank you for holding this hearing, as well as Ranking Member 

Shelby. 

Contrary to what many might think, flood insurance is an important program for my constituents in Colorado, too. It is not just for 

citizens of coastal areas. Our topography often acts as a funnel for 

rain or runoff, resulting in flooding even with smaller amounts of 

water. In such instances, the National Flood Insurance Program 

can be an important Government tool to help prevent or minimize 

flood damage and facilitate recovery efforts when damage does 

occur. 

In 2004, this Committee produced a series of important reforms 

designed to make the National Flood Insurance Program more effective. I was pleased to support the legislation. Following the 2005 

hurricane season, though, it became clearer that the National 

Flood Insurance Program was in need of much more fundamental 

reform. 

I believe that the bill reported by this Committee last year was 

a good step in addressing that need, and I was disappointed that 

we were unable to enact the reforms. Without them, we are left 

with a program that is both broke and broken. 

I am hopeful that we can move in an expeditious manner this 

fall. Not only do we have a legal obligation to pay the claims of 

those who purchased flood insurance policies, but we also have an 

ethical obligation to the people who are responsible enough to buy 

appropriate insurance. We must ensure that flood insurance continues to be available for those who need it, as well as we must 

do everything we can to protect taxpayer dollars. 

On this point I remain deeply concerned over the effect of the ongoing subsidies for certain properties. We must move more strongly 

toward an actuarially sound Flood Insurance Program. I also remain deeply concerned with the state of the floodplain maps. An 

effective Flood Insurance Program is predicated upon accurate, current floodplain maps. Local community mitigation and prevention 

efforts are only as good as the maps on which they rely. I am interested in finding ways to utilize technologies such as satellite and 

high-altitude mapping capabilities to improve the current mapping 

system. 

Millions of people have taken steps to protect their home and 

family by purchasing a flood insurance policy. But we must be 

careful that as part of our reform efforts or more general disaster 

assistance not to create a moral hazard. In fact, we need to find 

ways to improve the flood insurance participation rates. 

I look forward to working with my colleagues to find the necessary reforms to ensure the long-term solvency of the National 

Flood Insurance Program. I thank the witnesses for appearing here 

today to share their views. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
9 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, sir. 

Senator Schumer, just in time. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHARLES E. SCHUMER 

Senator SCHUMER. I will not sing that famous song, because it 

will ruin it. 

Anyway, I want to thank you, Chairman Carper, for chairing this 

hearing today. I want to thank Chairman Dodd and Ranking Member Shelby as well. 

Recent events have shown our current system of insurance for 

coastal flooding needs serious examination. The program has had 

some recent problems, we all know, but it still can be considered 

a qualified success. And that being said, there are certain areas 

where the Flood Insurance Program can and should be improved. 

One of these areas is how FEMA determines high flood risk areas, 

known as 100-year floodplains because their risk of flooding is 

more frequent than once every 100 years. 

Under the National Flood Insurance Program, every mortgage 

made by a federally backed or insured lender in a 100-year floodplain must have flood insurance, and this policymakes a great deal 

of sense for those areas with high risk of flooding. 

But while the policy makes sense, the execution is sorely lacking. 

We have had a particular problem up in the Buffalo area. FEMA 

has continually classified certain areas of Buffalo 100-year 

floodplains, despite the fact that there has never been a single flood 

claim in these areas in the history of the National Flood Insurance 

Program, despite the fact that Buffalo has recently invested heavily 

in flood mitigation infrastructure. It results in unnecessary insurance costs for residents of those areas. 

On August 24th, I sent a letter to FEMA asking them to send 

a representative to personally examine the flood prevention measures adopted by Buffalo and determine if the 100-year plain designation was still appropriate. And I would say this to you, Mr. 

Maurstad—I know we do not have questions yet, but despite my 

request, FEMA has yet to send anyone to Buffalo. And I hope that 

you will. You need to recognize the potential flaws in the flood 

mapping methodology and refrain from issuing any new flood map 

until it has first sent a representative to Buffalo to see firsthand 

the city’s flood prevention improvements. 

It is sort of ironic here. In certain places, we are saying FEMA 

does not do enough and flood insurance does not do enough, and 

yet they are requiring flood insurance in all kinds of areas that do 

not need it. So we ought to sort of get our house in order. 

Another aspect of the National Flood Insurance Program that 

merits close examination is whether it truly provides enough coverage against real flooding. In New York, in the aftermath of 

Katrina, many insurance companies stopped writing new homeowner insurance policies and canceled existing policies, particularly 

for the coastal areas of Long Island. This occurred in spite of the 

fact that downstate New York has not experienced a major hurricane since Hurricane Gloria in 1985, and that was a Category 1 

storm—not a 5 or a 3 but a 1. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
10 

Insurance companies, which have historically profited immensely 

from insuring downstate New York, now appear to be reconsidering 

whether they should continue to insure areas that are even at 

slight risk of hurricanes. I point this out not to blame the insurance companies—although, in my opinion, the insurance companies 

that have fled Long Island do deserve a great deal of blame—but 

to highlight the fact that there may be larger issues with the National Flood Insurance Program that need to be addressed. 

The insurance industry wants to cash out its chips on Long Island, but homeowners cannot afford this kind of gamble. Why are 

insurance companies leaving Long Island because of hurricane 

risks even though flood damages are already insured by the Federal Government? One answer may be that the maximum amounts 

covered by the National Flood Insurance Program are simply too 

low for areas with higher construction and rebuilding costs, and 

clearly, Long Island, where the average house—average small 

house—sells for $450,000. 

Currently, the maximum amount on a home structure by the NFIP is $250,000, and that is not high enough. That is one reason 

the House bill raised the amount to $335,000, and, in fact, the 

number may be not—that number is not good enough, as I mentioned, for large parts of Long Island. 

So the point is we have a flat national amount. You know, maybe 

in Mississippi where construction costs and housing costs are much 

lower it makes sense, but it does not make sense in New York. And 

it is unfair to say to a person in New York who has an average 

house, you do not get flood insurance, but to say to a person in another State, even if you are at 80 percent of the percentile in terms 

of cost of your house you do. So maybe we should look at highercost areas to do it. 

Now, another reason insurance companies may be leaving Long 

Island is that even though the Flood Insurance Program is covered 

by the Federal Government, private insurers are increasingly unwilling to cover the risk of wind damage. As we all know, hurricanes cause both flood- and wind-related damage. Since the creation of the Flood Insurance Program, the Federal Government has 

covered flooding; private insurance has covered wind. Perhaps the 

private insurance industry has lost its appetite to insure against 

wind damage. If that is the case, should the Federal Government 

step in to insure those homeowners who would otherwise be without insurance, provided this insurance is done in an actuarially 

safe and sound manner? The House of Representatives seemed to 

think so. They put it in their bill. I believe we should do the same 

in the Senate and will work toward that. 

The private insurance industry says, no, no, no, let us cover 

wind, and then they leave areas like Long Island. Gentlemen, ladies, you cannot have it both ways. You want to exempt yourself 

from large parts of America, and certainly of New York? Then do 

not lobby against the Federal Government coming in and doing it. 

So I look forward to hearing from representatives of the insurance industry. I would like to hear their perspectives on why the 

insurance industry has pulled out of Long Island and what they 

think can be done for residents in those areas. I appreciate the 

time, Mr. Chairman and having this timely hearing. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
11 

Senator CARPER. Thank you very much. 

Our next Senator who is going to be recognized is Senator 

Bunning, who has done a lot of work, and we thank you very much 

not only just for doing it, but for your leadership for the last several years on this. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JIM BUNNING 

Senator BUNNING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator Shelby, also. I am glad we are finally holding a hearing on the 

National Flood Insurance Program, which expires next year. I hope 

we can soon pass a reform bill that builds on the significant reforms enacted in the 2004 reauthorization written by my Subcommittee. 

Last year, this Committee passed a good reform bill that would 

have made the program more financially sound and provided better 

protection to the taxpayers. Even though it did not go as far as I 

would like, the bill would make a good starting point for the new 

reauthorization. 

As we saw in 2005, the current program is a financial disaster 

waiting to happen. The storms of 2005 exposed all the flaws in the 

program and have cost the taxpayers more than $20 billion. Without any reforms, the same thing will happen again. 

The current program is not financially sound and encourages 

property owners to take risks that put them in harm’s way. Even 

worse, many of the subsidized policyholders do not even need the 

help since they are already wealthy or taking insurance on their 

vacation homes. The taxpayers should not have to bear that burden. 

I have made no secret about my lack of faith in the management 

of this program. It took over 2 years from when the 2004 reforms 

were signed into law for FEMA to create the appeals process required by the law. So I am not surprised by the recent GAO report 

that found that FEMA in some cases has been paying the insurance companies and agents that sell flood insurance policies almost 

two-thirds of the premium in administrative cost. Those numbers 

are unacceptable, and we need to address that as well. 

I am looking forward to hearing from our witnesses. Thank you 

again, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. You bet. Thank you, Mr. Bunning. 

I think, Senator Martinez, you are the last man standing. You 

have got a lot at stake given the nature of the State that you represent and given the job that you held before as HUD Secretary. 

I know you have thought a lot about this, and we look forward to 

your comments. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR MEL MARTINEZ 

Senator MARTINEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Shelby. I 

appreciate it very much. It is a program that has been helping 

American families since 1968, but we know the problems that were 

exposed in the program, particularly after Hurricanes Katrina, 

Rita, and Wilma, which did show some serious flaws in the program. 

The 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes were catastrophic disasters that 

required over $110 billion in Federal disaster relief, including alVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:42 Jan 15, 2010 Jkt 050358 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A358.XXX A358

dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
12 

most $22 billion in claims payouts under the National Flood Insurance Program. The program has had to borrow money extensively 

from the Treasury in order to pay claims and expenses, and Congress has had every right to be concerned about the programmatic 

and financial challenges facing the National Flood Insurance Program. 

Last year, this Committee worked very hard to pass a flood insurance reform bill, as Senator Bunning just alluded to, and this 

bill would have made a number of positive changes in the program. 

Among those provisions, the legislation would have provided debt 

forgiveness, required mandatory coverage areas, and strengthened 

FEMA’s mapping program. 

Although I remain concerned about eliminating subsidized premium rates for certain properties and raising the deductible level 

of claims, I nonetheless do support the overall effort to improve and 

strengthen the program so that it can continue to provide insurance coverage to millions of Americans in harm’s way. 

I appreciate the witnesses’ being here today and look forward to 

their testimony, and as you know, the House recently passed a 

flood insurance reform package that substantially differs from this 

Committee’s legislation from last year. I am particularly interested 

in hearing from our witnesses about the importance of debt forgiveness as well as the ramifications of adding wind coverage to the 

program. 

The strengthened viability of the National Flood Insurance Program is incredibly important to my home State of Florida. There 

are over 2 million NFIP policies on homes in Florida, representing 

over 40 percent of the entire program. We cannot wait any longer 

to make serious reforms to this program. We have a responsibility 

to ensure that those who rely on flood insurance to live and work 

in their community will have the security they desperately need 

and rely on. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for calling this timely hearing, and 

I look forward to the testimony from our witnesses and continuing 

this very important conversation about the future of this program. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Secretary Martinez. 

Now, to our first panel, you have had the opportunity to hear 

from us. Now we will have the opportunity to hear from you, and 

we look forward to that. It is interesting. I have just a couple of 

observations. One, we had a pretty good turnout here today, and 

I was wondering how many—I thought it might just be Senator 

Shelby and me up here, maybe with Senator Bunning, but we have 

a pretty good turnout in terms of our Senators, and I think that 

bodes well. The only other hearing I ever chaired at the full Committee level was FHA, and it lasted about 10 minutes. It was one 

of those deals where somebody objected over on the Senate floor— 

not to my chairing, but to any committees meeting. So we had to 

leave after about 10 minutes. Richard here made me leave. I was 

tempted to keep us here, but he said, ‘‘No. You have got to go. You 

will go to jail if you keep it in session.’’ 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SHELBY. I do not know if you would go to jail, but I just 

thought that was the Senate rules. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
13 

Senator CARPER. Playing by the rules. 

Anyway, among the words we hear most on the Senate floor and 

in committees is the word ‘‘reform.’’ If you think about it, we hear 

that. We also hear ‘‘bipartisan.’’ It is not always bipartisan, and a 

place that we talk a lot about reforms; sometimes we do not fully 

deliver. But we need to deliver on this one, and I am pleased to 

see the kind of turnout we have had here today, and the interest. 

And this is maybe an issue whose time has come once again. 

So, Mr. Maurstad, David Maurstad, I understand you are the Assistant Administrator for Mitigation and the Federal Insurance Administrator for FEMA, and we welcome you. I will probably recognize you first, unless you want to defer to Ms. Williams. Why don’t 

you go first, Mr. Maurstad? 

And then Orice Williams, Director of Financial Markets and 

Community Development for GAO. We are delighted that you are 

here, and we welcome you both. 

Mr. Maurstad, why don’t you lead us off, and then we will recognize Ms. Williams. And I would ask you to keep your comments to 

about 5 minutes, and we will enter your full statement into the 

record. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID I. MAURSTAD, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR MITIGATION AND FEDERAL INSURANCE ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Thank you. Good morning, Senator Carper, 

Ranking Member Shelby, and Members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear this morning to address the NFIP’s 

financial status, how the 2004 Flood Insurance Reform Act has 

made the NFIP more effective, and opportunities to improve this 

program, and I am prepared to answer any questions on map modernization that you might have after the testimony. 

The NFIP makes affordable flood insurance available in communities that would adopt and enforce measures to reduce vulnerability to flooding. From 1968 through 2004, the NFIP paid out $15 

billion to cover over 1.3 million claims. Hurricane Katrina alone resulted in claims totaling over $16.3 billion, and we expect the 2005 

flood insurance costs to approach $20 billion, including interest 

paid on borrowing from the Treasury—borrowing that enabled the 

NFIP, in partnership with our insurance company partners, to pay 

over 98 percent of the 2005 flood claims. That is more than 180,000 

Gulf Coast residents helped on the road to recovery by the claim 

payments from their NFIP insurance policies. 

To date, the NFIP has borrowed $17.535 billion to pay for 

Katrina, Rita, and Wilma claims and the required interest—interest that likely will exceed $800 million a year by 2009, when we 

expect to approach our congressionally approved $20.775 billion 

borrowing limit. 

If future claims meet historical averages, the NFIP will need new 

loans every 6 months to cover semiannual interest payments, making it unlikely that the NFIP will ever be able to retire its debt. 

Financial matters aside, the program has performed well, particularly since the finalization of the 2004 Flood Insurance Reform 

Act. The NFIP Summary of Coverage and the Flood Insurance 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
14 

Claims Handbook have been important additions to the program, 

playing a major role in helping policyholders better understand 

their coverage and helping the NFIP close claims quickly and fairly. Supplemental and acknowledgment forms now accompany every 

new and renewed flood insurance policy, providing policyholders 

with easy-to-understand coverage explanations. 

In addition to better informing policyholders, the NFIP has 

greatly increased the number of agents who are trained to sell flood 

insurance. Since September of 2005, 42 States and the District of 

Columbia have made flood insurance training mandatory for agents 

selling NFIP coverage, and over 42,000 agents have completed our 

basic agent tutorial, either online or in the classroom. 

Of course, education and training can only reduce, not eliminate, 

claim settlement disputes. That is why FEMA adopted the Flood 

Insurance Claims Appeals Rule, offering policyholders a clear avenue to appeal decisions of adjusters, agents, companies, and FEMA. 

This rule enhances the program’s historically high success rate of 

resolving over 99 percent of its claims without litigation. 

Finally, the reform act helps FEMA address repetitive-loss properties. The Repetitive Flood Claims Program distributed a total of 

$19.8 million in fiscal years 2006 and 2007 to help communities remove more than 80 buildings from floodplains. We have also transferred $80 million from the National Flood Insurance Fund, ready 

to help States and communities mitigate severe repetitive-loss 

properties. And in fiscal year 2007, our Flood Mitigation Assistance 

Program committed $31 million to States for various floodplain 

management projects and plans. 

These programs, combined with flood insurance and other mitigation activities, are important elements of a systematic effort to 

eliminate the flood-rebuild-flood scenario that the Nation’s floodprone communities have become all too familiar with. And we must 

keep improving, which means strengthening the NFIP programmatically and operationally to protect the program’s financial integrity, increase NFIP participation, improve citizens’ understanding 

of flood risk, and reduce risk with proven mitigation practices. We 

should enhance these principles by eliminating discounts on preFIRM structures, increasing penalties for federally regulated lenders who do not comply with their mandatory purchase regulatory 

responsibilities, and providing more ICC coverage for policyholders 

to bring their structures up to flood-related building codes. 

Also, as recommended by a recent GAO report, the NFIP must 

have reasonable estimates of Write Your Own expenses and ensure 

their financial audits are performed on time, without exception. Finally, we are opposed to increasing the NFIP’s scope of coverage. 

A costly multi-peril NFIP will not resolve the wind versus flood 

issue or reduce vulnerabilities in wind-prone communities. My 

written testimony offers additional details and suggestions. 

Finally, we are concerned about more than financial matters. 

The NFIP is a leader in educating the Nation’s homeowners about 

flood risk, but we cannot do it alone. Local government leaders 

must also inform citizens about their risks and make the difficult 

land-use planning and management decisions needed to build communities that are a safer place to live, work, and do business. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
15 

I will be happy to answer any questions that the Committee 

might have. Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Thank you, Mr. Maurstad. 

Ms. Williams, in recognizing you, let me just say from all of us 

our special thanks to GAO for the work that you have done in this 

area and for the product that you brought to us. Thanks. You are 

recognized. 

STATEMENT OF ORICE WILLIAMS, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL 

MARKETS AND COMMUNITY INVESTMENTS, GOVERNMENT 

ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Thank you. Senator Carper, Ranking Member 

Shelby, and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to be here 

today to discuss the challenges facing the National Flood Insurance 

Program. My comments are based on numerous reports and testimonies GAO has provided over the years as well as several ongoing 

engagements. I would like to briefly touch on four major challenges 

facing the NFIP and FEMA, which oversees the program. 

First, as you well know, one of the biggest challenges facing the 

NFIP is the actuarial soundness of the program. As of August 

2007, FEMA owed over $17.5 billion to the U.S. Treasury, largely 

resulting from losses during the 2005 hurricanes. This is significant because FEMA is unlikely to be able to repay this debt, primarily because many of the program’s premium rates are set to 

cover losses in an average historical loss year, which, until 2005, 

did not include any catastrophic losses. 

Moreover, to balance the need to keep the costs of flood insurance affordable, Congress included premium subsidies for certain 

properties; that is, about one in four NFIP policies have premiums 

that represent 35 to 40 percent of the true risk premium. Also contributing to the NFIP’s financial challenges are the more than 

70,000 properties that suffer repetitive losses. While these properties represent about 1 percent of all NFIP-insured properties, 

they account for between 25 to 30 percent of all NFIP flood claims. 

FEMA is also creating a new category of policyholders that pay 

premiums that may not reflect their current risk of flooding. Specifically, eligible properties that are remapped into higher-risk flood 

areas are able to pay a discounted rate that reflects their old risk 

level. 

Second, the NFIP also faces challenges expanding its policyholder base by ensuring compliance with mandatory purchase requirements and promoting voluntary purchase by property owners 

who live in areas that are at less risk. 

A recently commissioned FEMA study estimated that 75 to 80 

percent of homeowners most likely to be required to have flood insurance have it. At the same time, only half of those living in highrisk areas are estimated to have flood insurance. Moreover, the 

penetration rate nationwide was only 1 percent, yet every State in 

the Nation is susceptible to flooding. 

Since 2004, FEMA has implemented a mass media challenge 

called ‘‘FloodSmart’’ in an attempt to educate the public about the 

risks of flooding and to encourage the purchase of flood insurance. 

While numbers of policyholders have increased following Hurricane 

Katrina, it is unclear whether these policyholders will remain in 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
16 

the program as time goes on and memories of the 2005 hurricanes 

fade. 

The third challenge is map modernization. The impact of the 

2005 hurricanes highlighted the importance of having accurate, upto-date flood maps that identify areas that are at greatest risk. 

While requirements for purchasing flood insurance apply only to 

certain properties in high-risk areas, according to FEMA, about 

half of all flood damage occurs outside high-risk areas. While 

FEMA has begun to take steps to adjust its map modernization efforts by changing its mapping standards and guidelines and adopting risk-based mapping priorities, managing this process and producing accurate digital flood maps is and will be an ongoing challenge. 

Finally, I would like to briefly touch on the challenges FEMA 

faces in overseeing the NFIP. This includes the need for effective 

oversight over the industry companies and thousands of insurance 

agents and claims adjusters that are primarily responsible for the 

day-to-day process of selling and servicing insurance policies. 

In closing, as we have said before, meeting the NFIP’s current 

challenges will require sound data and analysis and the cooperation and participation of many stakeholders. We appreciate the difficulty of restoring the financial viability of this program while balancing complex public policy objectives that may be at odds. 

Senator Carper, Ranking Member Shelby, this concludes my oral 

statement, and I would be happy to answer any questions that you 

may have. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. Thank you both. When 

you combine the time that each of you used up, it was exactly 10 

minutes. That was perfect. 

Let me start with Mr. Maurstad, and I am going to just try to 

recognize our members for 5 minutes, and we will go to a second 

round for those who have additional questions. 

Mr. Maurstad, you mentioned and Ms. Williams has mentioned 

and I think probably most of my colleagues have mentioned in 

their comments the issue of flood mapping. One aspect of flood insurance that is sometimes overlooked, though not in our testimony 

today, is flood mapping. Many of the witnesses here today that are 

going to follow the two of you today discuss flood mapping in their 

testimonies, and some at great length. 

Now, I want to better understand where FEMA is in terms of updating and maintaining maps. As I understand it, there are flood 

maps that are two decades old, in some cases, in many cases, clearly not providing meaningful risk assessments or information. And 

my first question would be: When does FEMA expect to be done 

with updating all flood maps? And do you have the resources that 

you need to update all maps? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Well, Senator, you are absolutely right about 

your comments on the state of the flood maps prior to the map 

modernization process. We are now into that a number of years. 

We are looking at in the current phase of map modernization, the 

funding will end in 2008. The map production will conclude sometime during 2010, because it generally takes a couple of years for 

the mapping process—the development of the maps and then the 

appeal and adoption process at the local level. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
17 

Senator CARPER. Let me just interrupt. Does the mapping process work today differently than it used or do you have better technology and you are able to do a much better job? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. The process is the same. The length of time—depending upon the type of study that is done will dictate how long 

that takes, how much data is available at the local level that can 

be shared with the program. But then when we turn those maps 

over, then it is up the community, and that can vary anywhere 

from 6 months to 2 years in the appeal and the adoption process 

at the local level. So that process is not really changed. 

Senator CARPER. Our technology allows us to do a lot of things 

today far more quickly than they could in 1968. Mapping is not one 

of them? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Development of the maps, certainly technology 

allows for better development of the maps. I am saying the total 

process, the public hearing process, the sharing with the community process, that takes the same amount of time. 

Senator CARPER. Excuse me. Does technology allow us to develop 

maps at a more reasonable cost than was previously the case? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. I believe that there is cost savings associated 

with the current technology compared with the old paper maps. We 

are certainly able to do more, and those maps, more importantly, 

I think, in the future will be able to be maintained and updated 

at less cost than what the paper maps were able to do. So there 

certainly will be benefits associated with that. 

To get to the heart of your question, at the end of the process, 

this current phase, we expect to have 92 percent of the Nation’s 

population with new digital maps covering about 65 percent of the 

land area. 

Senator CARPER. Just a related question in addition to updating 

maps. Maintenance is clearly needed. You have talked a little bit 

about that. But what are FEMA’s plans to maintain maps? And 

what are your assessments for how much you will need annually 

to maintain flood maps on an ongoing basis? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Well, we certainly have learned during this process, working with our State and local stakeholders, that there is a 

continued need for new engineering studies. The current phase, 

even though we made an adjustment to focus on risk in 2006, a 

mid-course adjustment, we have found that there are many communities around the country that need additional engineering studies to provide the best flood mapping information to them. 

Now, every community of the 20,000 probably would want to 

have that engineering study. I doubt that we will ever be able to 

afford to do that. But we will certainly be able to and need to continue to work toward developing the resources to be able to have 

engineering studies on all of the high-risk areas throughout the 

country. 

Senator CARPER. Again, did you say—you may have said it and 

I missed it, but your best estimates for how much you will need 

annually to maintain flood maps on an ongoing basis? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Well, we are working right now on our current 

budget proposals. Again, I think that certainly we are going to be 

looking at the funding beyond this phase, depending upon what is 

appropriated by Congress. About $56 million will be available from 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
18 

the ratepayers to continue the maintenance and some limited additional new maps. Beyond that, I think that it is fair to say that 

there are estimates—I think some of the folks that will testify after 

me have developed estimates on what they believe will be needed 

into the future. We are still working on developing that number. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. 

Senator Shelby. 

Senator SHELBY. Ms. Williams, GAO has reported that accurate, 

updated flood insurance maps are the foundation of the National 

Flood Insurance Program. Is that correct? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Yes. 

Senator SHELBY. Are you satisfied, from the standpoint representing the General Accounting Office, with FEMA’s efforts to 

improve and update the flood maps? And if not, why not? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. I think our position, as I mentioned, map modernization is and is going to be an ongoing challenge. We did recognize—after our 2004 report, we laid out a number of recommendations about improving guidelines given that FEMA has to deal with 

communities with varying levels of resources and skills and abilities that they needed consistent guidelines to make sure the process was occurring consistently across the country. And we did recognize that FEMA did come up with guidelines. They made a midprocess adjustment, and they did improve some of those guidelines. 

In terms of where they are in the process, the latest information 

we obtained from FEMA was that 34 percent of the maps have 

been remapped, and this 34 percent includes effective maps as well 

as preliminary maps. So I think the 34—— 

Senator SHELBY. Are those 34 percent mainly located in the Gulf 

Coast area, or are they everywhere? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Well, it varies. There’s a definite concentration in 

North Carolina, for example, and then there have been remapping 

efforts—they do tend to focus on the coast, and then fewer on the 

West Coast, for example, so it is scattered along the East Coast. 

Senator SHELBY. Is part of the problem in moving forward the 

bureaucracy, the local input and so forth? Does that slow it down? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. It is part of the challenge, and part of that has 

to do with the outreach effort that goes on as a community either, 

one, makes the decision that they want to be remapped and they 

have worked—— 

Senator SHELBY. Wait a minute. Excuse me. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Yes. 

Senator SHELBY. The local community will decide whether they 

want to be remapped? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Well, it is my understanding in terms of priority 

that part of FEMA’s process was that the communities that had 

taken the step to create, for example, the base map—the communities are often responsible for coming up with the base map that 

FEMA will work with to put elevation over. 

Senator SHELBY. Doesn’t the Corps of Engineers and FEMA have 

a data base for all this, you know, for the 100-year floodplain that 

we talk about in most areas? Do they not? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. A couple of comments, if I could, Senator. First 

of all, there is new mapping going on in every State—— 

Senator SHELBY. We hope so. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
19 

Mr. MAURSTAD [continuing]. All across the country. It is not just 

in the coastal areas. The focus has been within those States for 

them to identify the high-risk areas in the States. 

Yes, there is a base level of information that is used. That is 

what is being, in essence, converted from a paper environment to 

the digital environment. That is a starting point for the new digital 

maps. 

Senator SHELBY. Ms. Williams, the General Accounting Office, it 

is my understanding, has determined that the National Flood Insurance Program has absolutely no basis for determining the cost 

for insurers to administer this program—in other words, the program. Can you explain this finding to the Committee? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Yes. On that particular issue, in September we 

issued a report that looked at the payments made to the Write 

Your Own companies, and what we found when we looked at the 

payments made, there really was not an ability for us to also look 

at the expenses that were incurred by the Write Your Own companies. And so not only could we not determine whether or not that 

amount was an appropriate amount, I think what was more alarming is that FEMA was unable to tell us that this was an appropriate amount based on a review that they had done. 

Senator SHELBY. OK. Director Maurstad, are you concerned 

about conflicts that people have pointed out when a single insurance adjuster performs a claim analysis for both the wind- and 

flood-related damages? And what steps does the National Flood Insurance Program take to address such conflicts? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. First of all, I think there are always going to be 

conflicts in the adjustment process, and it is not solely—— 

Senator SHELBY. This is a big one. 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Yes. Not solely between—— 

Senator SHELBY. Is it water only and—— 

Mr. MAURSTAD. The single adjuster. The single adjuster program 

is actually an outgrowth of a request at the State level for one adjuster program to coordinate payments made under the State wind 

pools along with the Federal flood program. The Write Your Own 

companies can also utilize that, according to the arrangement that 

we have with them. I believe we have got appropriate mechanisms 

in place to be able to make sure that the flood claim is paid fairly 

and accurately according to the provisions of the flood insurance 

policy. 

Senator SHELBY. Ms. Williams, the GAO, in your statement you 

say you are currently looking into the conflicts of interest that can 

arise when an insurance company sells both property casualty and 

flood policies to a single homeowner. When will your analysis in 

that area be complete? And will you furnish that to the Committee? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Absolutely. I would be glad to provide a copy, and 

the report should be issued in the next 2 months. 

Senator SHELBY. Is that a concern for you at GAO? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Well, it is an area that we do specifically deal 

with, the inherent conflict of interest that exists, and our bigger 

concern is making sure that there is an internal control process to 

manage for and mitigate that inherent conflict. 

Senator SHELBY. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
20 

Senator CARPER. You are welcome. 

Senator Reed, you are recognized. Next, we have been joined by 

Senator Menendez, and, Senator Menendez, once Senator Reed has 

asked his questions, Senator Bunning will be recognized, and then 

you are next. Thanks for coming. 

Senator REED. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Maurstad, I want to follow up on the Chairman’s question 

about maintenance of these flood maps. We are spending a lot of 

money, some would argue not enough, but a lot of money to upgrade the maps. But is there a plan of proposed budgets to continue on a regular basis to maintain these maps? And I say that 

because I think the experience of all of us who live in a coastal 

State is that because of development, these areas are changing 

week by week. And without maintenance, we will find ourselves in 

a few years right back where we started from, where the maps are 

out of date. Could you comment on that? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Yes, I agree with you 100 percent that we definitely have to make sure as a country that when we are continuing 

to move forward with the map modernization process that we 

maintain them far better than we did in the paper environment. 

One of the benefits of being in the digital world will be that will 

be easier to accomplish. Funding, of course, will be a concern. 

And so we need to look at that. We need to continue to work with 

providing incentive for State and local governments to partner with 

the program to make sure that the maps are updated and remain 

so. But we also need to recognize that over time we are going to 

have to do this throughout the country over a period of time. With 

the platform, local communities may be able to do some updating 

on their own, if they want to take that responsibility over. We will 

encourage that, to partner with them to do that. So that certainly 

is an area that needs to occur. 

Senator REED. Is there a budget request now for maintenance? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Well, we certainly are working on the budget request for the 2009 budget, but, regardless, the program has, as I 

indicated before, $55 million that it has been contributing to the 

mapping process in the past few years, and those funds will still 

be available from the policyholders. And then we will continue to 

work with the administration and with Congress on developing the 

next phase of map modernization. 

Senator REED. Ms. Williams’ testimony states that an estimated 

$1.2 billion in flood losses are avoided annually because communities have implemented the NFIP’s floodplain management requirements. When did you last update these requirements to provide for these benefits? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Well, essentially that is the requirement that 

communities adopt the flood maps, that they enforce the floodplain 

management ordinances that they pass at the local level, and it is 

associated with new construction, rebuilding, current construction 

at the base flood elevation or higher. And so we look at the calculation of that benefit on an annual basis. It clearly is and should rise. 

But the essential base of what the requirements are for the community are the same as what they have been. 

I do need to point out that, as you are well aware, there are 

about 1,700 communities that are a part of the Community Rating 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
21 

System that represent about two-thirds of the policyholders across 

the country that go beyond our Federal minimum requirements 

and do additional mitigation and other activities to make their 

communities less vulnerable to flooding. 

Senator REED. That raises my next question; that is, in Rhode 

Island, our local authorities have taken, I think, some positive 

steps. Our Coastal Resources Management Council, for example, 

has begun to examine the ability of increasing setbacks because of 

the potential rise in sea levels. We are one of the few States that 

is looking at that. We have also classified our barrier beaches in 

the various categories and actually prevented new infrastructures 

on some of our barrier beaches. The feeling we have is that the 

community rating service is not giving adequate credit for that, 

that frankly the standards are so low—it is undifferentiated. There 

are some States that are doing a lot, some doing a little, but everybody gets treated the same. Can you comment on that? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Yes, sir. There are 17 different categories where 

Community Rating System participants can gain credit toward the 

premiums paid by their policyholders. And if you are suggesting— 

and we will, we will go back and look at those 17 criteria and see 

if they are weighted appropriately for the types of mitigation activities that you have mentioned. But communities accumulating 

points, and they start out at a CRS Community 10, can go all the 

way down to CRS Community Rating 1—we have one of those in 

the country—and receive at 5-percent increments of policy discounts. 

Now, there is another area that is in line with this in that the 

benefit goes to policyholders, and it has been raised to me before 

that—and we are looking at whether or not we should provide 

some type of an incentive or some type of a means for the community directly that takes these activities. And I think that is something that we need to further explore. 

Senator REED. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Senator Reed. 

Senator Bunning. 

Senator BUNNING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We have heard the GAO report released last month found that 

payments to the Write Your Own companies for servicing policies 

have ranged from one-third to two-thirds of premium income. What 

do you think is an appropriate number? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Well, sir, I think that we need to look at that in 

the context of what we are compensating the Write Your Own companies for, and there are two main categories: One is for their operating expenses, including the compensation for their agents, which 

is in the range of 31 percent of their written premium. A second 

part is the—and that has actually gone down a couple of percentage points over the course of the last 10 years. 

The second and the factor that has influenced 2006 and is going 

to influence part of 2007 is what we reimburse the companies for 

handling claims for the losses that occur. That is a percentage 

basis also. So as the number of claims increase, as the volume of 

claims increases, the costs associated with handling that claim is 

going to increase also. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
22 

And so I believe that it is appropriate to look at the operating 

expense portion of what we compensate and compare that to the 

premiums, develop the ratio of the premiums that are written, and 

then I think it is more appropriate to look at the volume of claims 

and the amount of claims that are paid with the costs associated 

with that and the ratio there. Clearly, after the catastrophic years 

that we had, that was a substantial amount. 

One of the lessons learned from Katrina is we need to gather information from the Write Your Own companies on their costs to adjust the claims, which we are in the process of doing, and also 

change the mechanism by which we reimburse the companies for 

claims. And we are in the process of doing that also. So we are 

going to make a correction in that area. 

Senator BUNNING. This is another question for Mr. Maurstad. In 

your testimony, you said that the deadline for companies to submit 

audits for 2005 and 2006 was September 30th. Did all the Write 

Your Own companies get their audits in on time? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. I checked this morning, and they are in the process—we are in the process of determining if all of them—and we 

are just a couple days beyond September 30. Every indication that 

I have received so far is that they are going to be in on time. But 

I do not have the specific number to share with you today. We can 

provide that to you. 

Senator BUNNING. Does somebody else in your shop handle that? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Yes, sir. Again, I asked the deputy—— 

Senator BUNNING. I would definitely like for you to give the Committee a written report on that. 

Mr. MAURSTAD. We will. 

Senator BUNNING. No. 2, how much of the claims paid on residential property for 2005 hurricanes went to secondary homes or 

vacation homes? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. I am not sure. I do not have that number right 

in front of me. But I will provide that to you for the Committee also 

if you would allow that. 

Senator BUNNING. When will the Severe Repetitive Loss Pilot 

Program rules be finalized? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. We are in the final stages of having those rules 

through the concurrence process. My hope is that in the very near 

future, we will have that ready to be published. 

Senator BUNNING. And what are you doing to enforce mandatory 

purchase requirements? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Well, the lenders are responsible for the mandatory purchase requirements. We continue to meet with them to 

make sure, if they have difficulties with that that the program can 

help with, that we understand what that is and try to assist. But 

the lenders are responsible for—— 

Senator BUNNING. What do you mean if you understand it? Is the 

language in our bill not clear to you? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. No. If they understand it. Sometimes the lenders 

bring concerns to us about the requirements. 

Senator BUNNING. Well, if it is not clear, then I would suggest 

that you come to us and explain what is not clear in the law. 

Mr. MAURSTAD. When we meet with our Federal lending partners, I will suggest that to them. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
23 

Senator SHELBY. May I? 

Senator BUNNING. Go right ahead, Senator. 

Senator SHELBY. Is there a penalty in the law for the lenders not 

to comply, in other words, not to enforce what Senator Bunning is 

talking about? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. They clearly have to enforce, but the question—— 

Senator SHELBY. No, but what is the penalty if they do not enforce it? They either do or they do not, and it seems like they are 

lax there. Senator Bunning is onto, I think, a good point. 

Thank you for yielding, Senator. 

Senator BUNNING. Sure. So you will let us know? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Sir, it is not FEMA’s responsibility to enforce the 

mandatory purchase requirements. It is the lenders’ responsibility. 

Senator BUNNING. Well, then we will ask them. 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Yes, sir. 

Senator BUNNING. Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. Senator Menendez. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT MENENDEZ 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that my opening 

statement be placed in the record, along with—— 

Senator CARPER. Is there objection? Hearing none—— 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Maurstad, I want to follow up on a question Senator 

Bunning asked you. Last year when you were before the Committee—I believe it was in January of last year—on the issue of the 

Severe Repetitive Loss Pilot Program, I asked you then when could 

we expect the rulemaking process to come to fruition, and you said 

by the end of 2006, the end of the 2006 fiscal year. I just heard 

your answer to Senator Bunning, and so I want to ask you a series 

of questions. First of all, there was $40 million appropriated for fiscal year 

2006. Is that correct? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Yes, sir. 

Senator MENENDEZ. And that funding, has that been obligated at 

all? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. That funding has been transferred from the National Flood Insurance Fund into the category that would be available for grants as soon as the program gets up and started. So the 

funding is there and available. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Why is it that, 3 years after the law has 

been passed, a year after the target date for finalizing the rules, 

the program is still under development? What is the hold-up? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. We attempted to get the rule through the development process and through the concurrence process as quickly as 

we could, and there really is no excuse that I can offer that is going 

to satisfy the displeasure with it not being done to this point. All 

I can indicate to you is we continue to push very hard to—— 

Senator MENENDEZ. Is this a priority for FEMA? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. I believe it is. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Boy, if it is a priority, we are in deep trouble 

if this is the way priorities move. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
24 

Let me ask you this: The program is only authorized until 2009, 

so if it is not starting until next year, what would that mean for 

the pilot? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. It means that the results of the pilot and the effectiveness of the pilot is going to occur beyond that, certainly 

not—unless the Severe Repetitive Loss Pilot is extended, certainly 

not before the conclusion of this first phase. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Well, it seems to me we are going to have 

a very limited result of what the pilot would indicate to us as 

whether it is being successful or not. This is an area—I am particularly interested in this area because my home State of New Jersey, 

which has 127 miles of Atlantic coastline, was fifth largest last 

year alone in terms of claims against the National Flood Insurance 

Program, and has an elevated number of repetitive-loss claims. It 

is a real concern to us. This program is the one that we anticipate, 

for example, acquisition, structure demolition, structure relocation, 

with the property deed restricted for open spaces in perpetuity; 

where we look at elevation of structures, where we look at 

floodproofing of structures, where we look at minor physical, localized flood control projects, and a whole host of other things. We 

cannot get to that if we do not move. 

Ms. Williams, what is your assessment of why this program is 

stuck in the mud? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Over the years, GAO has looked at the implementation of the 2004 act, and in terms of monitoring, getting the pilot 

up and running, it has been an issue we have continued to raise. 

As a concern in terms of a specific reason for it, I do not think 

I have today a specific reason for why, but we have raised this as 

a concern, and it is one of the challenges that we acknowledge. 

Senator MENENDEZ. You have not studied why, in fact, it has not 

moved forward? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Other than stating the fact that it has not been 

moving forward. 

Senator MENENDEZ. You know, there are 8,100 properties, as I 

know it, that are categorized as severe repetitive loss. What is the 

impact of this in terms of the overall program if we do not get this 

program moving? Isn’t there a cost factor for all the time we delay 

from making the changes that are envisioned in the pilot program 

that could look toward mitigation, that would have a savings impact upon the program? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Yes. This is one of the issues that we have pointed out. and it is the fact that the repetitive-loss properties are a 

drain on the program. These 1 percent of properties account for 25 

to 30 percent of the losses. 

Senator MENENDEZ. So, Mr. Maurstad, when are we going to see 

this again? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. We are pushing to get it done as soon as possible. If I could add, though—— 

Senator MENENDEZ. I know, but in January of 2006, you told me 

at the end of the fiscal year 2006, so, you know, as soon as possible, 

that is a very open-ended proposition. Can you give me some sense 

of the timeframe? Can you give the Committee some sense of the 

timeframe? 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
25 

Mr. MAURSTAD. I can check with the leadership and try to provide you with a specific date. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Would you give it to the Committee in writing. 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Yes, I will try to do that. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Could I add, however, I want to make sure that 

the Committee understands that no repetitive-loss activity has not 

occurred. We continue to have the flood mitigation assistance funding available; the individual repetitive loss we got going, that $10 

million; plus in the pre-disaster mitigation grant area, many of 

those applications deal with and focus on repetitive-loss properties. 

And certainly in the Post-Disaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, there are funds that are allocated by the States that they set 

the priorities toward this issue. 

So I do not want to leave the impression that no activity is going 

on relative to trying to address the Repetitive Loss Pilot Program—— 

Senator MENENDEZ. But having said that, if that were sufficient, 

Congress would not have needed to have passed the pilot program. 

Mr. MAURSTAD. I understand. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Maurstad, I think the history of the program since 1968 is that from time to time revenues that are collected, premiums collected, do not cover the cost of claims, and 

FEMA has had to borrow money from the Treasury to pay those 

off and eventually to recoup the money and pay off the loan to 

FEMA with interest. 

As you will recall, we increased here in Congress FEMA’s bor- rowing authority to roughly $20 billion on the heels of the storms 

in 2005. I would just ask: Is FEMA in a position to repay this debt 

or begin repaying this debt with interest to the Treasury? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. As long as losses are at the historical average, 

the program will not have the ability to pay the losses, the expenses of the program, and the interest that is estimated to be 

$800 million a year. Right now, over the course of the next two fiscal year, again, based on the average historical loss level of about 

$1 billion, a little more than $1 billion, the current borrowing authority of $20.775 billion we anticipate would be exhausted by the 

end of 2009. 

Senator CARPER. How is FEMA currently paying the debt, the interest on the debt? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Well, we have been fortunate. We have borrowed 

some. 

Senator CARPER. From? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. From the Treasury. 

Senator CARPER. To repay the interest owed to—— 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Yes. And we have also had in 2005 a less than 

average historical loss year. 

Senator CARPER. 2005? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. 2006. Excuse me. In 2006, a less than average 

historical loss year, so we had cash-flow that was available there 

to contribute toward the claims of 2005 and the debt, and the same 

exists so far this year. We will have the final results in probably 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
26 

60 days, but we are also looking at a lower than average historical 

loss year this year. 

Senator CARPER. All right. 

Mr. MAURSTAD. So that has funds that are also made available 

to repay the interest. 

Senator CARPER. Ms. Williams, you discuss in your testimony the 

problem of properties that are remapped to continue to pay rates 

based on their previous risk level. You indicated that these grandfathered rates can be permanent. 

Does FEMA have the ability to change this policy and charge 

rates that are more truly based on risk? Does FEMA have the ability to change this policy? And after you have answered, I will ask 

Mr. Maurstad to respond as well. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. I think in terms of legally, it is not clear to us 

that FEMA has the ability to do this. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Mr. Maurstad. 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Well, I would say that historically this is in line 

with the discounts that are provided to pre-FIRM properties, those 

properties that were a part of the 1 percent annual chance area 

prior to a community adopting flood insurance rate maps. And so 

it is consistent with that principle of not adversely impacting property owners as a result of either the community adopting maps or 

new maps being adopted that changes the floodplain area. 

It is also done to make sure that folks maintain their flood insurance during that period of time so that it is in line with, again, the 

statutory charge of making sure that premiums are affordable. 

Senator CARPER. Ms. Williams. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. We do not necessarily disagree with any of that, 

but we raise this issue to point out that it does have implications; 

that while properties that are remapped may have to face a higher 

insurance premium going forward, the fact that this particular discounted rate stays in force potentially forever has implications for 

the program, and those implications have to be considered because 

it can have an impact on the actuarial soundness of the program, 

and this is creating another category in addition to the one in five 

subsidized properties—well, the one in four subsidized properties 

that already exist. 

Senator CARPER. Senator Shelby, did you want to jump in? 

Senator SHELBY. I want to follow up on that. 

It is my understanding—and you correct me if I am wrong on 

this. In your written testimony—and you just alluded to it, I 

think—you suggested that the National Flood Insurance Program 

is creating a whole new class of subsidized properties you allowing 

those that are mapped in the newly created 100-year floodplain to 

obtain insurance less than actuarial rates. Do you believe that 

FEMA should just now be creating a whole new class of directly 

subsidized structures if, as I believe and most people believe, one, 

the Flood Insurance Program is broke, is taking on more, you 

know, it is taking on, no pun intended, a lot of water? And I do 

not see any other than really re-engineering the whole program. 

And I am sure we will hear some of this in a few minutes in the 

second panel. 

Why would they want to take on a new class of directly subsidized structures? 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
27 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Well, it is kind of—I can’t—well,—— 

Senator SHELBY. Do you see what I am getting at? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. I see what you are getting at, and part of it is it 

is the balancing act that I referred to in terms of you have a community, they are remapped; you have individuals in the community 

that may now end up in a 100-year floodplain, and they now have 

a high-risk designation and would have to pay a higher rate. 

So in order to keep people in the program, through the 

FloodSmart process this is being encouraged. People are being encouraged to buy flood insurance today, knowing that their community is being remapped, so they can lock in—— 

Senator SHELBY. Subsidized insurance, right. Subsidized. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Well, my understanding is for the grandfathered 

property, the grandfathered rate would be the non-subsidized rate. 

Senator SHELBY. Mr. Maurstad. 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Well, first of all, it is not a new class. This is 

something that was occurring in the paper environment also when 

communities were remapped. So it is not a new class. It is certainly, as we are mapping the entire Nation, more prevalent than 

what it was when we were not updating the old maps. But they 

were not a subsidized—they were not a discounted policy—they are 

not a discounted policy currently. 

So what I would like to suggest is if we could provide a written 

explanation of this process to you for your edification. 

Senator SHELBY. Is the program broke? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Well, you know, that is—— 

Senator SHELBY. By normal accounting standards, is it broke? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. The program has more objectives than just financial objectives. If you look at it from—— 

Senator SHELBY. I am talking about financially. Financially, is it 

broke? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Financially, it is in debt, and it certainly does 

not have the ability to repay that—— 

Senator SHELBY. Is it insolvent, though? That is—— 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Well, it is not insolvent any more than the Federal Government is insolvent. Because it is a Federal Government 

program that is backed by the Federal Government, and the whole 

rating scheme that was developed over the course since 1968 has 

been one that created the circumstance where a disastrous event 

would far exceed the program’s ability to pay for it. It just took 38 

years for that type of an event to occur. It could have happened in 

year two. 

Senator SHELBY. Is the program unable to pay for itself because 

it was never actuarially sound? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. Certainly, it was designed at the beginning for 

discounts to be provided to pre-FIRM. That is a loss of around $700 

million of foregone revenue every year. So the program by design 

was set up that way. 

Now, over the course of time, I think in rough terms in the last 

decade, the percentage of properties that are discounted has gone 

from 42 percent down to about 25 percent. The 25 percent of the 

policies clearly are discounted, and that is why we support removing that discount for vacation homes and for business homes and 

phasing it out on residential homes. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
28 

Senator SHELBY. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. You bet. 

I am going to reclaim my time and just ask maybe one more 

question, and this is probably a question that I would ask of the 

second panel, too. So this will give them a chance to think about 

it. 

Ms. Williams, you start off your testimony saying, ‘‘My testimony 

today will revisit and update the four major challenges facing the 

Flood Insurance Program.’’ Then you are going to highlight what 

those are and then talk about them at some length. Sometimes 

around here when we are addressing a program that needs to be 

reformed or revised, we are given the admonition, ‘‘Do no harm.’’ 

So as we go forward on national flood insurance reform, we will 

certainly endeavor to do no harm. 

Give me your short list or to-do list of things that we should do, 

aside from doing no harm. Then I will ask Mr. Maurstad to respond to these as well. So, Mr. Maurstad, just listen up, please. 

Thank you. 

Ms. Williams. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. I think in terms of—— 

Senator CARPER. What is our to-do list? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Since March 2006, GAO has named NFIP as one 

of our high-risk programs, so I think one of the first issues would 

be to deal with the financial solvency of the program and to determine how best to do that. 

Next would be to look at the reasons for that. 

Senator CARPER. Does that involve forgiving the debt? Is that 

part of that? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Well, I would think that would have to be part 

of the debate, given the debt that is owed, the inability of the program to be able to service the debt, while as long as we do not have 

major flood events, they may be able to pay the interest. If not, any 

major event would flow directly through to the Treasury, and it 

would require borrowing from the Treasury to deal with any future 

significant claims. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Keep going. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. You know, to deal with that issue, and then to 

deal with the sub-issues under that, looking at the actuarial soundness of the program. That would involve looking at subsidized and 

non-subsidized rates in particular. 

One of the things we are looking that hopefully will help aid in 

evaluating this has to do with a review we currently have going on 

looking at how the actuarial rates are set specifically, whether or 

not all the zones are actually actuarially sound. So that is where 

I would start. 

Senator CARPER. That is it? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. Well, I want to ask you to think about this and 

respond to me for the record, if you will, in a more comprehensive 

way. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Absolutely. All right. 

Senator CARPER. That would be very helpful. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
29 

Mr. Maurstad, if you will go back to the comments of Ms. Williams, and also just as somebody who has thought a lot about this 

program, given the responsibilities you hold, what should we do as 

we go forward? 

Mr. MAURSTAD. We need to increase the percentage of policyholders paying actuarially sound rates by phasing out the discounted premiums. 

Senator CARPER. OK. 

Mr. MAURSTAD. We need to increase NFIP participation, incentives, improve program enforcement, have sound oversight. We 

need to work diligently and incorporate a greater participation by 

all of the actors involved in making sure that communities understand their risk, that property owners understand their risk, and 

they take appropriate action, so communication. 

And I think we need to continue to further reduce risk through 

mitigation practices. We need to focus on the repetitive-loss properties. We certainly need to continue sound progress in mapping 

and continue that into the future. And I think there needs to be 

a broader discussion of the impacts of areas that are protected by 

levees and dams and how that affects what people believe their 

risk is, how safe they are, and how the program reacts to that, both 

from a floodplain management perspective and proper insurance 

rating. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Thanks. That is the kind of list we are 

looking for. 

Ms. Williams, if you would expand on your answer for the record, 

that would be appreciated. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. Senator Shelby, any last word? 

Senator SHELBY. No. I will wait for the next panel. 

Senator CARPER. OK. We will probably have some additional 

questions for you, and we just ask that you respond to them 

promptly. We appreciate very much your being here today. Thank 

you. 

As the members of this panel take their seats, Mr. Berginnis, go 

ahead and pull up a chair. Your name is pronounced ‘‘Berginnis.’’ 

Is that correct? 

Mr. BERGINNIS. Yes, sir. 

Senator CARPER. And are you from Ohio? 

Mr. BERGINNIS. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. Where do you live? 

Mr. BERGINNIS. In Newark. 

Senator CARPER. OK. I was back at Ohio State. I am a graduate 

of Ohio State. I was back there about 10 days ago and saw, among 

other things, my old Navy ROTC unit and my old fraternity house, 

and the first quarter of the Ohio State-Northwestern football game 

where they scored 28 points. It was quite a beginning. I was there 

in 1968, the year that the National Flood Insurance Program 

began, the year that Ohio State did pretty well on the football field, 

as I recall. So you are going to lead off this panel, and you are the 

State Hazard Mitigation Officer of the Ohio Emergency Management Agency. You are going to be testifying here on behalf of the 

Association of State Floodplain Managers. Welcome. Thank you. 

Senator SHELBY. Can I say something? 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
30 

Senator CARPER. Sure. Go ahead, please. 

Senator SHELBY. I was thinking of Ohio State. You know, we love 

their brand of football, great school and everything. But every now 

and then they run into the SEC teams from the South. But not 

every day. They are holding on, to say the least. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will pay for that. 

Senator CARPER. All right. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. Galloway, Dr. Gerald Galloway—well, let me go back to Mr. 

Griffin here. You are listed out of order in my—you are fine. You 

can sit right where you are, but I understand you are with the 

Property Casualty Insurance Association of America. Is that correct? 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes, sir. 

Senator CARPER. We are delighted that you are here. Thanks for 

joining us. 

Dr. Gerald Galloway, Professor of Engineering at the University 

of Maryland, a Terrapin. 

Mr. GALLOWAY. Yes, sir. 

Senator CARPER. Welcome aboard. 

We have J. Robert Hunter, Director of Insurance for the Consumer Federation of America. Thank you for joining us today. 

Vince Malta. 

Mr. MALTA. Good afternoon. 

Senator CARPER. I am going to go back to Mr. Davey, President 

and CEO of Fidelity National Insurance. 

And last, but not least, Vince Malta from the National Association of Realtors. Mr. Malta, welcome. We are glad you have come, 

and we are just going to recognize you to speak. My staff has given 

me a notice that says let’s cut your testimony back to 41⁄2 minutes, 

let’s not take the full 5 minutes. We will probably close you off 

right around 5 minutes, and then we will go right to questions. 

Mr. Berginnis, welcome. O-H. 

Mr. BERGINNIS. I-O. 

Senator CARPER. There we go. 

Mr. BERGINNIS. And, yes, the SEC has been giving us problems 

recently. 

STATEMENT OF CHAD BERGINNIS, STATE HAZARD MITIGATION OFFICER, OHIO EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, 

ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION OF STATE FLOODPLAIN 

MANAGERS, INC. 

Mr. BERGINNIS. Good morning, Chairman Carper and Ranking 

Member Shelby and distinguished Members of the Committee. I 

am Chad Berginnis, Past Chairman and Mitigation Policy Coordinator for the Association of State Floodplain Managers, and also a 

day-to-day practitioner implementing these FEMA programs, the 

National Flood Insurance Program as well as the Hazard Mitigation Programs. 

Today the ASFPM is pleased to offer our thoughts on a program 

that has for nearly 40 years served the Nation quite well. The 

NFIP was and continues to be a unique program having three components—flood insurance, flood mapping, and flood mitigation— 

that meets simultaneous goals of risk reduction, easing the dependVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:42 Jan 15, 2010 Jkt 050358 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A358.XXX A358

dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
31 

ency on taxpayer-provided disaster relief funds, and distributing 

the responsibility for floodplain management to all levels of Government. 

While the Congress has held numerous hearings since Katrina 

exploring ways to improve the NFIP, we hope you give consideration to the following items: 

First, the program was praised by Members of Congress for 

quickly and efficiently handling claims, although recognizing the financial issues that we are dealing with. Large-scale recovery mapping efforts have resulted in updated information on flood risks, 

which is essential to recovering in a way that is more resistant to 

destruction next time a hurricane would occur, and flood mitigation 

elements of the NFIP such as construction codes and increased cost 

of compliance have the potential to transform the area to one that 

is less flood-prone, more resilient to future disasters, and potentially eliminate a large number of the repetitive-loss properties 

that were discussed earlier and that continue to be a significant 

challenge for the NFIP. 

We sit here in support of NFIP reform, and I would best characterize ASFPM’s recommendations as a pragmatic approach, addressing all components of the NFIP, and one that is based on 

studies, evaluations, and supporting the original intent of the program. 

On the issue of flood insurance reforms, we believe that reforms 

must lead to a better financial stability while balancing the need 

for policy affordability. We hear it all the time out in the field, the 

price of flood insurance policies. ASFPM supports moving rates to 

actuarial for pre-FIRM non-residential buildings and non-primary 

residences, and also believes that the mandatory purchase of flood 

insurance should be extended to areas protected by flood control 

structures. These areas still have flood risk, and while it may be 

lowered by the mere presence of those facilities, the catastrophic 

consequences of failure are much higher than if the structure did 

not exist at all. These policies would be, I would anticipate, lower 

in cost also than those in the 100-year floodplain. 

The extending of mandatory flood insurance purchase to non-federally regulated lending entities, allowing escrow of flood insurance 

premiums and debt forgiveness, are also supported by the ASFPM. 

Flood mapping reform must acknowledge the ongoing need to update and refine the Nation’s flood hazard maps. The proposed National Flood Mapping Act of 2007, introduced by Senator Reed, not 

only recognizes this, but also recognizes that our flood maps should 

identify the multiple flood risks that we face, whether it is in areas 

protected by levees, 500-year floodplains, or even storm surge inundation areas. 

Investments in flood mapping should be concentrated on the 

flood data layer and strive to map the full extent of the 100-year 

floodplain updating older, outdated hydrologic studies that, again, 

the Committee had recognized previously. 

In Ohio, for example, States investments in statewide LIDAR, 

which is a laser-based topographic mapping, will result in extremely accurate topography that can be used to further refine 

flood hazard maps. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
32 

Flood mitigation reform should build on the successes and challenges of past reforms in 1994 and 2004. In particular, we propose 

changes to the Flood Mitigation Assistance Program and increased 

costs of compliance coverage to make them more flexible in mitigation options allowed and costs that are eligible to be covered. We 

are concerned that the repetitive flood claims program, as it has 

been designed, does not necessarily meet the congressional intent 

and are also particularly concerned that the Severe Repetitive Loss 

Program has some potential statutory issues that have made it 

very difficult to implement in rulemaking. We would request the 

Committee invite FEMA to discuss those issues and barriers to implementation, and recommend also that the pilot program be extended to preserve the 5-year intent. 

Finally, we must guard against reform proposals that weaken 

the NFIP. There have been a lot of reform proposals talked about, 

certainly in the House as well, and proposals to do such things as 

opting out of buying insurance or providing insurance in communities that refuse to join the NFIP. Those communities that refuse 

to do the day-to-day management responsibilities of their flood hazard area will weaken the NFIP. Perhaps the most disconcerting of 

these proposals, though, is the addition of wind coverage to the 

NFIP. ASFPM is strongly opposed—— 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Berginnis, I would just ask you to go ahead 

and finish this sentence, but then wrap it up, please. 

Mr. BERGINNIS [continuing]. To this proposal, and especially in 

light of the need to strengthen the NFIP’s financial standing and 

maintaining price affordability. 

Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks very much for your testimony. 

Mr. Griffin, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Thank you. Mr. Shelby, I do not know whether you 

remember. You spoke a few years ago at the National Association 

of Realtors, and I was on a panel on insurance following that. And 

nothing like the topic of insurance to clear the room. You had a full 

room of people, probably 300 or 400, and as soon as our panel came 

up, it looked similar to the way it does here today. So, anyway, I 

hope you will not hold that particular comment against me. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SHELBY. So you are used to it, right? 

Mr. GRIFFIN. I am used to it, yes. It is a popular topic. 

STATEMENT OF DONALD L. GRIFFIN, VICE PRESIDENT, PERSONAL LINES, PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURERS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA 

Mr. GRIFFIN. My name is Don Griffin, and I am Vice President 

of Personal Lines for the Property Casualty Insurers Association of 

America. PCI is a trade association representing over 1,000 insurers, and 57 of the 88 insurers are in the NFIP’s Write Your Own 

program. Thank you, Chairman Carper and Ranking Member Shelby and Members of the Committee for the opportunity to appear 

before you today. 

I will probably jump to the end of where you asked for recommendations because that is what most of my testimony will 

focus on. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
33 

PCI believes that the NFIP is a necessary public policy response 

to an uninsurable peril. It has undergone significant changes 

throughout its history, yet it still provides vital, important protection for our Nation’s policyholders. However, the program as currently structured does not provide consumers with the level of protection needed and has not achieved the participation needed. 

The events of 2004 and 2005 have shown the devastation by hurricanes and floods that can impact millions of lives, businesses, and 

our Nation. Even as those hardest hit continue to rebuild, scientists tell us we are in for a period of a lot more of this coming 

along the road. So we need to be better prepared. 

Significant reforms were passed in 2004. Unfortunately, many of 

those reforms were not in place when the 2005 hurricanes hit. 

They are now. We believe that those things will be helpful in the 

future. 

Also, as you have heard from many of the people that have 

talked—and you are well aware—the debt that the Federal Flood 

Program is carrying right now is huge. We think there is room for 

improvement on all fronts. 

So what do we think should be done with the National Flood Insurance Program? First and foremost, we think the debt should be 

forgiven. We do not see any way possible that the National Flood 

Insurance Program is going to be able to repay this debt based on 

the current rating structure. The program should be reauthorized 

for a long-term basis. In order to reduce litigation, you should affirm the Federal court jurisdiction over all disputes relating to the 

procurement and the policy adjustment and claims related to the 

NFIP. 

The program should include enhanced mitigation efforts and 

strong building codes. We need to look at land use. We cannot continue to put ourselves in harm’s way. As all of us would like to live 

along the coast, that is just not possible, even though 54 percent 

of the population does already. 

The maximum coverage limits should be increased to at least 

allow the average home to be replaced based on today’s construction costs. 

FEMA should be given more flexibility in determining rate 

changes and as well charge actuarially sound, risk-based rates for 

all properties. 

The policies should be rewritten so it is more closely aligned with 

the homeowners’ policy and the other P&C products that are out 

there today. The program should include at least some coverage for 

additional living expenses, business interruption coverage, and the 

option to insure buildings for their replacement cost value. The program should provide more educational materials and strengthen requirements for flood protection. 

The flood maps are outdated. It has been mentioned many times 

here already today. And, oftentimes, as a former agent, I can tell 

you it was an awful hard thing to try and figure out where the 

property was on that flood map. So reform legislation needs to include additional funds to complete the map modernization initiative and to expedite that process. 

We all have a duty to provide consumers with the best information possible so that they can make an informed decision. UnfortuVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:42 Jan 15, 2010 Jkt 050358 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A358.XXX A358

dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
34 

nately, when it comes to flood insurance, many consumers take a 

look at this and figure it just will not happen to me, so if they are 

not required to buy it, they do not. 

The program should include, therefore, the mandatory purchase 

requirement, and it should be expanded to include additional properties at risk and properties that are located behind levees or other 

protective barriers. Mandatory purchase requirements should not 

be limited to those areas in special flood hazard areas. 

The program should encourage lenders to establish escrow for 

policies outside those 100-year floodplains so that people can better 

afford the product and purchase the product. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to be here and present our 

views. We commend you and the Committee for actually looking at 

this issue, and we look forward to working with you to improve it 

and make it better in the future. 

Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Griffin, thank you, and thanks so much for 

the way you structured those recommendations. That was very 

helpful. 

Dr. Galloway. 

STATEMENT OF GERALD E. GALLOWAY, PH.D., PROFESSOR OF 

ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND 

Mr. GALLOWAY. Thank you very much, Senator Carper, Senator 

Shelby. Delightful to be here today. I am a Professor of Engineering with the Terrapins at the University of Maryland, but I come 

today as the former PI of a study of the adequacy of the 1-percent 

standard we have in the NFIP, and having just finished a Levee 

Policy Review Committee session for FEMA. I also led the 1994 

White House study of the reasons for and what should come out 

of the Mississippi floods of that particular period. 

I am here today to urge the Committee to extend the zone for 

mandatory purchase of flood insurance from the 100-year flood 

zone to the 500-year flood zone. Requiring insurance only within 

the 100-year floodplain does not provide coverage for the 3 to 7 million structures at risk in the floodplain in that 100- to 500-year 

zone. Requiring actuarially sound and location-based insurance for 

those in this zone would not impose significant financial burdens 

on property owners at risk in this latter zone, as it is considerably 

less than the risk in the 100-year zone, but it would greatly reduce 

the exposure of the Federal Government and certainly the residents to losses from a significant event that could occur. As we 

learned in New Orleans and in earlier floods, levees do fail, and I 

recommend the extension of the mandatory purchase of insurance 

to include areas behind levees and to require FEMA to accredits 

levees in the NFIP only when they are at the 500-year level and 

protect urban areas. 

Many of the structures that we now have protecting millions of 

Americans are of unknown or marginal integrity. Requiring those 

behind levees to obtain flood insurance informs them of their risk, 

reduces the impact on these individuals should a flood occur, and 

limits the exposure, again, of the Federal and State governments 

in terms of the assistance and indemnification they must provide. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
35 

For over 25 years, studies have emphasized that the 100-year 

levees do not provide sufficient protection for areas where large 

numbers of people or high-value property are at risk. A 100-year 

levee faces a 26-percent chance of being overtopped within the life 

of a 30-year mortgage. Not very good odds. 

Finally, I urge the Committee to support continuation of the 

Flood Map Modernization Program and the ongoing shift of emphasis from flood rate mapping to flood risk mapping. The key to effectively dealing with the flood hazard is to know where it is and how 

bit it is and what the consequences of a flood event might be. 

The Map Modernization Program has been a major step forward, 

but it has a way to go. While we have made progress in developing 

more accurate topographic data for use in mapping—you have referred to that already, and my colleague has talked about the advantages of LIDAR—unfortunately, much of the Nation’s 

hydrological data are out of date. Approximately 45 percent of levee 

designs and flood risk determinations are based on precipitation 

frequency estimates that are as much as 45 years old. Approximately the same percentage of designs and determinations are 

based on flow frequency guidelines that are at least 25 years old. 

Many communities even lack long-term stream flow records. Support of map modernization must provide for updating this hydrologic data and must also address the needs of NOAA and USGS for 

funding of needed data collection and monitoring. We also need to 

take a strong look at including future conditions in this mapping. 

A flood insurance rate map, however, is not a risk map. Risk 

analysis incorporated information about the hazard, the probability 

of the system—levees, flood walls, flood ways—may not perform as 

designed, and the consequences that will occur should the flood exceed the level of protection provided or should the system fail. 

Describing a risk on a map is not a simple process, but one that 

must be accomplished if the public is to know and understand the 

challenge it faces living in a flood zone. The Corps of Engineers, 

in cooperation with FEMA, has been working diligently in the New 

Orleans area to develop various types of flood risk maps and recently published maps that indicated the depths of inundation in 

various areas of New Orleans should certain floods occur. These 

maps take into account the potential performance of the levees and 

other structures that are part of the flood damage reduction system. I have got copies of these that are in my testimony and larger 

copies I have up—if someone would hand those to the Senators, I 

would appreciate it. 

S. 1938 indicates that risk must be considered in the mapping 

process. The language of the bill provides an important endorsement of this need. FEMA and the Corps have worked closely together on the mapping of New Orleans and are working together 

in California. They have also become partners in the development 

of a national levee inventory. This cooperation has brought the resources of both agencies to bear. 

In closing, let me compliment the Committee on its attention to 

the issues of floodplain management. The proposed legislation on 

flood mapping provides strong support for continuation of a program that is critical to our efforts to reduce national flood losses 

and to protect the health and safety of our citizens. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
36 

Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. Dr. Galloway, thank you very, very much. 

Mr. Hunter, you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF J. ROBERT HUNTER, DIRECTOR OF 

INSURANCE, CONSUMER FEDERATION OF AMERICA 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Shelby. The Flood 

Program is a shambles. Two of the key problems are that the program is currently subsidizing unwise new construction in the Nation’s floodplain, and the administration is out of control. Congress 

wisely established the program on the principle that new construction would not be subsidized, and now I am hearing even grandfathered subsidized. 

When I ran the program, we had a goal of updating maps every 

3 to 5 years. Now they are 20 years old, some of them. All maps 

are biased to the very low side because there is a lot of construction 

going on. Now, maps with elevations that are too low do a lot of 

bad things. People build new homes they think are safe that are 

not. Rates are predicated upon the elevations that are too low and, 

therefore, are actually subsidized. The hidden subsidy. People buying homes in what they think are outside the floodplain do not buy 

flood insurance, but they really are in the floodplain. 

FEMA is not following through to make sure that communities 

are enforcing even these inadequate maps. Congressional intent of 

not subsidizing new construction has been thwarted. FEMA’s program administration is out of control. GAO reports, two of them recently, one is that the fees that they are paying to the Write Your 

Own companies, they have no idea what they are. Some partnership. One partner gets all the assets; the other gets all the liabilities, $3.2 billion in the last 3 years paid to the Write Your Own 

companies, more than half of the premiums. 

Despite the cost, the conflicts of interest are failing consumers 

and taxpayers around the country. Just look at the Gulf Coast. 

After Hurricane Katrina, judges have found that insurance companies are engaged in illegal cost shifting that was adverse to the 

flood program. One Write Your Own insurer assigned $95,000 in 

flood damage to a property that never flooded. Other adjusters say 

that one insurer is charging the flood program much more for 

building materials for flood repairs than they do for the same 

house for wind damage. FEMA does not know if what they are paying—if these claims are being properly paid or not because they do 

not have the right information. 

The Flood Insurance Program Write Your Own companies are 

using anti-concurrent causation clauses in their policy that basically says if a flood happens at the same time as wind, we are not 

going to pay any wind, making it much more probable that flood 

damage will be magnified in the adjustment. 

Can solvency be achieved for flood insurance? Not under the current administration. The subsidy Congress built into the program 

was there for a reason. It made sense at the beginning. The subsidy was intended to help people, rich or poor, who had built prior 

to the flood maps being in place and might not have realized there 

was a flood risk. Thirty years have passed since those maps were 

in place. In retrospect, the program should have phased the subVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:42 Jan 15, 2010 Jkt 050358 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A358.XXX A358

dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
37 

sidy out from the beginning and as homes were sold, since the 

maps were then available, and over time these subsidies should 

have been reduced and eliminated. Grandfather rates, of all things, 

should not be kept in place forever and should be eliminated. 

Now, obviously subsidies for low-valued structures for poor people have to be handled with great care and done over a period of 

time, and that requires some thought about it. But the recent CBO 

report makes it clear that most of these are not low-valued structures. These are rich and frequently, 23 percent of them, second 

homes. 

So what should Congress do now? First, it would be irresponsible 

for Congress to expand the program while the program is out of 

control. The main reason CFA has opposed House bill 3121 is that 

it expands coverage without controlling the costs. 

In the last session of Congress, this Committee reported to the 

floor S. 3589, which, unfortunately, did not pass, but it did very 

positive things, including focusing on the critical need to reduce 

subsidies quickly, building reserves for future losses, studying excessive expenses paid to Write Your Own insurers, and other 

things. 

It is a very good place for you to start your consideration on improving the National Flood Insurance Program. Removing more of 

the subsidy, as we outline in our written testimony, we think could 

even strengthen the bill some more. 

Three critical steps must be taken to make the NFIP work properly. They are straightforward: make sure that mitigation works, 

move to actuarial soundness, and restore sound management of 

FEMA. Since FEMA seems unable to do this itself, Congress must 

undertake tight oversight of FEMA’s implementation if these goals 

are to be achieved. 

Senator CARPER. Terrific. Thanks very much. 

Mr. Davey, 5 minutes, please. 

STATEMENT OF MARK DAVEY, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, FIDELITY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY 

Mr. DAVEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing us to participate in this hearing on further enhancing the National Flood Insurance Program. Fidelity National Property and Casualty Insurance Group is the largest writer of flood insurance policies in the 

United States. We wrote 338 million NFIP policies for the calendar 

year 2005, approximately 400 million for calendar year 2006, and 

we are on track to produce in excess of 430 million for calendar 

year 2007. Sixty-five percent of our current flood policies are in 

mandatory coverage areas where 35 percent of our policies are in 

voluntary, non-mandatory flood zones. 

Mr. Griffin has set forth in his testimony a number of suggested 

reforms to the program, and Fidelity National strongly supports 

those changes. I have included in my written testimony a number 

of additional improvements to the program that we may suggest be 

made to ensure its continued value for American homeowners. We 

must modernize this program and re-establish it on a more financially sound foundation. The key to doing so is to increase participation in this program, bringing more dollars in, and provide a 

higher level of protection to families across America. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
38 

One of the reforms that was discussed in crafting last year’s legislation was a significant reduction in expense reimbursements. 

That discussion is likely to be renewed in the wake of last month’s 

GAO study. I believe that the study seriously misrepresents the expense reimbursement issue, and I would like to address those misrepresentations. 

Upon first reviewing the GAO report, I was immediately disappointed reading their claim that payments to Write Your Own 

insurance companies comprised up to almost two-thirds of total 

premium revenue. The science of statistics is one of our most powerful analytical tools available today; however, statistics that are 

quoted and utilized out of context are destructive, and incorrect inferences can cause substantial damage. The utilization of individual data components to validate the above-referenced statement 

is factual, but when taken out of context, it is extremely misleading. 

The claims administration fees and adjusting fees cannot be disregarded when examining this period. As the GAO report states, 

‘‘Prior to the unprecedented events of 2005, the NFIP was self-sustaining.’’ Relatively speaking, I would argue that the program prior 

to 2005 was efficiently fulfilling its mandated costs in a fiscally responsible manner. 

Hurricane Katrina not only highlighted the need to examine specific components of the NFIP; it also forced policymakers, businesses, and individuals to rethink an extremely broad range of 

practices and policies. Relating to the NFIP claims funding and administration process, we need to analyze the basic funding mechanisms and administration models to properly and adequately respond to future events on a Katrina level. 

The GAO report acknowledges that Write Your Own carriers did 

close 95 percent of all claims resulting from Katrina, Rita, and 

Wilma by May of 2006, within 9 months following the event. 

I can only speak in regards to our NFIP policyholders. I feel we 

qualify and administer our claims per prescribed guidelines to the 

very best of our ability. I know we had one of the largest claim 

loads of all Write Your Own carriers, and I am proud of the response we provided to our customers. We did everything possible 

to make certain we assisted our customers while strictly adhering 

to NFIP’s prescribed claims handling processes and policy provisions. We take our fiscal responsibility to the Federal Government 

very seriously. 

I am troubled by the tone and inference made in some sections 

of the report. We followed set protocols to the letter and individually examined each and every claim on its own merit. To the best 

of my knowledge, every dollar paid for flood damage went toward 

actual documented flood damage. We were good fiduciaries of the 

Federal Government’s money and should not be faulted for following protocol in receiving the provided administrative fee as prescribed by FEMA. 

Based on the Hurricane Katrina experience, we believe the 

claims administration fees should be reviewed for storms of this 

magnitude. As CEO of Fidelity National, I stand ready and willing 

to participate in your review process to make the NFIP a better 

program for non-cat times and truly catastrophic times. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
39 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for your time today. I look forward to answering any questions you may have and to help reform 

this valuable program. 

Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Davey, thank you. 

Mr. Malta, you have the last word. 

STATEMENT OF VINCE MALTA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF 

REALTORS  

Mr. MALTA. Good afternoon, Senator Carper, Senator Shelby, 

Members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me to present 

the views of the National Association of Realtors on the National 

Flood Insurance Program. 

The NFIP enables property owners in participating communities 

to purchase insurance as a protection against flood losses. More 

than 20,000 communities participate in the NFIP. According to 

FEMA, flood damage is reduced by nearly $1 billion a year as the 

result of communities implementing sound floodplain management 

requirements and property owners purchasing flood insurance. 

NAR encourages efforts to reform the NFIP that will, No. 1, ensure 

that flood maps are accurate and up to date; two, address the 

NFIP’s ability to pay existing and future obligations to policyholders; and, three, educate consumers about the importance of obtaining and maintaining flood insurance. 

In addition, reform efforts should strike a balance between ensuring the long-term fiscal viability of the NFIP and avoiding 

changes that may result in market inequities and housing affordability problems, especially for low- and moderate-income homeowners and renters. 

First, regarding flood maps, without accurate maps, property 

owners are not able to properly evaluate the risk to their property 

from flooding. NAR has been, and will continue to be, a strong advocate of fully funding the map modernization program. To this 

end, we are working with the Flood Map Coalition to secure full 

funding for the map modernization effort, with groups such as the 

Association of State Floodplain Managers. 

NAR is concerned, however, that adding a requirement to map 

the 500-year floodplain—a task much larger than updating the existing 100-year floodplain maps—as part of FEMA’s Map Modernization Program could lead to delays in updating the 100-year 

floodplain maps. Realtors do not want to see this process delayed 

further. 

Next, regarding the NFIP’s financial stability, there are a number of policy options to address the NFIP’s financial stability that 

would have the support of realtors and others that we suggest Congress to consider carefully. 

First, NAR supports policies and reforms that would limit the 

drain on the NFIP posed by severe repetitive-loss properties. In addition, NAR supports funding for mitigation activities for individual repetitive-loss properties and extending the pilot program 

for mitigation of severe repetitive-loss properties. 

Second, increased participation in the NFIP. Flooding from recent hurricanes in the Gulf Coast as well as in North Carolina has 

made clear that many vulnerable low-income families have virVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:42 Jan 15, 2010 Jkt 050358 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A358.XXX A358

dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
40 

tually no flood coverage. Therefore, NAR encourages the Committee 

to include a study in its NFIP reform bill that will identify ways 

to increase low-income family participation in the NFIP and identify ways to ensure that a greater percentage of at-risk homeowners and renters are able to protect themselves from future flood 

losses. We believe that any such study should include an analysis 

of how best to encourage renters to participate in the NFIP because 

they, too, are at risk and eligible to purchase content insurance. 

In regards to subsidies, NAR strongly encourages the Committee 

to commission a study of the effects of phasing out subsidies before 

including such a proposal in legislation. Eliminating subsidies on 

non-primary residences and non-residential properties could have 

significant unintended consequences for renters, business owners, 

potential homebuyers, neighborhoods, and local economies. 

Despite rhetoric to the contrary, a recent CBO report on the 

NFIP noted, and I quote, ‘‘the evidence here does not suggest that 

the subsidies tend to cover larger or more luxurious structures, 

whether inland or in a coastal area.’’ The National Association of 

Realtors is concerned that eliminating subsidies would result in 

higher flood premiums, increase the cost of property ownership and 

rents in these areas, and could lead to increasing delinquencies, 

foreclosures and reduced property values. 

Third, educating consumers. This is essential to help protect 

against future loss from flooding. Many consumers may not be 

aware that flood insurance is available to them, especially if they 

live outside a high-risk flood area. NAR has been working with 

FEMA to develop educational materials for realtors, clients, and 

potential clients about the importance and availability of flood insurance through the National Flood Insurance Program. These materials should be finalized later this fall. 

Thank you again for inviting me to present the views of the National Association of Realtors. NAR stands ready to work with the 

members of the Committee and all Senators to enact meaningful 

reforms to the National Flood Insurance Program. 

I would be glad to answer any questions that you may have. 

Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Mr. Malta. I have a couple of questions I am going to ask, and I will submit a number for the record, 

and I know Senator Shelby has indicated he has as well. 

Senator Reed handed me a question to ask as he walked out of 

the room, and let me just truncate it by simply saying Mr. Malta 

has raised some concerns about mapping the 500-year floodplain. 

Just by a show of hands, are there other witnesses at the table who 

share the concerns that Mr. Malta has expressed. If you would just 

raise your hand. 

[No response.] 

Senator CARPER. OK. Let me come back to Mr. Berginnis, if I 

could. Mr. Berginnis, the American Institute for Research conducted—at least I am told they conducted an extensive evaluation 

of the Flood Insurance Program, and they made numerous recommendations for strengthening the program. I would like to read 

one quote on removing subsidies. Here is what they had to say: 

‘‘It appears that, given the NFIP’s current financial position since 

Hurricane Katrina and given the volatility of flood-related losses, 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
41 

pursuing actuarial soundness as a primary goal could undermine 

other goals and increase net costs to society.’’ 

Now, in the bill this Committee passed last year, we attempted 

to balance the need to move to actuarial rates with the other program goals—that is, mitigation and protection—by removing subsidized rates from non-primary residences, such as vacation homes, 

as well as severe repetitive-loss properties. Could you comment for 

us on whether you believe this bill—I guess it was last year’s bill— 

struck the right balance and what the effect might be if we removed all homes—if we removed all homes to actuarially sound 

rates? 

Mr. BERGINNIS. Thank you for the question. Last year’s bill did 

take a measured approach in terms of selectively reducing subsidies. It clearly did not have a blanket approach, but there were— 

if I recall, one of the provisions that within ASFPM we discussed 

quite in detail was the movement toward actuarial rating in the 

event of a property buying or selling a property transaction where 

it would actually move to actuarial rating. And for things like secondary homes, vacation homes, those are kind of no-brainers. But 

when you actually tie movement to actuarial rating when a real estate transaction occurs, again, I think some of the problems that 

were identified earlier, real estate transactions happen between 

rich folks or poor folks and everybody in between. And there is a 

need to strike that balance, especially with lower-income people, 

moderate-income folks even, to move very quickly toward actuarial 

rating. 

I do not know—it was—hearing Mr. Hunter, and certainly talking about we need to move to that, the conundrum of moving everything to actuarial rating is really dealing with primary residences 

and how in the heck you get your arms around that issue and move 

those toward actuarial rating. 

In general, ASFPM has always advocated an approach where we 

move toward actuarial rating but also come in on the back side 

with mitigation options and programs to where folks would at least 

have an opportunity to mitigate and make their house in a better 

position. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks. I do not know if anyone else would like 

to respond to that same question. If you would, have at it. Mr. Griffin. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Sure. I think that one of the things that we have 

to be cognizant of is that transaction and that not all the people 

that live in coastal areas are wealthy. So I think one of the things 

we have to do is when we move, as you have proposed last year, 

to actuarially sound rates in certain areas of the country and under 

certain circumstances, we need to make that happen. But we also 

need to look at it for primary residences and perhaps on a more 

gradual basis. 

The idea is that we need to get this program on sound financial 

footing, and if we have to do that over a period of years, that is 

fine with our industry. But we need to make sure that that does 

happen. 

Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks. 

Anybody else? Dr. Galloway and then Mr. Malta. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
42 

Mr. GALLOWAY. Just very quickly, in the follow-up to the Mississippi flood and other riverine floods as opposed to coastal floods, 

it has been amazing to see that a large number of the people that 

are affected are low-income retirees, people who have lived in the 

home their entire life. And in the 1994 study, following up by others, we came up with the obvious conclusion that if you are going 

to go to actuarial rates and you are going to raise the rates, you 

will have to provide some sort of a safety net. And in dealing with 

the Government, when the administration was dealing with that, 

they felt that that could be accomplished. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. Malta, the last word on this, and then I will ask one more 

quick question and then hand it over to Senator Shelby. 

Mr. MALTA. Yes. As pointed out, this is not just an issue about 

big houses on the beach. This is about working-class families that 

live along rivers and streams, et cetera, as has been pointed out 

here earlier. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks. 

My last question, at least for the record, would be for Mr. Griffin. 

Mr. Griffin, I think you indicated in your testimony that half of 

those that are required to carry flood insurance do not purchase 

flood insurance. Let me just ask: What can be done to get more 

people to purchase flood insurance? 

Mr. GRIFFIN. I think there are a couple of things. I think, first 

of all, we need to make sure that the public is more aware of the 

requirement. I think that what has happened, unfortunately, in our 

society as we moved to the secondary mortgage market where a lot 

of times mortgages change hands, sometimes the requirement to 

purchase that flood insurance somehow gets lost in the transition, 

so we need to make sure there is enforcement there. I think the 

communities need to be more involved in making sure that the people do that and that actually need to buy it. 

The Rand report is what I was referring to as the one that did 

a study and indicated that about 50 percent—in effect, I think in 

New Orleans only about 39 percent of the people who actually lived 

in New Orleans had proper flood insurance, and that is not an acceptable take-up rate as far as the industry is concerned or as far 

as we think the Government is concerned. So I think we have to 

do better, and we have to make sure that the public understands 

that this is more of a requirement and not just a—‘‘Does my mortgage lenders require it?’’ is typically the question. And sometimes 

I think they forget or a couple years later somehow it falls off. 

But the question also is: If the mortgage lender does not require 

it, then oftentimes the answer is, ‘‘I am not going to purchase it.’’ 

Senator CARPER. Fair enough. All right. Thank you. 

Senator Shelby. 

Senator SHELBY. Mr. Chairman, I have a number of questions 

that I would like to submit for the record because we do have two 

conferences that meet on Tuesdays. 

Mr. Hunter, I just want to make an observation. You have been 

here many times. You know this program. 

Mr. HUNTER. Yes, sir. 

Senator SHELBY. You ran this program. 

Mr. HUNTER. Yes. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
43 

Senator SHELBY. And I appreciate very much your observations 

regarding this program, candid, very candid. But unless we, one, 

have proper mapping—which goes to Dr. Galloway’s statement— 

proper mapping and a broad influx of new people in this program, 

this program is going to continue to take on water, is it not? 

Mr. HUNTER. Yes. You need proper mapping, proper rates. 

Senator SHELBY. Right. Proper mapping and proper rates. 

Mr. HUNTER. And penetration. 

Senator SHELBY. And penetration. In other words, I see no reason in the world—in the world—for the taxpayer, the rest of the 

people in this room here, for example, to subsidize me or my 

friends that have their second homes at the beaches and floodprone areas. 

Now, I do see from a social program that where you have the primary homes of the less fortunate, we can devise some type of program. But why should we in any way subsidize very wealthy people 

in this country? And that is what we are doing, is it not? 

Mr. HUNTER. Yes, you are, and obviously there is a mix of demographics. But I think you can come up with a program. I think in 

retrospect, now looking back to the beginning, it is too bad we did 

not at the very beginning say we are going to phase this out over 

time. But if we do not do it now, we will be sitting here 30 years— 

I will not, but some people will be sitting here having the same discussion. 

Senator CARPER. Well, Senator Shelby might still be sitting here. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SHELBY. Senator Carper might be here in 30 years, but 

I do not think that I will be here, either. 

Dr. Galloway, in your written testimony, you pointed out several 

flaws of the ongoing FEMA Map Modernization Project, including 

the fact that FEMA often simply makes a digital copy of an existing paper map and that the underlying data used is still extremely 

dated information. In other words, there is nothing new here. You 

are just repeating the mistakes. You also stated that more coordination within the Federal Government will be useful. 

Could you highlight for the record the nature of your concern and 

provide the Committee any recommendations for your consideration as we move forward? We heard FEMA testify a few minutes 

ago—you did, too—and GAO. We are not satisfied with that. We 

see this program, as Mr. Hunter would say, it is broke, and it is 

going to become ‘‘broker’’—if you can get ‘‘broker.’’ And I do not see 

any way to modernize this program if we do not phaseout the subsidies for most people and, second, if we do not have proper mapping. Or maybe mapping comes first. 

Mr. GALLOWAY. I would say that in many ways the Flood Map 

Modernization Program has represented an unparalleled amount of 

cooperation among Federal agencies. The problem is they are trying to recover 25 years of neglect. The very fact that we have not 

updated our weather maps, the very fact that the information on 

which FEMA must rely is out of date, makes it very difficult to 

start. And getting money into other programs is almost impossible. 

What you have seen in the map I left you on New Orleans says 

that we are beginning to see—— 

Senator SHELBY. That map is scary, if you look at it. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
44 

Mr. GALLOWAY. It scares you, and that goes to the issue of penetration. If a map like this is hung on the wall in a community and 

they know what the potential flooding is, then they will be able to 

do something. There are steps that can be taken. It will require 

continued support of the Map Modernization Program, adequate 

funding, and an emphasis on this cross-agency cooperation. 

Senator SHELBY. Doctor, you heard the testimony I alluded to 

earlier from FEMA that said they can map things and then they 

have to go through the local people to see if this is what they want 

to do and everything. Is that a problem? 

Mr. GALLOWAY. Well, I think it is the challenge. The system is 

designed to give the local community, as it should, a voice in the 

project. When the local community is not interested, it becomes a 

struggle for FEMA. 

Senator Dole pointed out that North Carolina is charging ahead 

because they are a local cooperating partner, and North Carolina 

has spent money on getting the maps, is interested in having that 

information. But when other communities are not, it makes it very 

difficult for FEMA. 

Senator SHELBY. Well, you obviously know this, but in my State 

of Alabama, we have two large counties—Mobile and Baldwin—on 

the coast, and I think most of that is above sea level, if it is not 

that. But we still do not have the problems that Mississippi or the 

exposure in Louisiana and Florida, but there is some exposure 

there. And the State has to play a role here, does it not? 

Mr. GALLOWAY. Yes, sir. It is a cooperative effort, and the responsibility for all of this floodplain management has got to be 

shared at each level, and if the State is not playing a role, it does 

not go very far. 

Senator SHELBY. It is flawed in its design and it will not work, 

as Mr. Hunter has mentioned many times before this Committee. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have those questions for the 

record. 

Senator CARPER. I suspect a number of us do. I would ask for answers, and let me just say thank you very much on behalf of all 

of us. Thank you for making time in your schedules to be and for 

really what I would describe as excellent testimony. We look forward to working with you as we go forward. Sometimes, you know, 

we hold hearings and not much comes of it. In this case, I think 

we are moving forward smartly. 

Senator SHELBY. Mr. Chairman? 

Senator CARPER. Yes, sir. 

Senator SHELBY. One last observation. Everybody here on the 

panel can contribute and would contribute, but I believe if we had 

Dr. Galloway and Mr. Hunter, they could make this program work. 

[Laughter.] 

Thank you. 

Mr. GALLOWAY. Sir, I have got to say I was born in Mobile, so 

I have an advantage. 

Senator CARPER. Before we adjourn, we are going to be submitting some questions, follow-up questions in writing, and we would 

just ask that you reply to them fully and promptly. 

Again, we thank you very much, and this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:51 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
45 

[Prepared statements, responses to written questions, and additional material supplied for the record follow:] 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
46 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR MENENDEZ 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad this Committee has the chance once again 

to look at the issue of flood insurance. As many of us know, floods are not a static 

issue. Especially for those of us who come from states that have seen repeated 

floods, we know they can be like the wound that doesn’t heal. An area struck by 

a flood is vulnerable to be hit over and over again. And worse, a band-aid approach 

just won’t cut it. Like any natural disaster, floods can wash away lives in an instant. New Jersey bore witness to this earlier this year, when we experienced a devastating flood. But the Nor’easter of 2007 was only the latest of, many, catastrophic 

floods that have begun to plague New Jersey. 

New Jersey may not come to mind as being at the top of the list for states at 

risk of hurricanes or floods, but the facts tell another story. New Jersey is a coastal 

state, with 127 miles of Atlantic coastline. More than half of New Jersey residents 

live in counties the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration list as exposed to hurricane risks. Last year alone, there were nearly 2600 claims under the 

National Flood Insurance Program, making New Jersey fifth in the nation for flood 

insurance claims. 

Earlier this year, I convened a conference in New Jersey to examine the challenges our state faces and to develop a comprehensive strategy moving forwards. By 

no means is that challenge getting any easier. When we look at our historical flood 

trends, it is clear that the damage is only getting more severe. New Jersey’s shoreline is at severe risk of coastal flooding. By the end of the century, sea levels are 

expected to rise 7 to 23 inches—if we factor in the anticipated effects of global 

warming, we could be talking about 2 to 4 feet. And New Jersey is certainly not 

alone. 

With repeated floods, changes in our climate, rising home prices, and an overburdened insurance program, the task of how to effectively provide protection for homeowners at risk is a daunting one. That is why I welcome this discussion today. I 

look forward to hearing about potential solutions from our witnesses. There is no 

easy fix. But I hope that we will be able to provide a stronger, smarter, flood insurance program that guarantees homeowners they will be taken care of, and does not 

break the bank. It will be a difficult balance, but one I look forward to working with 

the Committee to make happen. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
47 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 124 here 50358A.001
48 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 125 here 50358A.002
49 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 126 here 50358A.003
50 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 127 here 50358A.004
51 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 128 here 50358A.005
52 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 129 here 50358A.006
53 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 130 here 50358A.007
54 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 131 here 50358A.008
55 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 132 here 50358A.009
56 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 133 here 50358A.010
57 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 134 here 50358A.011
58 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 135 here 50358A.012
59 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 136 here 50358A.013
60 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 137 here 50358A.014
61 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 138 here 50358A.015
62 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 139 here 50358A.016
63 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 140 here 50358A.017
64 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 141 here 50358A.018
65 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 142 here 50358A.019
66 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 143 here 50358A.020
67 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 144 here 50358A.021
68 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 145 here 50358A.022
69 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 146 here 50358A.023
70 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 147 here 50358A.024
71 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 148 here 50358A.025
72 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 149 here 50358A.026
73 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 150 here 50358A.027
74 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 151 here 50358A.028
75 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 152 here 50358A.029
76 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 153 here 50358A.030
77 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 154 here 50358A.031
78 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 155 here 50358A.032
79 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 156 here 50358A.033
80 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 157 here 50358A.034
81 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 158 here 50358A.035
82 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 159 here 50358A.036
83 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 160 here 50358A.037
84 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 161 here 50358A.038
85 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 162 here 50358A.039
86 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 163 here 50358A.040
87 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 164 here 50358A.041
88 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 165 here 50358A.042
89 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 166 here 50358A.043
90 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 167 here 50358A.044
91 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 168 here 50358A.045
92 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 169 here 50358A.046
93 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 170 here 50358A.047
94 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 171 here 50358A.048
95 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 172 here 50358A.049
96 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 173 here 50358A.050
97 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 174 here 50358A.051
98 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 175 here 50358A.052
99 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 176 here 50358A.053
100 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 177 here 50358A.054
101 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 178 here 50358A.055
102 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 179 here 50358A.056
103 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 180 here 50358A.057
104 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 181 here 50358A.058
105 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 182 here 50358A.059
106 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 183 here 50358A.060
107 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 184 here 50358A.061
108 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 185 here 50358A.062
109 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 186 here 50358A.063
110 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 187 here 50358A.064
111 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 188 here 50358A.065
112 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 189 here 50358A.066
113 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 190 here 50358A.067
114 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 191 here 50358A.068
115 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 192 here 50358A.069
116 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 193 here 50358A.070
117 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 194 here 50358A.071
118 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 195 here 50358A.072
119 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 196 here 50358A.073
120 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 197 here 50358A.074
121 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 198 here 50358A.075
122 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 199 here 50358A.076
123 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 200 here 50358A.077
124 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 201 here 50358A.078
125 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 202 here 50358A.079
126 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 203 here 50358A.080
127 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 204 here 50358A.081
128 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 205 here 50358A.082
129 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 206 here 50358A.083
130 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 207 here 50358A.084
131 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 208 here 50358A.085
132 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 209 here 50358A.086
133 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 210 here 50358A.087
134 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 211 here 50358A.088
135 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 212 here 50358A.089
136 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 213 here 50358A.090
137 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 214 here 50358A.091
138 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 215 here 50358A.092
139 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 216 here 50358A.093
140 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 217 here 50358A.094
141 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 218 here 50358A.095
142 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 219 here 50358A.096
143 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 220 here 50358A.097
144 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 221 here 50358A.098
145 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 222 here 50358A.099
146 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 223 here 50358A.100
147 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 224 here 50358A.101
148 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 225 here 50358A.102
149 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 226 here 50358A.103
150 

1GAO, Flood Map Modernization: Program Strategy Shows Promise, but Challenges Remain, 

GAO–04–417 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 31, 2004). 

2GAO, Budget Issues: FEMA Needs Adequate Data, Plans, and Systems to Effectively Manage 

Resources for Day-to-Day Operations, GAO–07–139 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 19, 2007). 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR REED FROM 

ORICE WILLIAMS 

Q.1. Since FEMA became part of the Department of Homeland Security, there have been concerns expressed about whether enough 

attention, staff and funds have been provided to flood mapping and 

natural disaster mitigation efforts. Has GAO looked at this resource allocation issue and its potential impacts on state and local 

governments? 

A.1. Since 2003 when FEMA became part of the Department of 

Homeland Security, GAO has reviewed and reported on a variety 

of issues related to FEMA’s flood mapping and natural disaster 

mitigation efforts, as well as agency-wide resource allocation issues 

and to a lesser extent, the extent to which these efforts could potentially impact state and local governments. 

• For example, in March 2004, we reported that FEMA’s implementation approach for the flood map modernization program 

was based on the assumption that partnerships with local, 

state and other federal agencies were needed to enable FEMA 

to leverage its resources and reduce the federal costs of map 

modernization.1 We recommended that FEMA develop and implement strategies for partnering with state and local entities 

with varying levels of capabilities and resources and ensure 

that it has the staff capacity to effectively implement the nationwide mapping contract and the overall map modernization 

program. 

While FEMA had developed a strategy for partnering with 

these state and local entities to encourage greater involvement 

in map modernization, including the contribution of resources, 

we concluded that the overall effectiveness of the agency’s 

partnering efforts was uncertain because FEMA had not yet 

developed a clear strategy for partnering with communities 

that have few resources, limited mapping capability, and little 

history of flood mapping activities. Regarding resources allocated to flood mapping, a FEMA staffing analysis determined 

that the agency needed an additional 75 staff with specific, 

identified skills to effectively monitor and manage the contract 

and overall map modernization program. As of January 2008, 

FEMA reported that 11 Flood Map Modernization Program individuals were certified in program management and FEMA 

had hired 30 of 43 authorized term positions to help oversee 

and manage the program. 

• In January 2007, we reviewed FEMA agency-wide resource allocation efforts and reported that FEMA lacks adequate information on resources associated with its day-to-day operations.2

For example, FEMA lacks adequate data on reallocations of resources among programs, projects, and activities, on staffing 

levels. We recommended that FEMA take steps to better manage resources for its day-to-day operations, including collecting 

data that enables managers to monitor progress and support 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
151 

3GAO, Natural Hazard Mitigation: Various Mitigation Efforts Exist, but Federal Efforts Do 

Not Provide a Comprehensive Strategic Framework, GAO–07–403 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 22, 

2007). 

resource priorities, using leading practices to develop a strategic workforce plan, and developing business continuity plans. 

• In addition, in August 2007 we reviewed the collaborative efforts of federal agencies and other stakeholders to promote natural disaster mitigation efforts and reported that while FEMA, 

other federal agencies, and nonfederal stakeholders have collaborated on natural hazard mitigation, the current approach 

is fragmented and does not provide a comprehensive national 

strategic framework for mitigation.3 We concluded that a comprehensive framework would help define common national 

goals, establish joint strategies, leverage resources, and assign 

responsibilities among stakeholders. Accordingly, we recommended that FEMA develop and maintain a national comprehensive strategic framework for mitigation. However, we 

did not evaluate FEMA’s current resource allocations regarding mitigation. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR REED FROM 

DONALD L. GRIFFIN 

Q1. In your testimony, you said that the NFIP should include revised and enhanced mitigation efforts to encourage strong, statewide minimum building codes that consider all the risks of loss due 

to natural disasters? I think this approach would help prevent flood 

and hurricane loss. Rhode Island has what is considered an advance program for coastal hazards to prevent damage before it can 

occur. The state’s Coastal Resources Management Counsel has 

mapped the entire shoreline of the state and applies erosion setbacks to protect buffers. Does the private insurance market have 

a way to reduce premiums for homeowners and businesses in 

states that are taking initiative to reduce losses? 

A.1. PCI believes that, yes, the approach I mentioned in our testimony would be beneficial with regard to both flood and hurricane 

loss. The Rhode Island program Senator Reed outlined would be 

beneficial in both of these areas as it would establish reasonable 

land-use policies that would prevent development of areas that are 

subject such catastrophic loss (as it is described). Accordingly, we 

strongly support such prudent state and local mitigation activities. 

With regard to the second part of the question asking if the private insurance market has a way to reduce premiums for property 

policyholders in these situations, the answer is also—yes. The private insurance industry looks at various issues when developing its 

pricing for property exposures. These include fire protection, type 

and use of the structure, the building codes in the specific area, 

past losses in the area by type (e.g., wind, fire, etc.), construction 

trends (labor and materials costs) as well as a variety of other factors. The less risk a property presents, the lower the overall cost 

of providing the insurance. Our industry, through one of its advisory organizations, Insurance Services Office, Inc. (ISO) developed 

the Public Protection Classification System that has, for decades, 

been the measure of fire protection for a community. It looks at 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
152 

type of fire department, equipment, water flow, access to structures, training, etc. That organization has also recently developed 

the Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule which measures 

a community’s building code program including the standards, 

training and experience of planning department staff, enforcement 

(which is vital), etc. Some private insurers are now starting to use 

this type of system as a way to evaluate and price property exposures and we expect market competition will encourage more to do 

so in the future. 

Private insurers currently reduce premiums for mitigation activities as a result of loss experience and through individual company 

risk selection guidelines. These premium reductions are based on 

loss experience that accurately reflects the impact of a specific mitigation activity on insured losses. Pricing reductions that fail to 

have an actual impact on insured losses create distortions which 

result in inefficient and unfair pricing for risk spreading, the major 

social benefit of insurance. However, as it takes time for mitigation 

activities to show up in loss experience, and as their impact relative to other factors affecting insurance costs may be small; the 

reduced costs may not be as useful as we would hope in encouraging investment in mitigation by communities or individual property owners. 

In regard to your comments on flood versus wind mitigation 

measures you may want to consider the following: 

There is a growing recognition by experts and the public sector 

that significant benefits accrue from addressing mitigation from an 

all-hazards perspective. While some mitigation measures are specific to individual hazards (e.g. elevation above base flood requirements, sprinklers, safety programs) many address multiple hazards 

(e.g. disaster planning, safety inspections, etc.). 

The synergistic effects of mitigation extend across hazards (e.g. 

disaster planning addresses fire, workplace violence, natural catastrophes, etc) and across risk bearers (e.g. the individual or property, the neighborhood, the community etc). 

Where several individuals bear the cost of unmitigated losses 

stimulating mitigation investment decisions is facilitated by parsing out the costs of mitigation investments among all parties that 

pay the costs of losses. That is, mitigation decisions are facilitated 

when insurers provide incentives that match the extent to which 

they are affected; state, local and federal government contribute to 

mitigation relative to the burden they would bear if losses were to 

occur; and individual risk bearers contribute their pro-rata share. 

In summary, we commend you for your state’s efforts to reduce 

losses due to natural disasters and we believe that such programs 

are beneficial to all involved. PCI pledges to work with you on 

strong land-use and building code standards that will reduce loss 

of life and property for our citizens. Finally, we look forward to reauthorization and reform of the NFIP this year. Please let us know 

if you would like to discuss our response or have other questions 

with regard to our views on reforms to the NFIP. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
153 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 231 50358A.104
154 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 232/300 50358A.105