[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FEDERAL EFFORTS TO REDUCE
THE IMPACTS OF WINDSTORMS
=======================================================================
JOINT HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH &
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 5, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-34
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
81-723 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
DANA ROHRABACHER, California EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
RALPH M. HALL, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
Wisconsin DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ERIC SWALWELL, California
PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia DAN MAFFEI, New York
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
MO BROOKS, Alabama JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois SCOTT PETERS, California
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana DEREK KILMER, Washington
STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas AMI BERA, California
BILL POSEY, Florida ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut
CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming MARC VEASEY, Texas
DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona JULIA BROWNLEY, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky MARK TAKANO, California
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota ROBIN KELLY, Illinois
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma
RANDY WEBER, Texas
CHRIS STEWART, Utah
VACANCY
------
Subcommittee on Research
HON. LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana, Chair
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
MO BROOKS, Alabama ZOE LOFGREN, California
STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas AMI BERA, California
CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
------
Subcommittee on Technology
HON. THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky, Chair
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois SCOTT PETERS, California
DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona DEREK KILMER, Washington
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
C O N T E N T S
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Larry Bucshon, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Research, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S.
House of Representatives....................................... 6
Written Statement............................................ 6
Statement by Representative Randy Neugebauer, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 7
Written Statement............................................ 8
Statement by Representative Frederica Wilson, Minority Ranking
Member on Technology, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 9
Written Statement............................................ 10
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
of Representatives............................................. 11
Written Statement............................................ 12
Witnesses:
Dr. Ernst Kiesling, Research Faculty, National Wind Institute,
Texas Tech University
Oral Statement............................................... 13
Written Statement............................................ 16
Ms. Debra Ballen, General Counsel and Senior Vice President,
Public Policy, Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety
Oral Statement............................................... 29
Written Statement............................................ 31
Dr. David Prevatt, Assistant Professor, Department of Civil and
Coastal Engineering, University of Florida
Oral Statement............................................... 38
Written Statement............................................ 40
Discussion....................................................... 52
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Ernst Kiesling, Research Faculty, National Wind Institute,
Texas Tech University.......................................... 64
Ms. Debra Ballen, General Counsel and Senior Vice President,
Public Policy, Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety.. 70
Dr. David Prevatt, Assistant Professor, Department of Civil and
Coastal Engineering, University of Florida..................... 75
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Submitted statement by Representative Daniel Lipinski, Ranking
Minority Member, Subcommittee on Research, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 82
FEDERAL EFFORTS TO REDUCE
THE IMPACTS OF WINDSTORMS
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 5, 2013
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Research &
Subcommittee on Technology
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Larry
Bucshon [Chairman of the Subcommittee on Research] presiding.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Chairman Bucshon. Good morning, everyone. This joint
hearing of the Subcommittee on Research and the Subcommittee on
Technology will come to order.
Good morning, and welcome to today's joint hearing entitled
``Federal Efforts to Reduce the Impacts of Windstorms.'' In
front of you are packets containing the written testimony,
biographies and Truth in Testimony disclosures for today's
witnesses.
Before we get started, since this is a joint hearing
involving two Subcommittees, I want to explain how we will
operate procedurally so all Members understand how the
question-and-answer session period will be handled. The
Chairmen and Ranking Members of the Research and Technology
Subcommittees will be recognized first. Then we will recognize
Members of the two Subcommittees present at the gavel in order
of seniority on the full Committee, and those coming in after
the gavel will be recognized in order of their arrival. I now
recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement.
Today's hearing will focus on how we can reduce the impacts
of debilitating storms on our communities across the country.
Even with improved forecasting capabilities and awareness,
these storms can be unexpected and leave a trail of destruction
in their paths. In addition to literally destroying lives,
these windstorms shut down entire economies of a region during
the time it takes to rebuild. Structures, while more resilient
that they used to be, are still often not built to sustain high
winds or storm damage that may follow these storms. Building
codes, practices and performance standards can help, but
oftentimes retrofitting an existing building is simply too
costly given the relatively small risk of a direct hit of a
windstorm.
Federal agencies currently conduct research and development
to help inform the resilience of buildings and communities, but
it is not clear how each agency is conducting unique work that
is not duplicated by another agency. I believe that a
coordinated mechanism would help shed light into what is going
on at the Federal level, and how it can be strengthened to
ensure better coordination.
Every year the Federal Government funds not only disaster
relief but also billions of dollars in emergency supplemental
appropriations when states are hit particularly hard by
unexpected disasters. I believe that we need to be more
responsible about planning how to deal with natural disasters.
I am curious to hear from our witnesses if they believe better
research could cut down on the dollar figure.
Since the time that my colleague, Representative
Neugebauer, introduced his windstorm research bill in late
April, several Midwestern states have endured significant
damage and loss of lives from powerful tornadoes. I would now
like to yield to Representative Neugebauer for him to share
some background on that legislation.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bucshon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Subcommittee on Research Chairman Larry Bucshon
Good morning, I would like to welcome everyone to our hearing.
Today's hearing will focus on how we can reduce the impacts of
debilitating storms on our communities across the country. Even with
improved forecasting capabilities and awareness, these storms can be
unexpected and leave a trail of destruction in their paths.
In addition to literally destroying lives, these windstorms shut
down entire economies of a region during the time it takes to rebuild.
Structures, while more resilient that they used to be, are still often
not build to sustain high winds or the storm surge that may follow
these storms. Building codes, practices, and performance standards can
help, but oftentimes retrofitting an existing building is simply too
costly given the relatively small risk of a direct hit of a windstorm.
Federal agencies currently conduct research and development to help
inform the resilience of buildings and communities, but it is not clear
how each agency is conducting unique work that is not duplicated by
another agency. I believe that a coordination mechanism would help shed
light into what is going on at the federal level, and how it can be
strengthened to ensure better coordination.
Every year the federal government funds not only disaster relief
but also emergency supplemental appropriations when states are hit
particularly hard by unexpected disasters. I believe that we need to be
more responsible about planning how to deal with natural disasters and
minimize the need for disaster supplemental funding. I am curious to
hear from our witnesses if they believe better research could cut down
on that dollar figure.
Since the time that my colleague Representative Neugebauer
introduced his windstorm research bill in late April, several
Midwestern states have endured significant damage and loss of lives
from powerful tornadoes. I would not like to yield to him to share some
background on that legislation.
We have a panel of witnesses before us who can articulate what it
will take to cut down on the economic impacts and lives lost from these
storms. I would like to extend my appreciation to each of our witnesses
for taking the time and effort to appear before us today. We look
forward to your testimony.
Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate
you holding this important hearing today, and you know, one of
the things that we know about wind, particularly in West Texas,
where I am from, wind can be your friend or it can be your foe,
and out in West Texas right now, my congressional district, for
example, probably has the largest concentration of wind
production for electricity really in the world, and so that is
the time when it is our friend, but where it can be our foe is
obviously when we have seen these deadly tornados that have
occurred in Texas and Oklahoma and other states recently. And
over the history we have seen where hurricanes and windstorms
and tornados have caused a tremendous amount of property
damage, but more importantly, it has caused the loss of lives.
I think it is estimated that every year there is about 80
deaths and 1,500 injuries. I think in 2011, there were 551
fatalities. It was not particularly a good year, and
unfortunately, we are kind of off to a rough start this year.
And so what makes sense is to take research and technology
and figure out ways to incorporate into our construction
techniques a way to protect both the people that habitate those
facilities but also to protect and mitigate the damage. As the
Chairman mentioned, you know, it causes billions of dollars
worth of damage, and if we can mitigate that, it obviously
saves that money for not only the taxpayers but for the people
that own those properties.
I am particularly delighted with the esteemed, great panel
that we have today, and particularly my good friend for a long
time, from Texas Tech, Dr. Kiesling, and for his pioneering
work on, you know, the mitigation of wind.
So with that, the reason that I introduced in 2004 the
National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act basically to try to
coordinate all of the research that is going on and make sure
that--one of the things that I feel very strongly about is that
it is one thing to do the research but then we have to
commercialize and use that research, and I think one of the
things that we have seen is a lot of the research that had been
done across the country has been able to be commercialized, and
I am hopeful to hear more about that today.
But NWIRP basically does another thing too that I think is
important, and that is to make sure that we are efficiently
using the taxpayers' money and coordinating this. So many times
we have seen in all agencies everybody kind of has their turf,
and since the wind issue has a lot of different parts to it, it
makes sense to make sure that there is coordination going on
among the various participants that are involved in that. So
this bill, I think, is going to help protect lives, I think it
is going to reduce property losses but, more importantly, it
also makes sure that there is good coordination so that when we
do come up with good ideas, that we can make sure that we
commercialize them and that we can utilize that information in
the future.
So Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for having this
important hearing, and I look forward to hearing from these
witnesses.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Neugebauer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Randy Neugebauer
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today on federal
efforts to reduce the impacts of windstorms. This is an extremely
important topic, particularly in light of the devastating tornado that
tore through Moore, Oklahoma. According to the National Weather
Service, that tornado was the widest ever recorded and one of the
strongest. I'm looking forward to hearing testimony from today's
witnesses about federal research and development priorities in relation
to tornadoes and other windstorms.
In particular, I'd like to welcome Dr. Ernst Kiesling from the
National Wind Institute at Texas Tech University. As a fellow Red
Raider myself, I have seen firsthand the tremendous research that Dr.
Kiesling and his colleagues are pursuing that will continue to help
saves lives and reduce property damage from windstorms.
Windstorms can be devastating: every year, there are about 80
deaths and 1,500 injuries from tornadoes. Two Thousand Eleven was an
especially bad year, with 551 fatalities caused by tornadoes alone. The
property destruction is also devastating. When a family loses their
home in a windstorm, they don't just have to rebuild their house--they
have to rebuild their lives.
That's why the research like that being done at the Texas Tech
National Wind Institute and elsewhere is so critical. It is helping us
better understand the mechanics of windstorms, and teaching us how to
build stronger, safer shelters.
The National Science and Technology Council has stated that
America's primary focus on disaster response is ``an impractical and
inefficient strategy for dealing with these ongoing threats. Instead,
communities must break the cycle of destruction and recovery by
enhancing their disaster resilience.'' This bill would help ensure that
the federal government is adequately addressing disaster resilience and
mitigation, which is critical to reducing the costs of disasters to
taxpayers.
I first authored the bill that created NWIRP back in 2004. NWIRP
helps to improve building codes, voluntary standards, and construction
practices for buildings and homes. It also supports basic research to
better understand windstorms, atmospheric science research and data
collection, and the development of risk assessment tools and mitigation
techniques. Since 2008 when the original authorization expired, NIST,
NSF, NOAA, and FEMA have been conducting related activities, but have
had no direction from Congress on the actual NWIRP program or what
specific research it should be conducting.
My bill, H.R. 1786, is first and foremost a bill that ensures smart
and efficient use of taxpayer dollars. It reauthorizes and improves
NWIRP by clarifying research priorities, enhancing coordination between
these agencies, and establishing stronger reporting criteria. The bill
makes NIST the lead agency. This will lead to a clearer mission for the
program and ensure proper accountability to taxpayers. It will also
prevent duplicative research across the agencies. It also creates a
National Advisory Committee on windstorm impact reduction, made up of
unpaid, non-federal employee experts to offer recommendations on the
program and its priorities. This ensures that industry and scientific
recommendations are taken into account when guiding the direction of
NWIRP, leading to a leaner and more effective program. Lastly, it
creates an Interagency Coordination Committee, chaired by the Director
of NIST, to develop a strategic plan, coordinate budgets, and report on
the progress of the program. This will help Congress keep better track
of NWIRP and guarantee transparency and wise use of taxpayer dollars.
I'm looking forward to the testimony today and hope that the
Committee will take up and pass H.R. 1786 as soon as possible. Thank
you Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Bucshon. Thank you. We have a panel of witnesses
before us who can articulate what it will take to cut down on
the economic impact and lives lost from these storms. I would
like to extend my appreciation to each of the witnesses for
taking the time and effort to appear before us today. We look
forward to your testimony.
I now recognize Ms. Wilson for her opening statement.
Ms. Wilson. Thank you, Chairman Bucshon and Chairman
Massie, for holding today's hearing on the National Windstorm
Impact Reduction Program-or NWIRP. I would also like to
recognize our Ranking Member from the entire Committee, Ms.
Johnson, to our Committee meeting today.
NWIRP directs four Federal agencies--FEMA, NOAA, NSF and
NIST--to conduct coordinated research and development on the
nature of windstorms, their effects, and on ways to mitigate
their impact. The program also calls on these agencies to make
sure this research is translated into practice. This work has
led to advances in monitoring the design and construction of
buildings, and increased awareness and preparation by the
public. But there is still much more to be done.
Regrettably, consideration of this program is timely as our
thoughts and prayers go out to the people of Moore, Oklahoma,
who are putting the pieces back together after a massive
tornado ripped through their community just two weeks ago. As a
Floridian and a survivor of Hurricane Andrew, I know firsthand
that natural hazards are a leading threat to America's economy
and Americans' lives.
In recent years, Americans have seen flooded subway
stations in New York City, earthquake damage in the Nation's
Capital, the great American city of New Orleans submerged under
water, unimaginable devastation in Joplin, Missouri, and now
entire neighborhoods in Oklahoma flattened to the ground.
There has, in fact, been a record number of declared
Federal disasters in the United States over the last two years,
and 2011 was the deadliest year on record for tornadoes with
over 550 fatalities.
While we cannot stop a hurricane or tornado from happening,
we should do all that we can to make sure our communities have
the tools they need to respond and recover from such an event.
We as a Nation must invest in preparedness and resilience.
Studies of FEMA's pre-disaster mitigation program have shown
that for every dollar we invest in mitigation activities, we
save $3 to $4 in recovery costs.
NWIRP has the potential to dramatically bolster the
resiliency of our communities and reduce the costs associated
with disaster recovery. Unfortunately, experts have expressed
concern that insufficient funding has negatively impacted the
implementation of the program and we are missing out on low-
cost mitigation opportunities.
Because of this, I do have some concerns with the
legislation we are considering today. First, the bill cuts the
authorization level for the program by 14 percent. Second, it
locks in this lower funding level for the duration of the bill.
We don't have any reason to believe the agencies need any less
money to carry out the responsibilities we assigned them the
last time we authorized this program.
And when we consider the devastating losses that have
plagued the United States recently, this course of action seems
irresponsible. That is why I reintroduced the bipartisan
version of the Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act, which will
provide the program with an authorization level more
appropriate to the task. This legislation passed the House by
an overwhelming margin in the 111th Congress, and it also
reauthorizes the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program.
While they are differences between hazards, there are also
commonalities and occasions where we should leverage resources.
This Committee has an important role to play in helping
Americans prepare for and recover from all natural hazards. By
reauthorizing both of these programs, we can minimize the
number of Americans who are harmed or killed by natural
disasters or who have to face the challenge of putting their
homes, businesses and communities back together.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to make our
communities more disaster resilient.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing,
and thank you to the witnesses for being here today. I yield
back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Wilson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Subcommittee on Technology
Ranking Member Frederica Wilson
Thank you, Chairman Bucshon and Chairman Massie for holding today's
hearing on the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program--or N-WIRP
[N- werp].
N-WIRP directs four federal agencies--FEMA, NOAA, NSF, and NIST--to
conduct coordinated research and development on the nature of
windstorms, their effects, and on ways to mitigate their impact. The
program also calls on these agencies to make sure this research is
translated into practice. This work has led to advances in monitoring,
the design and construction of buildings, and increased awareness and
preparation by the public. But there is still much more to be
done.Regrettably, consideration of this program is timely as our
thoughts and prayers go out to the people of Moore, Oklahoma, who are
putting the pieces back together after a massive tornado ripped through
their community just two weeks ago.
As a Floridian and a survivor of Hurricane Andrew, I know firsthand
that natural hazards are a leading threat to America's economy and
American lives. In recent years, Americans have seen flooded subway
stations in New York City, earthquake damage in the Nation's Capital,
the great American city of New Orleans submerged under water,
unimaginable devastation in Joplin, Missouri, and now entire
neighborhoods in Oklahoma flattened to the ground.
There has, in fact, been a record number of declared federal
disasters in the United States over the last two years, and 2011 was
the deadliest year on record for tornadoes with over 550 fatalities.
While we cannot stop a hurricane or tornado from happening, we
should do all that we can to make sure our communities have the tools
they need to respond and recover from such an event.
We as a nation must invest in preparedness and resilience. Studies
of FEMA's pre-disaster mitigation program have shown that for every
dollar we invest in mitigation activities, we save $3 to $4 dollars in
recovery costs.
N-WIRP has the potential to dramatically bolster the resiliency of
our communities and reduce the costs associated with disaster
recovery.Unfortunately, experts have expressed concern that
insufficient funding has negatively impacted the implementation of the
program and we are missing out on low-cost mitigation opportunities.
Because of this I do have some concerns with the legislation we are
considering today. First, the bill cuts the authorization level for the
program by 14 percent. Second, it ``locks in'' this lower funding level
for the duration of the bill. We don't have any reason to believe the
agencies need any less money to carry out the responsibilities we
assigned them the last time we reauthorized this program. And when we
consider the devastating losses that have plagued the United States
recently, this course of action seems irresponsible.
That is why I reintroduced the bipartisan version of the Natural
Hazards Risk Reduction Act, which will provide the program with an
authorization level more appropriate to the task. This legislation
passed the House by an overwhelming margin in the 111th Congress and it
also reauthorizes the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program.
While they are differences between hazards there are also commonalities
and occasions where we should leverage resources.
This Committee has an important role to play in helping Americans
prepare for and recover from all natural hazards. By reauthorizing both
of these programs, we can minimize the number of Americans who are
harmed or killed by natural disasters or who have to face the challenge
of putting their homes, businesses, and communities back together.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to make our
communities more disaster resilient.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. And thank
you to the witnesses for being here. I yield back the balance of my
time.
Chairman Bucshon. Thank you, Ms. Wilson. The Chair now
recognizes the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Ms.
Johnson, for an opening statement.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Chairman Bucshon, for
holding today's hearing to examine the National Windstorm
Impact Reduction Program.
The last few years have been devastating years for natural
disasters in this country. We experienced the deadliest and
most destructive tornado season in U.S. history in 2011.
Unfortunately, the trend continues this year with massive
tornadoes in Oklahoma and in my home State of Texas. We have
also had earthquakes in areas that don't usually experience
earthquakes, including Virginia and Oklahoma. And Hurricanes
Sandy and Irene caused widespread destruction and death along
the Eastern seaboard.
This Committee has an important role to play in minimizing
the number of Americans who are harmed or killed by natural
disasters or who have to face the challenge of rebuilding their
homes, businesses and communities.
By reauthorizing the National Windstorm Impact Reduction
Program, we can reduce the vulnerability of our communities to
disasters. Therefore, I am glad my fellow Texan, Congressman
Neugebauer, been a champion for NWIRP and that he introduced
legislation to reauthorize this important program.
However, I want to express my support for the legislation
recently introduced by Congresswoman Wilson, of which I am a
cosponsor. The National Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2013
would reauthorize both the wind-related program and the
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program. I believe we
need to take a multi-hazards approach to disaster mitigation,
and Ms. Wilson's legislation would link these two critical
programs through the establishment of a single interagency
coordinating committee, creating opportunities for synergy
among the various research activities.
I also don't believe we should prioritize one hazard
program over another as they are all important to producing
communities that are resilient to any and all disasters. As a
result, I hope that as we move forward with legislation we
consider all of the hazard programs within the Committee's
jurisdiction.
And finally, it is clear that NWIRP agencies have not
gotten the resources they need to carry out all of the
responsibilities assigned to them by Congress. Thus, I am
concerned by the cuts proposed in the legislation that is the
topic of today's hearing. We simply can't afford to have these
agencies miss opportunities to implement low-cost mitigation
measures. In the end, strong and effective hazard reduction
programs will not only save lives and property, but also
provide us with meaningful cost savings.
Thank you, Chairman Bucshon, and I yield back the balance
of my time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Committee on Science, Space and Technology
Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson
Thank you, Chairman Buschon for holding today's hearing to examine
the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program--or NWIRP.
The last few years have been devastating years for natural
disasters in this country. We experienced the deadliest and most
destructive tornado season in U.S. history in 2011. Unfortunately, the
trend is continuing this year with massive tornadoes in Oklahoma and in
my state of Texas. We've also had earthquakes in areas that don't
usually experience earthquakes, including Virginia and Oklahoma. And,
Hurricanes Sandy and Irene caused widespread destruction and death
along the Eastern seaboard.
This Committee has an important role to play in minimizing the
number of Americans who are harmed or killed by natural disasters or
who have to face the challenge of rebuilding their homes, businesses,
and communities.
By reauthorizing the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program,
we can reduce the vulnerability of our communities to disasters.
Therefore, I am glad my fellow Texan, Congressman Neugebaurer, has been
a champion for NWIRP and that he introduced legislation to reauthorize
this important program.
However, I want to express my support for the legislation recently
introduced by Congresswoman Wilson, of which I am a co-sponsor. The
National Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2013 would reauthorize both the
wind-related program and the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction
Program.
I believe we need to take a multi-hazards approach to disaster
mitigation, and Ms. Wilson's legislation would link these two critical
programs through the establishment of a single interagency coordinating
committee--creating opportunities for synergy among the various
research activities.
I also don't believe we should prioritize one hazard program over
another as they are all important to producing communities that are
resilient to any and all disasters. As a result, I hope that as we move
forward with legislation we consider all of the hazard programs within
the Committee's jurisdiction.
And finally, it is clear that the NWIRP agencies have not gotten
the resources they need to carry out all of the responsibilities
assigned to them by Congress. Thus, I am concerned by the cuts proposed
in the legislation that is the topic of today's hearing. We simply
can't afford to have these agencies miss opportunities to implement
low-cost mitigation measures. In the end, strong and effective hazard
reduction programs will not only save lives and property, but also
provide us with meaningful cost savings.
Chairman Bucshon. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening
statements, your statements will be added to the record at this
point.
Chairman Bucshon. Now I would like to introduce the
witnesses. Our first witness is Dr. Ernst Kiesling, a Professor
of Civil Engineering at Texas Tech University and Executive
Director of the National Storm Shelter Association. He has had
a long career with Texas Tech University, serving as Chairman
of the Civil Engineering Department and as an Associate Dean of
Engineering for Research. He leads the storm shelter research
effort within the Wind, Science and Engineering Research Center
at Texas Tech. Dr. Kiesling received his M.S. in mechanical
engineering from Texas Technological College and an M.S. and
Ph.D. in applied mathematics from Michigan State University.
Welcome.
Our second witness is Debra Ballen--did I pronounce that
right?
Ms. Ballen. Ballen.
Chairman Bucshon. Ballen, the General Counsel and Senior
Vice President for Public Policy for the Insurance Institute
for Business and Home Safety. Ms. Ballen has also worked with
the American Insurance Association and the University of
Colorado's Advisory Committee for the Hazards Center. She
graduated with a J.D. from Harvard Law and an A.B. degree from
Princeton University. Thank you.
Our final witness is Dr. David Prevatt, an Assistant
Professor at the University of Florida. He has been with the
University of Florida's Department of Civil and Coastal
Engineering since 2007. His research focuses on the mitigation
of extreme wind damage to low-rise construction. Dr. Prevatt is
a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers, on the
board of the American Association for Wind Engineering, and a
member of the U.K. Wind Engineering Society. Dr. Prevatt
received his Ph.D. from Clemson University. Welcome.
As our witnesses should know, spoken testimony is limited
to five minutes each after which Members of the Committee have
five minutes each to ask questions. Your written testimony will
be included in the record of the hearing.
I now recognize our first witness, Dr. Kiesling, for five
minutes.
TESTIMONY OF DR. ERNST KIESLING,
RESEARCH FACULTY, NATIONAL WIND INSTITUTE,
TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY
Dr. Kiesling. Thank you. Mr. Bucshon, Mr. Neugebauer and
distinguished Committee Members, I thank you for the
opportunity to be here. You have done a good job of outlining
both the problem and potential solutions, and pointed to one of
the major problems that we face in not only lack of funding but
lack of continuity in funding to do the research we need to do.
One other thing I would point out is not just the loss of
lives and the human suffering, but the anxiety that comes with
severe events like tornados and hurricanes. And I will speak
primarily on storm shelters or safe rooms, because that is
where I spent most of my career working, and secondly, I think
it addresses this last problem of anxiety and human suffering
effectively.
I have been part of the wind engineering program at Texas
Tech since 1970 when an EF-5 tornado impacted Lubbock. I was
Chairman of the Civil Engineering Department at that time. You
can help make my day by telling me I don't look old enough to
have done that, but I don't want you to lie.
With your support, we have developed a world-class program
at Texas Tech, unparalleled facilities--I have included a
picture of some of in the report, a unique doctoral program in
wind, science and engineering, and we have turned out about 20
doctoral students or graduates there, and they are taking
prominent places in the professional community.
Today we have very good weather forecasting that gives
information on locations and paths of tornados and hurricanes
but we still have to deal with the effects of severe winds, and
even the advice given the public we have found in the last two
weeks in Oklahoma leaves much to be desired. In fact, it is
inaccurate and dangerous, some of the advice that is being
given. So not only do we need to do the good work such as
forecasting has done but need to convey a consistent message to
the public as to how do you react, how do you respond to
disasters. A focused approach to research and development and
implementation is needed to reduce impact of windstorms on
urban society. Many specific areas could be mentioned--testing
facilities, a repository for windstorm damage documentation,
and that is in process, development of computational wind
engineering tools, implementation of known research into
standards and codes, and others will speak to that, development
of manpower to pursue meaningful research and professional
practice, and then educational programs that convey sound,
consistent guidance to the people as to how they react and
respond to extreme events--extreme wind events.
Property damage can surely be abated by improved building
codes and by their enforcement. We have a tremendous problem in
the lack of enforcement because that is done largely at the
local level, and there are many disconnects that occur between
the agencies and the researchers that generate good research
and what happens in the field, and education, I think, is the
best way to address that.
We have particularly in the storm shelter area available
standards and guidelines. We have an industry association, the
National Storm Shelter Association, and we have a program that
recognizes those storm shelters that comply with the standards.
We have all types of shelters available today that meet these
standards and guidelines and provide near-absolute occupant
protection from extreme winds, yes, even an EF-5, despite some
of the information that has been given, particularly in the
last couple of weeks in Oklahoma. Some of the advice given has
been deadly and wrong. There are many characteristics of the
Hazard Mitigation Grant program, and Ms. Johnson, you mentioned
that. It is an excellent program that does a lot of good
things. The downside of it is that funding that is generated is
post disaster so it is sometimes four or five years. We are
just now finishing some projects that were funded with the
Hazard Mitigation program with funding growing out of Hurricane
Ike that occurred five years ago. So it takes time, and I think
it is important that we have, say, pre-disaster mitigation
grants of some type and sizable ones that can do preparation
for disasters, not respond to them. I don't understand why the
Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant program was discontinued, and I
am not saying that we need that but we need something like that
that allows us to prepare in advance.
There has been a lot of talk about shelters being
mandatory. I believe that the states, such as Alabama, have set
a good example, and that storm shelters for schools should be
made mandatory by states that have serious problems in new
buildings, and much can be done to improve existing buildings
in that regard. I believe that mandatory shelters should also
be for multi-family residential housing units, vulnerable
populations such as daycare centers, retirement villages and so
forth, nursing homes, mobile home parks and apartments. I think
it should not be mandatory for privately owned single-family
and multi-family residences--though incentives of some type
would certainly be appropriate.
So my recommended action would simply be that you have
identified the agencies--NIST, FEMA, NOAA, NSF. All are
experienced in administering large-scale programs and they work
well together, I think. We have capable professional personnel
that conduct research if they have adequate funding to do so,
and I think if you look particularly at the programs that have
been funded, the earthquake program and the prediction program
in the weather area, you will see that we have unprecedented
return on investment in those programs, and I would encourage
Congress to make funding available to make similar investments
in the area of mitigating the wind disaster. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Kiesling follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Chairman Bucshon. Thank you.
I now recognize our second witness, Ms. Ballen, for five
minutes.
TESTIMONY OF MS. DEBRA BALLEN,
GENERAL COUNSEL AND SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT,
PUBLIC POLICY, INSURANCE INSTITUTE
FOR BUSINESS & HOME SAFETY
Ms. Ballen. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
My name is Debra Ballen. I am with the Insurance Institute for
Business and Home Safety, a 501(c)(3) organization wholly
supported by the property insurance and reinsurance industries
and dedicated to mitigation, research and communications.
As a research organization focusing on mitigation, IBHS has
long been supportive of the NWIRP. We provided testimony during
hearings that led to its initial authorization as well as the
effort to reauthorize the program in 2008, and we have worked
in partnership on a number of projects with all of the NWIRP
agencies. We are pleased to be here today, and we thank you for
your interest in this important matter.
Given the broad geographic threat of windstorms, the
percentage of our population at risk, the frequency of events
and the tremendous toll taken, the Federal investment in wind-
related research is much less than it should be. That said, we
are not negative on a multi-hazard approach. A coordinated,
well-funded research program as embodied in NWIRP is needed to
pull together scientific information about wind hazards, wind
engineering expertise that defines the connection between storm
characteristics and loads imposed on buildings, structural
engineering expertise that develops efficient systems to handle
these loads in new and existing buildings, and national
coordinated efforts to promote mitigation.
We believe that IBHS can play an important role in these
initiatives. The centerpiece of our research program is our
unique world-class research center. Using a 105-fan array to
simulate wind as well as full-size residential and commercial
test specimens and other specialized equipment, IBHS can
recreate a variety of highly realistic natural disasters
involving wind alone, wind plus rain, wind plus fire, and wind
plus hail.
I would like to take a moment to show you how research and
related communications contribute to our understanding of the
destructive power of wind and the benefits of mitigation. You
will see the power of wind in a video from the first public
demonstration that we conducted at the research center in the
fall of 2010. We subjected two wood-frame houses to a highly
realistic storm that has occurred in North Texas and the
Midwest. Although they look the same from the outside, the home
on the left was built using a code as it exists in Central
Illinois while the home on the right was built to a higher IBHS
standard. I should add that the winds you are going to see were
not tornadic. So here is a very short video of that test.
[Video shown.]
You can see just how quickly and how completely the home on
the left was destroyed, and as you think about the loss of life
and property had this been a real event with people inside the
home that was destroyed, you can also understand the importance
of research as a complement to communications in order to get
people to pay attention, change their attitudes, and ultimately
demand safer and stronger buildings. It is much better to learn
this lesson in the IBHS's test chamber than from places like
Moore, Oklahoma, and Miami, Florida.
Along with stronger, safer building, we believe that
mitigation leads to a stronger, safer insurance system. Among
the insurance-related benefits of mitigation are a reduction in
the frequency and severity of weather-related claims, a
downward shift in the loss exceedance curve, better management
of losses in rare but severe events, more efficient capital
deployment, healthier private insurance markets, and less
stress on residual markets.
The property insurance industry's research priorities for
wind mitigation are directly in line with policyholder
interests: less physical destruction, less economic loss, less
societal displacement, fewer injuries and deaths. Breaking the
cycle of destruction so that residential and commercial
structures do not have to be put together again and again will
benefit building owners, occupants, communities and also
insurers.
In closing, I thank you for the opportunity to offer our
comments on the critical role of mitigation research and the
importance of NWIRP reauthorization. We urge you to move
forward on this important legislation that will help to harness
advancements in windstorm science and engineering in order to
improve our Nation's safety, sustainability and resilience.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Ballen follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Chairman Bucshon. Thank you very much for your testimony.
I now recognize our final witness, Dr. Prevatt, for five
minutes.
TESTIMONY OF DR. DAVID PREVATT,
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF
CIVIL AND COASTAL ENGINEERING,
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
Dr. Prevatt. Chairman Bucshon, Chairman Massie and
honorable Subcommittee Members, my name is David Prevatt. I am
here to advocate on behalf of the American people for the
creation of wind hazard-resilient communities within the next
ten years. I believe the reason we don't have this already is
that no one has been bold enough or committed enough to demand
it. I wish to add the support of the American Society of Civil
Engineers and the American Association for Wind Engineering and
my own support for H.R. 1786. These organizations have been
working for the past ten years since Congressman Randy
Neugebauer of Texas first proposed this legislation. We also
support the transfer of leadership to the National Institute of
Standards and Technology.
Since Professor Fujita first published his Fujita Scale in
1971 and his report on the Lubbock tornado, our populations in
the Tornado Alley has grown 50 percent. What does that mean? We
have more schools, we have more hospitals, commercial spaces
and certainly a lot more houses. It is not complicated. There
are today more objects in harm's way than there were before.
Also, since the 1970s as well, NOAA and the National Severe
Storms Laboratory has invested heavily in weather
infrastructure, over $167 million over the last ten years, in
better research to predict unstable weather, in providing
warnings of tornados, in more equipment, forecasting products.
The public is aware of this and confident in its use, and
private sector has stepped up to mine it. We can get
forecasting information on our smartphones.
It is not complicated: longer lead times before tornado
strikes reduce loss of life. In parallel, the 1970 Texas Tech
University's wind engineering faculty, they initiated the first
building damage studies after the Lubbock tornado, documented
problems with houses, how they are made. Modern houses still
have those problems. Houses have smaller nails, fewer nails
than they once were in the 1940s. Connections are inadequate.
They cannot resist tornado loads. Houses are insufficiently
anchored to the foundations and they rock very easily. There
are no vertical load paths in the houses built in Tornado
Alley, and I can attest. I was there in Moore, Oklahoma, two
weeks ago.
It is not complicated. The result is more houses, more
poorly built houses, and more property loss and disruption of
our communities. Tornados now, damage has increased two and a
half times since the 1970 Lubbock tornado.
So my message today is not complicated. It is simply to
tell our representatives that the people of the United States
want to live in tornado-resilient communities. They also
deserve to live there without fear. A tornado-resilient
community is one where all schools have shelters or at least
safer spaces that afford some protection to our children; that
our hospitals and emergency buildings are all hardened against
tornados, wind hazards and earthquakes; that our houses are
built so that fewer will be completely destroyed, destroying
the lives and some will be repairable after a tornado, civil
infrastructure are designed for tornados and that the private
sector has the research backing to work to economically develop
affordable and weather-resilient houses. Really, it is not
complicated.
The wind engineering and structural engineering communities
stand ready to begin this work. We have been ready for ten
years. And with your support, we can begin this task to provide
for our people. To get there, please support H.R. 1786,
authorize its funding and sustain support for the wind
engineering and structural engineering communities for our
houses.
Let us mobilize community leaders to upgrade their building
codes and include vertical load path provisions in all
buildings, in all buildings. Support our research community to
work with innovative private-sector companies to design
buildings and build resilient and sustainable 21st-century
houses. It can be done. Advance the wind and structural
engineering research program, support your faculty that would
provide these solutions to these existing problems.
Honorable Members, it really isn't complicated. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Prevatt follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Chairman Bucshon. Thank you very much. I want to thank all
the witnesses for your testimony. It is a fascinating subject.
I want to remind the Members that the Committee rules limit
questioning to five minutes. The Chair will at this point open
the round of questions. I recognize myself for five minutes.
Ms. Ballen and Dr. Prevatt, initially, what are the
stepping stones that are preventing us from building better
homes? I mean, what is the rate limiting steps? Why, even with
all the information we have out there, why don't we do it?
Ms. Ballen. Well, we have actually developed a strategic
plan at IBHS that I think responds to your question, and that
is, first we need to get people to pay attention. We have the
research capabilities. These fine universities, work that
groups like ours have done, provide the technical answers but
we need people to understand them, and the video that you saw I
think as an example of getting people to pay attention. That
video has actually been on the Today show, it has been on the
Weather Channel. People have seen that and begun to think about
``gee, how do I make that not happen?'' So the next step is
getting them to change their minds and getting them to value
that stronger roof instead of a granite countertop, and once
individuals are making those choices, we as a society need to
rise up and really demand, demand to be in a community with a
better building code or demand, you know, that Congress, you
know, enacts these types of legislation. I think a lot of
people just don't--they haven't gotten that first step so they
can't get to the second step and the third step, and that is at
least, you know, perspective on that. Dr. Prevatt?
Dr. Prevatt. What I would add to that is, we still lack the
knowledge of designing buildings for tornados. There has been a
dearth of research in wind engineering that supported the
faculty working on wind engineering matters. We had the zenith
in the 1980s and since that time there just has not been the
research there. Currently, we are trying to understand how the
tornado loads interact on a particular building, how the load
paths have to be improved in order to do that. So part of the
problem is not only do people need to be initiated to want to
change, we have to provide an opportunity and knowledge of how
they can change.
Chairman Bucshon. Thank you. I can tell you, I was in
health care before, and there is a powerful motivating factor
for people and it is called denial, and it is a very difficult
thing to overcome when people see what is the statistical
chance of their home being hit and convincing them that they
need to have that home built with higher standards. It is very,
very difficult thing to overcome as well as messaging why that
is the case.
Dr. Kiesling, this is my own personal question. Has there
been any--is there research out there on not only telling us
where tornados are and where they are going but how to divert
them away from urban centers?
Dr. Kiesling. I think the first part of that question, the
answer is yes. Certainly, the people are doing an excellent job
of predicting the path and where the tornados are. I don't see
any hope of diverting, though we occasionally hear from people
who have proposals for that. In the first place, we don't know
where they are going to occur far enough in advance, and
secondly, there is a tremendous amount of energy there that has
to be dealt with in trying to divert them, so I frankly,
personally do not have much hope for that.
Chairman Bucshon. Or dissipate them, for example, and
dissipate the energy or anything like that?
Dr. Kiesling. Hopefully it can work. I have to depend on, I
guess, the next generation to come up with solutions there
because I simply do not see how we can dissipate or divert
tornados.
Chairman Bucshon. Okay. Is there a--describe the difference
in research between straight-line winds and tornadic winds. Is
there a big difference there?
Dr. Kiesling. Well, straight-line winds generally, we know
what pressures they exert on buildings and they are pretty
predictable, but in a tornado or hurricane, the variations are
great and I think we need to know a lot more about not only the
intensity but the variation and the characteristics of extreme
winds so that we can better deal with them. We are making
progress, but again, it is a long, slow process and requires
manpower that is hard to come by.
Chairman Bucshon. Do you have a comment, Doctor?
Dr. Prevatt. I would add that in tornados as well, we have
something that we don't understand, which is vertical suction
below the vortex, and that has never been, you know, understood
in terms of how it reacts or interacts with the winds that are
ensuing into the tornado.
Chairman Bucshon. Thank you very much. My time is about to
expire so I will now recognize Ms. Wilson for her line of
questioning.
Ms. Wilson. Thank you. In her testimony, Ms. Ballen states
that wind hazard research has been underfunded for decades. The
other witnesses also express a similar sentiment in their
testimonies. All of you indicate that NWIRP has never been
implemented in any meaningful way because of lack of resources.
What opportunities are we missing by not providing the program
with, as Dr. Kiesling puts, a reliable, sustained source of
funding for maturation and expansion?
Dr. Prevatt. I think we just have to look at the earthquake
engineering program and see what benefits we have gained from
that. We are talking about something that has been funded to
the level of, you know, millions of dollars per year. Literally
all other wind engineering research over the last ten years at
the top wind engineering schools amounts to about $1 million
per year. We are talking about, and I have seen it, Joplin,
Missouri, Tuscaloosa and Moore, Oklahoma. We are talking about
$2 billion, $3 billion and $5 billion. Those are the numbers,
and we simply are not addressing them. What has happened over
the time, unfortunately, is there has been attrition of wind
engineering faculty. Structural engineering faculty no longer
study how to make houses stronger, you know, commercial
structures and so on, and these are the areas where we have the
most damage, the most dollars lost and the most lives affected.
Ms. Ballen. I agree certainly with everything that Dr.
Prevatt just said. I think our feeling is that if there were
more money that were in this program, or money in this program,
since there really hasn't been money in this program. You know,
we have identified in a broad way the areas where we think we
could really lead to progress, and the first is enhanced
understanding of the events themselves, and different issues in
terms of understanding tornados and understanding hurricanes
but certainly it starts with the science and the meteorology of
that.
The second is understanding the connections between those
events and the built environment. We are doing some of that at
the IBHS research center but certainly more could be done
through enhanced funding through NWIRP of universities and
others. We re-create the nature and then we see how nature
reacts to the built environment, homes and small businesses.
The third area is identifying those mitigation measures
that actually work, the tornado-proof home or even in the area
of hurricanes where we know a lot more. There is still a lot
more to be learned about how to make those structures better
able to sustain nature. And the final thing would be making
sure that the tests that our products and standards are based
on really do accurately reflect the real world. What we saw in
the auto safety arena was that everyone could build a car that
withstood the first NHTSA tests because they knew exactly what
they needed to build to, and that didn't necessarily mean it
was safe in the real world. And so we need to develop testing
standards that actually do reflect what we learned from the
first side in terms of the real-world weather events.
As far as the funding levels are concerned, as you
identified in your opening statement, you know, whatever the
level is, and more is obviously better from the perspective, I
think, of all of the panelists that are here but you also
identified that the static funding is a problem. If the idea of
the program is some of these are short-, some of these are
medium- and some of these are long-term events, if you fund it
sort of at the same level throughout the three-year period or
whatever the period is, you get everything started and then you
can't identify anything new in the second and third year. So we
certainly would recommend at least modest upticks as you go
forward so that, you know, we can make sure that we can start
what we finish but also start other things that are identified
in the early years of the program.
Ms. Wilson. Dr. Kiesling, do you have any response?
Dr. Kiesling. Sorry. What was the question? Did you ask me
if I needed to add anything?
Ms. Wilson. Do you want to add anything about the lack of
funding?
Dr. Kiesling. I think, again, not only the level of funding
but the continuity is a problem because particularly with young
faculty because young faculty are under tremendous pressure to
produce research to generate funding, to publish, and if they
have areas where that funding is more readily available and
dependable, then they are going to go to those areas. So it is
very difficult for us to recruit young faculty into wind
engineering, for example, because of the lack of continuity of
funding.
Ms. Wilson. Thank you.
Chairman Bucshon. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Schweikert
for his questioning.
Mr. Schweikert. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield to the
sponsor of the bill, Mr. Neugebauer.
Mr. Neugebauer. And I appreciate the gentleman.
You know, I think one of the things that we want to happen
here, and it has been alluded to by the witnesses, is getting
people to build buildings that will mitigate some of the
potential damage and loss of life. You know, I think one of the
misnomers out there is that you have to build Fort Knox so that
the cost of building that, you know, is not economic because of
the probability that event happening versus the cost of doing
it, and so one of the things I think I am very big on is using
the carrot, you know, rather than the stick. And so I have a
couple of questions. One of those, do you see within--for
example, many of these losses of property were insured losses,
and so obviously the insurance industry has a huge interest,
you know, in this issue. Two things. Do you see them
recognizing a difference in homes or buildings built to
different standards so that there is incentive for homeowners
or people building a building to, you know, spend the extra
dollars to do that? So that would be my first question.
Ms. Ballen. Let me take that one since I know a little bit
about that issue. We look at property mitigation in two ways.
One are building codes and one are efforts to go above building
codes. Building codes, as much as we support them, are really
intended for life safety as opposed to property protection, and
so while obviously a code-built home is better in many ways, if
the issue is property protection, I think that is not
necessarily what an individual insurer is likely to consider
the best possible. IBHS has developed a voluntary standard. It
is called Fortified Home or Fortified for Safer Living, and
does go above code. It is hazard-specific. So we try to
identify the types of building construction techniques that
will help for specific hazards. Again, every insurance company
does make its own decisions but several states have recognized
Fortified and requiring insurance companies to do that in their
filings. So we do have a little bit of a track record in
Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, South Carolina, and we are
seeing that companies are in fact individually making decisions
in terms of filing.
That said, I want to emphasize that the types of things
that are in Fortified are not unaffordable. They are relatively
low-cost improvements that a homeowner can make. I am talking
about a couple of thousand dollars generally, particularly in
an area that already has a code. One of our partners in terms
of Fortified for Safer Building is Habitat for Humanity. They
are actually the largest builder in this country at this point
in time, and we have partnered with Habitat on a number of
Fortified homes in hurricane-prone areas and in other areas and
so if we can get those Fortified standards into a Habitat home,
you know that those are not unaffordable standards. It is a
question of sort of being there at the time when decisions are
being made. You know, to say to someone that has a roof on a
home, this is not a good roof, you need to take off this roof
and put a whole other roof on is a very expensive proposition,
but if you are at the point where a homeowner is replacing a
roof or needs to replace a roof because the first roof has
blown off, it doesn't cost that much more to build to a
Fortified standard.
Mr. Neugebauer. I think one of the things that--another
theme of this particular legislation but I think a theme that
we hear a number of the people up here talk about is, you know,
dissemination of that information and coordination of that
information, and so, for example, this research, for example,
do you sit down with, say, industry participants, say, the
national home builders, for example, and share, you know, this
information and introduce a dialog with them to make sure that
they are being made aware of this?
Ms. Ballen. We certainly have started that. They started
out rather negative and skeptical of IBHS and our capabilities
and our mitigation messages but we have invited them all to our
research center. They see that $40 million facility, they see
that fan capability and they realize that we are very serious
about doing the research and doing the communications and that
has led to a much more constructive dialog. There are a number
of organizations that we have had longstanding, very positive
relationships with, and I should mention the ASCE is probably
one of our strongest partners here in Washington and at the
state level and certainly at the technical level as well. They
have visited our research center. The architects are another
group that we are trying to encourage young architects in
architectural schools to incorporate stronger building into
their curricula. So we are reaching out to a number of
organizations. Our companies reach out to their policyholders.
We try to leverage those relationships to try to get the word
out into social media, which of course is huge in all areas and
is huge after disasters. We are trying to make that part of the
mitigation movement as well.
Mr. Neugebauer. Okay. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Chairman Bucshon. I now recognize Ms. Johnson for her line
of questioning, five minutes.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
Just as a follow-up to the course of questioning, I can't
forget the image of seeing the one lone house that remained
standing during Hurricane Ike in Galveston, only to think how
did it survive out there alone, to find later that the entire
neighborhood was devastated and that house survived, and it was
because they had used the type of materials that would resist
many winds. How do we--I just heard your comments from the
standpoint of encouraging architects but it seems to me that
local ordinances when permission is gotten for building has to
be involved. How do we do that without making it seem that this
is big government trying to boss everybody? But I should think
that insurance companies should be very interested in having
resilience in the building as well as governments. You know,
with the ability of our satellite system to predict, we have
gone a long way in saving lives but we haven't done nearly as
well in saving property, and that is a major concern in an
economy like today. How do you see that responsibility fitting
where and what can we do?
Dr. Kiesling. Representative Johnson, one thing I would
tell you about that is one building that you saw in Ike, I saw
one building or one neighborhood in Moore, Oklahoma, that had
hurricane ties, something that actually would hold the roof
down to the wall, just one out of thousands and thousands that
we looked at. Essentially, we have to do a better argument to
convince individuals, as Ms. Ballen said, that this is
something that they ought to think about instead of that
granite countertop. Let us look back at ourselves 100 years
ago, our large cities--Chicago, New York, San Francisco--we all
faced fire considerations. Blocks and blocks were burning down.
It was at that time that those city leaders, legislators,
politicians and the public got together and said enough is
enough; if Chicago is going to survive, we are going to have
to, you know, all pull in one direction, and that is what we
did. And we can do it again. We have the ability to do it
again. I think right now the public is generally fearful of
tornados, fearful of the wind hazard, and they believe we don't
have the talent to do it. I think if we have put a man on the
moon, we could pretty much keep a roof on a house.
Ms. Ballen. I certainly agree with that statement. We are
very strong supporters of building codes, and about a year ago,
we did a little study. We called it ``Rating the States,'' and
we looked at the building-code regimes from Texas to Maine in
the coastal states on a one to one--a zero to 100 scale. The
scores ranged from four to 95. So there was quite a range. And
I will tell you that as a public communications vehicle, a lot
of people may not know what a building code is but they know
that is good to have a high score and it is bad to have a low
score, and that really has started a dialog, and the most
positive responses that we have gotten from the media certainly
have been in those states with the low scores about how they
can do better. One state that was not at the bottom, was in the
middle but actually passed a bill this year--Maryland, that
specifically addressed an issue that we had identified in those
states. So it is a way of making building codes understandable
to people so again they begin to demand that they want to be--
we would say ideally in a state, we support statewide mandatory
building codes. It is much easier for enforcement. It is much
more consistent. But there are some states where that hasn't
happened, and Texas certainly is one of them. At a minimum at
the local level there ought to be strong ordinances in effect.
Ms. Johnson. Any other witness comments? Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Bucshon. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Lipinski
for five minutes.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In his testimony, Dr. Kiesling calls for economic, social
and behavioral studies to understand implementation of research
results like stronger building codes. I think this is something
very important that we have to use the lessons from social
science to ensure that the other lessons that we are learning
from research get implemented. Can Dr. Kiesling and other
witnesses expand upon that and where exactly they see the
importance?
Dr. Kiesling. I think implementation is a serious problem
in many areas. I would back up a little bit and say that in
terms of improved building codes, we can do a lot of good by
simply meeting existing building codes that are not, say,
effectively enforced or inspected, but if we increased the
design wind load only a small amount, we would save a lot of
property because even in a tornado, most of the damage is done
at wind speeds, say, in the 100- to 125-mile-per-hour wind, and
if we design for a little bit more than we do, 90- or 100-per-
hour winds, that would save a lot of the structures that are
currently being destroyed.
I don't know what the answers are to implementation but I
see it as a serious, serious problem, not only in enforcing
building codes but it haunts me that I hear reports of traffic
deaths in our city, and in many instances people were killed in
rollover accidents without wearing their seat belts so they are
sitting on property they already own that can be very effective
in saving lives, and so it should not surprise us, I think,
that we have problems in enforcing building codes and
motivating people to do a better job of construction. I don't
know the answers but I think we need to involve maybe social
sciences and disciplines that we have not effectively engaged
before to see how do we implement what we already know, but
there is much more to be learned. I don't say we have all the
answers. We need to learn much more but we also need to do a
better job of using what we already have.
Ms. Ballen. We are hoping actually to gather social
scientists at our research center this December so that we can
really begin to explore that in more detail. To the extent we
have sort of sketched out the way we think about this issue, we
think it is first a question of getting the hearts and minds of
people, getting them to really sort of want this, and we talked
about that a little bit before in terms of one of the answers
to the previous questions. The second is providing the adequate
incentives. That is for both individuals and for states. An
example of how that might work at the state level is the Safe
Building Code Incentive Act that also has been introduced in
this Congress. It provides additional funding for States that
do the right thing in terms of enacting strong building codes.
That is a financial incentive. There could be other incentives
for individuals. And finally, understanding the politics of
this. We talked about the builders. You know, we have to make
this a win-win proposition and make the market really want this
to happen for us to sort of address those social-science
issues.
Dr. Prevatt. I might add that NOAA and the NSF, National
Science Foundation, last year, they operated, or they organized
a pretty comprehensive workshop called Weather Ready Nation in
which they brought together the physical scientists and
engineers with the social scientists to actually discuss the
issues of weather, you know, acknowledging that yes,
forecasting has got us so far, and yes, we are better at it but
the property damage. So the move has been started. There is a
report which if you would like I can provide that link to you
in which we are now working with social scientists. I was on a
rapid NSF project in Moore, Oklahoma, and we did involve
Mississippi State social scientists and social scientists from
the University of Alabama as well as ourselves, engineers in
other universities.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. I would like to take a look at
that. I think it is something that we oftentimes overlook I
think in legislation here. We should make sure that in NWIRP we
include social sciences because you can do all the research
that you want to know how to mitigate damage to property,
threats to human life if no one is implementing those and we
don't know, as Ms. Ballen said, we are not sure about the
incentives of how to get people to actually take that into
account. Then we just have research sitting on a shelf that is
not doing anyone any good, so I think that is something
important that we have to make sure that we are considering
here in providing at the Federal level.
I yield back. Thank you.
Chairman Bucshon. Thank you. I now recognize Ms. Esty for
five minutes.
Ms. Esty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As a quick follow-up to Mr. Lipinski's discussion for Ms.
Ballen, in looking at incentives, is the insurance industry
offering lower premiums to those who have retrofitted or, say,
hurricane ties and what sort of incentives is the marketplace
providing? Because we know, for example, the tax credits do not
seem to be terribly effective right now, so I am wondering what
is being done on the private side.
Ms. Ballen. I always do stress that individual companies
make their own decisions, but that said, IBHS developed a code
plus standard called Fortified. We know that those technical
standards work and the program includes an inspection and
designation process so that we know that the homes that were
built to those standards, supposedly built to those standards,
really are built to those standards. Many individual companies
are providing discounts for Fortified homes, and that has also
been required in rate filings in some states, but it is not
enough to say ``oh, if a homeowner says or a builder says that
they have built to that standard, it is.''It has got to be
inspected, it has got to be verified.
Ms. Esty. Thank you, and a further follow-up. Living in
Connecticut where we experienced a number of storms over the
last few years, we have great concern about resilience about
the life lines, utilities, infrastructure. So if any of the
three of you can talk a little bit about what is being done on
the research side, on these critical issues where you can't
have rebuilding, you can't have--you can't even get access to
people. You can't get them back on line, and what we ought to
be looking at in that department.
Dr. Prevatt. I think that is the entire direction of the
Engineering School of Sustainable Infrastructure and
Environment at the University of Florida. That is our entire
mission. It is in several universities, resilience and
sustainability, the hallmarks of what we are doing in civil
engineering. Before we get to a sustainable society, we first
of all have to get a resilient one, one that is more robust,
and the research sometimes is fundamental to this. We do need
to better understand the loads. We do need to better understand
the structural properties of the buildings, the infrastructure,
the utilities, what have you, but, you know, I think we really
just need to decide, we really do need just to decide that we
want to live in a sustainable society, and we can do it. Yes,
it will cost some money, it will cost some time, but I
guarantee if you put engineers and scientists, social
scientists as well, on this case, we can do this in ten years.
It takes, you know, just that bold vision to go after it.
Ms. Esty. Well, I know some of the work, say, that Frances
Cairncross has done looking at multiple ways to address
climate-change issues and particularly with our populations
being increasingly concentrated on the coasts. We are seeing--
whatever it is attributable to, we are certainly seeing an
increase in more severe weather. So I think it is going to be
extremely important that we take this resilience line of
research quite seriously and address it as an extremely high
priority as we are extremely energy-dependent for everything
that we do. If we do not harden our systems, we have been
looking at cybersecurity but we also just need to look at
natural weather ability to bring down whole cities, and I am
quite concern that we not forget how critical that is. Just
look what happened in Staten Island, look what happened in New
York, and we do need to be emphasizing retrofitting, not just
new standards, but what are we going to do with major cities
that need to be retrofitted for the utilities.
Thanks very much. I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Bucshon. Thank you. I now ask unanimous consent to
recognize a member of the full Committee for questioning. If
there is no objection then, the Chair now recognizes Mr.
Neugebauer for five minutes.
Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would also
like to return the favor and yield a little of my time to Mr.
Schweikert from Arizona.
Mr. Schweikert. Thank you. I didn't know if I should object
there and then I could yield. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is Ms. Ballen?
Ms. Ballen. Ballen.
Mr. Schweikert. Ballen. Actually, Elizabeth was hitting a
point that I wanted to go to. We all live in a world where how
many of us right now will go out and buy a Volvo over a, is it
a Corvair? Any of us that are old enough to remember a Corvair,
you know, unsafe at any speed. But the fact of the matter is,
when you are buying a car today, aren't we also looking at the
Consumer Reports and saying hey, this is safe, my insurance is
cheaper. There is a price differential there driven by the
insurance industry that actually changes our purchasing
behavior. Why isn't that also the decision for those who are
purchasing residential real estate is our price differential
and our cost of insurance?
Ms. Ballen. That is an excellent question and one we ask
ourselves every single day. Our peer organization is the
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, and they showed the
way, how research and communications lead to safer cars and
people wanting them, and then you have enough people with these
cars that you really begin to see the difference in the losses,
and insurance companies respond to that.
Mr. Schweikert. But, you know, I understand for public
buildings and schools and those things, particularly those with
some Federal resources in them, we have a voice there. But if I
am out buying a residential property or getting ready to refit
or remodel and I--how many of us have bought a house and we
will fixate on small margins on the interest rate between one
lender and another? But if there is actual price differentials
understood in the market between I did these types of tie-downs
on my roof and this house doesn't have these sorts of tie-downs
so I am going to pay this sort of premium, isn't that the
ultimate solution here?
Ms. Ballen. That is the ultimate solution. The market is
the ultimate solution. It would be benefited by the kind of
research that we are talking about but ultimately people need
to want that. Now, I think the impediments are----
Mr. Schweikert. Well, the work is on incentives and
disincentives, so they want it; they just need to understand
there is a price difference.
Ms. Ballen. They need to understand that, yes, and the
building industry is much more complicated than the automobile
industry. There are thousands of builders out there versus, you
know, five or six or seven car companies. The guys that do it
are every roofer, you know----
Mr. Schweikert. Well, and only because my undergrad is in
real estate and my master's focus was in financing, the real
estate world is the life I grew up in. It is not the builders,
it is the consumer. And if you told me--if I came to you right
now and said hey, you buy this house because of the attributes,
you pay this interest rate, but if I bought this one I would
pay this interest rate, we all scream and go running to this
one. Why is it not the same in insurance? And Mr. Chairman, I
would like to yield to Mr. Neugebauer because I know he had a
little bit more on this.
Ms. Ballen. Okay.
Mr. Neugebauer. I thank the gentleman.
Dr. Kiesling, you know, one of the things that you
mentioned a while ago is that the winds of a tornado are much
different than a gust, vertical wind. So there are different
categories of events, all the way from, I guess, an F-0 to F-5
so there is probably--at this particular point in time the F-5
is just, we don't have the technology, you know, on an economic
basis to protect a home from an F-5 storm probably. So then if
we go just to the mitigation of life over property saying the
house doesn't make it, but there are things that you have done,
worked on of various degrees that are fairly affordable inside
that home of fortification. Could you just kind of cover a
little bit of what are some practical things that could be done
in the homes both retrofit and new construction?
Dr. Kiesling. Well, thank you for asking. I think from
early on we more or less adopted the approach that it is very
expensive to take a home of the type that we build today and
design it to resist the worst-case tornado. You can certainly
improve the performance and protect against severe damage from
the vast majority of even tornados because, as I said before,
the damage is caused by marginal wind speeds, but we adopted
the idea or the philosophy of providing occupant protection in
a small room, now called a safe room, because it is very
affordable to harden and stiffen a small room of a house to
provide near-absolute occupant protection. That might be a
closet, a pantry, a bathroom, and that is practical for new
construction, but the vast majority of safe rooms being
installed today are manufactured. They are steel boxes,
concrete boxes, timber boxes installed in a garage, on the slab
of a garage, and they are very affordable. There even those
shelters that are mounted under the slab. You can go in the
garage, cut out a section of a piece of the garage floor,
excavate, put a shelter under there and put a sliding door on
it so you provide protection without even losing a parking
space. There are many, many options available today, and I
would say for almost every situation or circumstances, it is
possible to design occupant protection from the worst-case
tornado, and we have a real problem with that right now with
public perception because there was so much bad publicity,
misinformation in Oklahoma about having to be underground to
survive an EF-5. That is simply a falsehood that should be
squelched.
But in answer to your question, I think there is a way to
protect life in a safe room very inexpensively, and I think we
must do the best we can in reducing the damage by improving the
buildings through building-code enforcement.
One other point that I would make that is different in the
automobile industry and in the home-building industry, both are
sensitive to initial cost but most of the houses are built
speculative today, and as you well know, the marketability of
housing is very, very sensitive to the initial cost, and not
only builders but I think homeowners too look at that initial
cost and resist any improvement that costs very much initially.
Chairman Bucshon. Thank you very much. At this point, I
would like to thank the witnesses for their testimony and the
Members for their questions. The Members of the Committee may
have additional questions for you, and we will ask that you
respond to those in writing. The record will remain open for
two weeks for additional comments and written questions from
the Members.
At this point the witnesses are excused. The hearing is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:17 a.m., the Subcommittees were
adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dr. Ernst Kiesling
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Responses by Ms. Debra Ballen
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Responses by Dr. David Prevatt
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Submitted statement by Representative Daniel Lipinski,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Research,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives
Thank you, Chairman Bucshon and Chairman Massie for holding today's
hearing to examine federal efforts to reduce the impacts of windstorms.
This is an incredibly important topic. Every year, severe winds
from hurricanes, tornadoes, and thunderstorms damage or destroy
thousands of homes and businesses, harm vital infrastructure, and, most
importantly, threaten human life. An average of 74 Americans have died
in tornadoes each year since 1983. My prayers go out to those in Moore,
Oklahoma as well as those outside of Oklahoma City, who are currently
dealing with this loss. We also cannot forget the more than 1,000
people who lost their lives in Hurricane Katrina.
The extent of property damage and economic losses from windstorms
vary widely, but since 2010, economic costs are well over a $100
billion dollars.The National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program or N-
WIRP has the potential to lessen the loss of life and economic damage
by translating research and development on the understanding of
windstorms and their impacts into improved building codes and emergency
planning.
In order for these efforts to be effective they cannot leave out
the most critical component--people. Understanding how people--such as
state and local officials, business owners, and individuals--make
decisions and respond to storm warnings is essential to designing
effective strategies to prepare for, respond to, and recover from a
disaster.
A recent survey by the National Center for Disaster Preparedness
accurately highlights this need. The survey found that most Americans
are unprepared for a major disaster and that they have a false sense of
security about what will happen if a major disaster occurs.
Specifically, more than half of the families surveyed had no
emergency plan in place for a hurricane or earthquake, and those who
had a plan lacked essential items to implement their plan like
flashlights and extra batteries. Even more unsettling is that one third
of the individuals surveyed believed that calling 911 after a major
disaster would bring them help within an hour. This is in stark
contrast to reality which shows that emergency responders are
overwhelmed after major disasters and communities often have to take
care of themselves for several days before help is able to arrive.
I mention this because I think it is important to remember that we
can perform all the engineering and natural science research we like,
but in the grand scheme of things if we don't have a clear
understanding of the human element in disaster mitigation,
preparedness, and response then those efforts may be for not.
We only have to look to Moore, Oklahoma for an example. Moore had
been hit by an EF5 tornado--the most powerful category--before, back in
May 1999. One of the myths about tornadoes is that they will not hit
the same city more than once. So when individuals are debating spending
the $2,500 to $5,000 on a shelter or the $4,000 to $12,000 on a safe
room, they are doing so thinking that another tornado will not hit and
therefore, the extra expense is probably unnecessary. In fact, of the
40 new homes constructed since that May 1999 storm, only six of them
contained a safe room.
Building disaster resilient communities will take an
interdisciplinary approach and that approach must include social
science research.