[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DISASTER MITIGATION: REDUCING COSTS AND SAVING LIVES
=======================================================================
(113-64)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 3, 2014
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
87-433 PDF WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee, Columbia
Vice Chair JERROLD NADLER, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida CORRINE BROWN, Florida
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
GARY G. MILLER, California ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
SAM GRAVES, Missouri RICK LARSEN, Washington
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
DUNCAN HUNTER, California MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
BOB GIBBS, Ohio ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York JOHN GARAMENDI, California
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida JANICE HAHN, California
JEFF DENHAM, California RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky DINA TITUS, Nevada
STEVE DAINES, Montana SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
TOM RICE, South Carolina ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
MARK SANFORD, South Carolina
DAVID W. JOLLY, Florida
------ 7
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency
Management
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania, Chairman
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
JOHN L. MICA, Florida ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas Columbia
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas, Vice Chair MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
MARK SANFORD, South Carolina DINA TITUS, Nevada
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
Officio) (Ex Officio)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ iv
TESTIMONY
David Miller, Associate Administrator, Federal Insurance and
Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency. 4
Hon. Linda Langston, president, National Association of Counties,
and supervisor, Linn County, Iowa.............................. 4
Bryan Koon, vice president, National Emergency Management
Association, and director, Florida Division of Emergency
Management..................................................... 4
Chad Berginnis, CFM, executive director, Association of State
Floodplain Managers............................................ 4
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
David Miller..................................................... 34
Hon. Linda Langston.............................................. 45
Bryan Koon....................................................... 55
Chad Berginnis, CFM.............................................. 62
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Hon. Linda Langston, president, National Association of Counties,
and supervisor, Linn County, Iowa:
Response to request for information from Hon. Mark Meadows, a
Representative in Congress from the State of North Carolina 21
Answer to question for the record from Hon. Lou Barletta, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania.. 53
Bryan Koon, vice president, National Emergency Management
Association, and director, Florida Division of Emergency
Management:
Response to request for information from Hon. Mark Meadows, a
Representative in Congress from the State of North Carolina 22
Answers to questions for the record from Hon. Lou Barletta, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania.. 60
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
DISASTER MITIGATION: REDUCING COSTS AND SAVING LIVES
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 3, 2014
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Economic Development,
Public Buildings, and Emergency Management,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lou Barletta
(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Barletta. The committee will come to order. Today's
hearing will focus on disaster mitigation and what communities
across the Nation can do to protect their homes and families
and reduce their costs, particularly as it relates to floods.
So, why are we having this hearing today, and why focus on
floods? Flooding is the number-one natural disaster in the
United States, costing the taxpayer, States, local communities,
and individual homeowners, and businesses billions of dollars
every year.
For example, in 2012 alone, the National Flood Insurance
Program, NFIP, paid more than $7.7 billion in flood insurance
claims. In 2012 and 2013 the Disaster Relief Fund spent nearly
$800 million just on flood-only disasters, and spent more than
$7 billion on disasters that involved heavy flooding from
hurricanes and tropical storms. And the Federal costs are only
a portion of the total costs, including the costs to
communities, individual homeowners and businesses.
Floods cost lives, property and communities. To give some
perspective, in the past 5 years, all 50 States have
experienced floods or flash floods. In 2013, out of the 62
major disaster declarations across the Nation, more than 41 of
them involved flooding.
In Pennsylvania, floods are the most prevalent type of
natural disaster. In 2011, Tropical Storm Lee hit Pennsylvania
just a week and a half after Hurricane Irene, causing flooding
that resulted in loss of life, homes destroyed, and an
estimated $1 billion in damages in Pennsylvania alone.
While the committee does not have jurisdiction over the
insurance policies and premiums, there are real and practical
steps communities and individuals can take to protect their
homes and their families from floods, and at the same time
reduce their costs and insurance premiums. And that is what we
are focusing on today.
Disaster mitigation has been proven to reduce the risks in
disasters, including floods. At the Federal level, there are
programs that can help States and communities mitigate against
disasters. For example, the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program,
the Pre-Disaster Mitigation program, as well as the Hazard
Mitigation Assistance Program help offset the costs of
mitigation across the Nation. That is why I am concerned the
administration's proposed budget for fiscal year 2015 removes
the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program funding out of FEMA's base
budget. Recently, I, along with Ranking Member Carson and other
Members of Congress, wrote a letter to the appropriators making
clear continued funding for this program is critical.
Why do we invest in these programs, and why are they so
important? Studies have shown that for every dollar we invest
in mitigation, the taxpayer saves $3 to $4 in disaster
assistance.
But, in addition to these programs, communities can take
practical steps to reduce their flood risk through programs
like the Community Rating System or ``CRS.'' CRS specifically
is designed to engage communities in mitigating against
flooding. Communities that participate in the CRS program can
see their insurance premiums reduced anywhere from 5 to 45
percent, and at the same time actually reduce their risk from
flooding, protecting their families and property from
devastation.
CRS works on a rating system based on the mitigation
activities completed by participating communities. As
communities take steps to improve their ratings, their costs
decrease, including their insurance premiums. For example, in
the program, communities are rated 9 to 1, 1 being the highest.
With a rating of 9, a community can see a 5-percent reduction
in their insurance rates under NFIP. A rating of 1 can result
in a reduction of 45 percent. These are real and tangible
savings to individual property owners.
Today I hope to hear how these programs are being used and
can be used by communities in Pennsylvania and across the
Nation to help alleviate some of the burden and costs of
disasters and insurance premiums.
Mitigation is critical. It is critical to saving lives,
critical to reducing overall costs of disasters, and critical
to homeowners and businesses.
After Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee, I remember
standing in front of one family's home, which had river water
flowing more than a foot deep on its second floor. Most of this
family's possessions were piled onto the sidewalk. Some were
still dripping wet. The mother looked at her children's toys,
ruined by the flood. She pointed to one little toy and said to
me, ``How can the Government put a price on that? My son played
with that. Those are memories. How can you put a price on
that?''
She is right. We cannot put a price tag on memories. But we
can mitigate against floods so that when the next big storm,
the next big flood comes, these communities are as prepared as
possible, so that their homes are built better, and families do
not have to watch irreplaceable photographs and heirlooms get
washed away.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, and I
thank you all for being here.
I now call on ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr.
Carson, for a brief opening statement.
Mr. Carson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, good morning,
welcome, to our witnesses. Chairman Barletta, thank you for
working with me to schedule today's hearing on how disaster
mitigation can save lives and reduce costs. I also want to
acknowledge our ranking member emeritus, certainly an American
icon, the honorable Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton.
Now, before we begin, I want to extend my thoughts and
condolences to those who have lost loved ones in the mudslide
in Oso, Washington. Now, while nothing we do here can end your
grief, I want everyone to know that we stand ready to help
however we can. And I think we should also recognize the rescue
workers, including the National Guard and Urban Search and
Rescue teams who have dutifully and admirably performed this
difficult task, despite those terrible conditions.
So, Mr. Chairman, if you don't object, very quickly I would
like for us to take a quick moment of silence to recognize the
losses in Washington.
[A moment of silence was observed.]
Mr. Carson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today our Nation is at
a critical junction. In recent years we have seen strong storms
with greater frequency. This results in increased vulnerability
for our citizens and property. For years we have seen areas
damaged by disaster rebuilt, only to be damaged later again.
There is no doubt that, across the country, our constituents
will continue to face floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, and other
disasters. Unless something is done now, this cycle of build,
damage, and rebuild will continue. The result will be large
bills for taxpayers that might have been avoided with proper
preparation.
Members of our committee know that we must support
mitigation programs to break this cycle. This is why I also
introduced H.R. 3282, to reauthorize the pre-disaster
mitigation programs for 5 years at its last authorized level of
$200 million. And we want to encourage our other colleagues to
join us in supporting this critical bill.
I also want to thank the 54 bipartisan Members who joined
Chairman Barletta and me in sending a letter to the
Appropriations Committee this week. We urged them to fund pre-
disaster mitigation programs sufficiently to actually implement
mitigation programs.
Independent studies have shown that mitigation saves
taxpayers money. This year, the President's Budget requested
approximately $7 billion for the Disaster Relief Fund, which
will be used to assist with disaster response and recovery. The
more we invest in pre-disaster mitigation, the less will be
needed in the future for disaster response and recovery.
Because of the Sandy Relief Implementation Act, States now have
up to 25 percent of their hazard mitigation grants available
soon after a disaster. Now, I hope that this encourages
communities to incorporate mitigation strategies into their
rebuilding process.
In this hearing it is very important for us to remember
that a major part of mitigation is community buy-in. Community
support and participation is absolutely critical to ensuring
effective mitigation strategies are undertaken. One of the
challenges we face is how to encourage those who will be
affected the most to take the necessary steps to prepare for
future disasters. This is a difficult choice, because it costs
more money upfront than many case afford. And, finally, we are
interested in learning more about any strategies that may be
available to really educate developers, in particular, and
others about the importance of safe building practices and
other strategies.
So, we welcome today's testimony as we consider this
important topic. And thank you to the witnesses for your
testimony.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you, Ranking Member Carson. On our
panel today we have Mr. David Miller, Associate Administrator
for the Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
Federal Emergency Management Agency; the Honorable Linda
Langston, president of the National Association of Counties,
and supervisor of Linn County, Iowa; Mr. Bryan Koon, director
of Florida Division of Emergency Management, testifying on
behalf of the National Emergency Management Association; and
Mr. Chad Berginnis, executive director, Association of State
Floodplain Managers.
I ask unanimous consent that our witnesses' full statements
be included in the record.
[No response.]
Mr. Barletta. Without objection, so ordered. Since your
written testimony has been made a part of the record, the
subcommittee would request that you limit your oral testimony
to 5 minutes.
Mr. Miller, you may proceed.
TESTIMONY OF DAVID MILLER, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL
INSURANCE AND MITIGATION ADMINISTRATION, FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY; HON. LINDA LANGSTON, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES, AND SUPERVISOR, LINN COUNTY, IOWA;
BRYAN KOON, VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
ASSOCIATION, AND DIRECTOR, FLORIDA DIVISION OF EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT; AND CHAD BERGINNIS, CFM, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
ASSOCIATION OF STATE FLOODPLAIN MANAGERS
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Barletta,
Ranking Member Carson, and members of the subcommittee, thank
you for having us here today. I am David Miller, the Associate
Administrator for the Federal Insurance and Mitigation
Administration at the Department of Homeland Security's Federal
Emergency Management Agency. I am here to discuss FEMA's
mitigation programs and how we educate, incentive, and fund
State, local, tribal, and territorial efforts to build stronger
communities that, collectively, create a Nation more resilient
to an increasing number and intensity of hazards.
The benefits of effective mitigation are well established.
Mitigation supports a more rapid recovery from disasters and
lessens the financial impact of these events on the Nation.
Mitigation saves money; one study by the Multihazard Mitigation
Council cites a return of $4 for every dollar invested.
Collectively, it has been estimated that mitigation programs
annually save the American public $3.4 billion in losses
avoided.
Investments in mitigation also serve to buy down risk,
meaning that making positive changes lowers the probability of
risk, and makes communities safer and more resilient. Buying
down risk is critically important, as a higher percentage of
our population is living in vulnerable areas than ever before.
FEMA has made significant strides in the last 3 years in
the area of mitigation, bringing the larger mitigation
community together around shared doctrine; partnering with
governments at all levels; and giving communities the funding,
tools, and information they need to make informed, data-driven
decisions that minimize the risks they have identified. This
work was bolstered in 2011 with the release of Presidential
Policy Directive 8 on National Preparedness.
This directive defined the mitigation mission area, and
required the development of the National Mitigation Framework.
In turn, the framework established the Mitigation Framework
Leadership Group. The MitFLG, as we call it, is a senior-level
group that works to coordinate national-level mitigation
activities and implement policies in consultation with Federal
agencies and State, local, tribal, and territorial governments.
Among other important work, the MitFLG is currently
developing a consistent Federal flood risk management standard
for Federal funds in recovery that are being used for
rebuilding, and that may be applied to future disasters.
As the committee is aware, FEMA oversees and manages a
number of grant programs to support mitigation efforts. You
have already talked about the hazard mitigation grant program,
pre-disaster mitigation grants, and the flood mitigation
assistance programs. These programs have assisted governments
in rebuilding and building stronger and more resilient
communities.
In Indiana, FEMA recently awarded more than $1.6 million in
HMGP funding to acquire 33 homes, as well as to bolster warning
systems and update mitigation plans for several communities. In
Pennsylvania, FEMA recently approved more than $9 million on
HMGP funding to acquire 89 homes, all of which were
substantially damaged, and were in special flood hazard areas.
Through effective mitigation, families in these homes chose
to relocate out of harm's way, making way for open space that
benefits their local communities, and stopping the damage-
rebuild-damage cycle.
The President's fiscal year 2015 budget request includes
$400 million for pre-disaster mitigation efforts through the
Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative. These grants are
designed to assist communities in the implementation of a
sustained pre-disaster natural hazard mitigation grant program.
These funds will buy down future risks by augmenting adaptation
planning, and helping communities prepare for events such as
wildfire, floods, and other disasters that could be exacerbated
by an ever-changing climate.
In support of the President's Executive order and climate
change action plan, FEMA has a leading role in helping prepare
the Nation for the future impacts of climate change, including
considering rising sea levels, the increasing frequency,
intensity, and duration of storms, and the increasing
unpredictability of drought and wet conditions and cycles. As
we work to reduce risk nationally, and address both hazards and
threats, we must incorporate climate change into our data
collection, knowledge transfer, and mitigation planning, so we
are working towards that goal.
Specifically, FEMA is working to integrate adaptation into
its approach, and also the approaches of the larger Federal
Government. To do this, the Agency is expanding its knowledge
base and support for those who take on the challenge of climate
adaptation.
You also mentioned the Community Rating System. Currently
we have almost 1,300 communities participating in the CRS
program, which represents 67 percent of the National Flood
Insurance policyholders.
In conclusion, successful mitigation efforts are a shared
responsibility, requiring an engagement with all levels of
society and the Government. Moving forward, we will continue to
focus on strengthening our data analytics, while setting
priorities that will help us mitigate and buy down our future
risk. FEMA's commitment to ensuring the success of these
efforts rests in the fact that, ultimately--they ultimately
result in more resilient communities and collectively make us
stronger and more prepared, as a Nation.
Thank you for providing me this opportunity to discuss
these important issues. I look forward to your questions.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Miller.
And, Ms. Langston, I know you have a lot of experience in
flooding in your community, so I look forward to your
testimony. You may proceed.
Ms. Langston. Thank you, Chairman Barletta, Ranking Member
Carson, and members of the subcommittee, for the opportunity to
testify today. I am Linda Langston, and a county supervisor in
Linn County, Iowa. I serve also as the president of the
National Association of Counties, which represents over 3,000
county governments in the U.S.
Counties play a key role in our Nation's intergovernmental
system, and we are a major owner of facilities and
infrastructure, including 45 percent of America's roads, and
nearly 40 percent of bridges. Counties play a critical role in
justice, public safety, maintaining county police and sheriff
departments, and investing over $70 billion in justice and
public safety services. Nationwide, counties invest nearly $500
billion each year to pursue community policies that enable
economic and community development, safeguard citizens, and
provide a variety of community investments, public health, and
well-being.
As president of NACo, I have implemented a resilient
counties initiative to help bolster their ability to thrive in
the ever-shifting physical, social, and economic conditions.
This includes preparation for and recovery from natural and
man-made disasters.
As you noted, having personally survived a flood, both
personally and leading my county's response to the 2008 floods,
which had about 10 square miles under water, I recognize that
there are three key mitigation efforts that must take place in
counties across America.
Proactive county planning is the cornerstone of flood
mitigation efforts. Counties with land use authority are using
it to encourage safe new development. McKenzie County, North
Dakota, with 6,300 residents, does not allow construction in
the special flood hazard area, and requires additional
standards-related anchoring, construction materials, and
elevation.
Structural protections, like levees or dams, restore
natural systems such as wetlands. Places such as Fairfax,
Virginia, have a levee and pumping station project that is
scheduled to be completed in the spring of 2019. Lee County,
Florida, and Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, are engaged in
wetland restoration projects. In contrast to building structure
protections, Black Hawk County, in my own home State, is
engaged in buying out repetitive loss properties. It has
accumulated $5.34 million in avoided damages, at a cost at this
point of $4.3 million.
Counties are participating in the National Flood Insurance
Program's Community Rating System. King County, Washington,
with over 2 million residents, is one of only two counties in
the country with a CRS rating of two, which, as you noted,
results in a 40-percent discount to those in the special flood
hazard area. It was the first county in the Nation to achieve
this rating. CRS communities like King County are able to
educate residents on flood risk and mitigate flood impacts,
while lowering insurance premiums.
The key to building and preparing and managing a disaster
begins, I believe, by building relationships beforehand. So
when a disaster happens, resources can be deployed quickly and
efficiently through established networks, and pre-assigned
roles and responsibilities. My own county board meets as a
hazard mitigation committee. And, through this, we are more
aware of the challenges facing us. Counties play a key role in
facilitating these critical relationships, not just within our
local jurisdictions, but between our State and Federal
partners.
Federal programs like HMGP program, or the pre-disaster
mitigation grants, are invaluable to counties that are
recovering from and proactively planning for disaster. We are
pleased the Sandy Recovery Act recognized the value of HMGP by
streamlining procedures, and allowing the advancement of funds.
Counties play an important role in communication, both pre
and post-disaster, including educational--educating people
about risk of exposure. While in this room, probably everyone
understands the term ``100-year flood.'' When I mention this
term to people at home and elsewhere, if they have experienced
a flood event, they believe they will not need flood insurance
because they don't expect to live another 100 years. I would
actually be 3,000 years old, based on the number of floods that
I have occurred in my personal and professional life. I am
either looking really good, or there is a problem.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Langston. So, I explain to people that a 100-year flood
means that during the life of their mortgage, there is a 25-
percent chance that they are going to flood, and that changes
the equation. It will take time and good education that must be
continuous, to help people recognize and appreciate their risk.
People's memories are short. As a county supervisor, it is
imperative that we educate people about risk, because it is the
first step to disaster mitigation. And it is in appreciating
that risk that they can make good decisions. Education is key.
And on behalf of the Nation's counties, I want to thank
you, Chairman Barletta, Ranking Member Carson, and the members
of the committee for holding this hearing on disaster
mitigation, and will look forward to questions. Thank you.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Mr.
Koon, you may now proceed.
Mr. Koon. Thank you and good morning, Chairman Barletta,
Ranking Member Carson, and distinguished members of the panel.
My name is Bryan Koon, and I am director of the Florida
Division of Emergency Management, and vice president of the
National Emergency Management Association.
Over the years, Congress has authorized and appropriated
significant financial and technical assistance to State and
local governments to preempt damages and distress that result
from natural disasters. Mitigation has done a good job at
reducing the need for disaster response, and the overall cost
of disasters. Done right, it prevents benefits throughout the
life cycle, stimulating the local economy long past the
construction phase of the project. It produces resilient and
vibrant communities, attracting businesses, jobs, people,
schools, and investment.
I have witnessed the countless benefits of a strong
mitigation program. While there are many good mitigation
success stories, continual improvement is critical to building
a stronger program that will lessen the impact of disasters,
lower their cost, and protect more citizens. To truly reduce
the cost to Americans, both in dollars and life safety, we need
to accelerate the programs that exist today and find ways to
make them more successful.
The framework and structures are there. We need to dedicate
the appropriate resources, eliminate those friction points that
discourage participation, and demonstrate the return on
investment and move it closer to the expenditure of the effort.
I will use, as an example, the nexus between mitigation, the
National Flood Insurance Program, and the Community Rating
System in Florida.
Thirty-seven percent of the Nation's flood policies are in
Florida, and nearly half of the State's NFIP communities go
above and beyond the program's requirements, earning their
policyholders additional discounts between 5 and 25 percent, by
taking mitigative actions credited by the higher standards of
the CRS. This saves Floridians $191 million in flood insurance
premiums every year and develops well-prepared and disaster-
resistant communities. However, 53 percent of Florida's
communities do not participate in CRS; nationwide, only a
dismal 6 percent of NFIP communities participate.
Why is this? Here is what our members say, as well as some
recommendations to improve.
First, it is the smaller communities that are left out.
Applying for and maintaining standing in the CRS programs
requires significant staff time. And the smaller the community,
the further down the priority list it becomes for that employee
for whom this is a collateral duty. In addition to reviewing
the administrative requirements for entry, FEMA should follow
the success it has had with the program administration by
States and apply it to CRS, allowing States to verify
compliance and get communities enrolled through the 5- and 10-
percent discount categories.
Secondly, there is a lack of awareness by individuals about
the CRS program; consequently, a lack of awareness by elected
officials. Without the appropriate level of support and
oversight by local officials, the effort needed to enroll and
maintain CRS standing is not adequate to make significant
gains. We need to do a better job educating Americans about the
impact of disasters and proven ways to help defray those costs.
In addition to CRS, the establishment of tax-exempt disaster
savings account to pay the expenses of home owners for disaster
mitigation and recovery expenses, as proposed by Congressman
Dennis Ross and Senator Inhofe, would incentivize homeowners to
take additional actions to protect their home and property,
further reducing the cost of disasters.
Third, administrative hurdles and roadblocks prevent
advancement in the CRS program. For example, in order to move
from a Class 5 25-percent discount to a Class 4 30-percent
discount, a community has to produce a stormwater management
plan. While this is a worthy goal, it is a complex, timely, and
expensive effort. As a result, only 12 of the 22,000 NFIP
communities are CRS Class 4 or better. Many hit this wall and
progressed no further, causing them to take no further
mitigation efforts. FEMA should identify and remove or modify
such restrictions to improvement.
And finally, the program is too slow. The CRS FAQ states
that it may take 18 months to enter the program once a
community submits a letter of interest. This is unacceptable,
and additional resources should be applied to accelerate entry
into progression in the program.
Helping communities develop comprehensive flood plain
management programs through participation in the CRS will
reduce flood loss. Florida's goal is to enroll every community
in the CRS program, and we are dedicating State resources in
order to do so. FEMA should have the same goal across the
country, because it will reduce flood loss expenditures,
improve resilience, and add to the culture of mitigation it
helped create. This will require a thorough analysis of how to
make our current programs work better, and the application of
additional resources, where necessary. The results will be well
worth the effort.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Koon. Mr.
Berginnis, you may proceed.
Mr. Berginnis. Good morning. I am Chad Berginnis, executive
director of the Association of State Floodplain Managers, and
we are pleased to offer our thoughts related to the value of
hazard mitigation to the Nation, and how we can improve our
collective national mitigation effort.
Thank you, Chairman Barletta, Ranking Member Carson, and
this subcommittee, for its longstanding and continuing
affirmation that hazard mitigation is an effective pathway to
reducing disaster losses. Time and again, this subcommittee has
introduced, evaluated, and refined Federal mitigation
strategies, resulting in the solid framework that exists today
that gives State and local officials many tools to deal with
the ever-increasing problems of natural disasters and,
specifically, flooding. ASFPM's 15,000 members and 35 chapters
are the country's practitioners who work with flood hazard
mitigation programs on a daily basis.
According to NOAA's National Climate Data Center, the U.S.
has experienced 151 weather and climate disasters since 1980,
where the overall damages exceeded $1 billion. The total cost
of these events exceeded $1 trillion. Of that total, we have
had 32 such events in the past 3 years. With today's advanced
modeling capabilities, for example, we know that we can see
disasters on the magnitude of Katrina or beyond. The ARkStorm
scenario for the Sacramento area is based on a flood event
similar to which occurred in California in 1861, would result
in three-quarters of a trillion dollars in damage if that event
happened today.
Population trends and climate change are increasing the
Nation's vulnerability. And as cost of disasters continue to
rise, governments and citizens must find ways to reduce risks
from all hazards, but especially natural hazards.
``Floods are an act of God, but flood losses are largely an
act of man,'' was a statement made by the late Dr. Gilbert
White, who is also known as the Father of Flood Plain
Management. Whether it be floods or other hazards, the only way
we can reduce these disaster losses in the near and long term
is through hazard mitigation. We have the ability to reduce
these losses.
Hazard mitigation must be a joint effort among all level of
governments, individuals, and the private sector. Everybody
must do their part, and it is important that you know the
Federal Government's investment in hazard mitigation is being
supplemented by many State and local investments, as well. The
Village of South Holland, Illinois, is one such community. They
have established a unique mitigation rebate program available
to all property owners residing in the village who wish to
complete flood control projects within their home.
We have seen communities pass sales tax and income tax
increases to fund mitigation outright, or match Federal funds.
And, at the State level, many communities, including
California, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ohio, New Jersey, and South
Carolina, have their own unique hazard mitigation programs, or
a tradition of matching Federal mitigation funds. Such programs
should be encouraged, incentivized, and increased. States and
communities should not depend entirely on the Federal
Government to address their natural hazard risk.
I do want to talk about a couple of key mitigation
activities that would be within this committee's jurisdiction
to address, as it relates to Federal mitigation programs. Our
written testimony has a lengthy list of recommendations that
are both within and outside of the committee's jurisdiction.
But I want to focus on two areas: pre-disaster mitigation and
speeding up mitigation assistance under the Stafford Act.
Like the committee leadership, ASFPM also shares the
concern over the elimination of PDM. And we are very
disappointed that over the last several years, time and again,
FEMA has chosen to zero-out this important program in light of
mitigation demand being unprecedented, and a new driver of that
demand, which is NFIP reform, is now present. We have invested
significant resources in hazard mitigation planning, so that
now over 19,000 communities have adopted those plans, and they
depend upon PDM as one source of funding to update those plans.
And it is especially critical in States that do not receive
large or frequent disaster declarations where they can use the
HMGP program.
And when PDM is the proposed delivery vehicle for the $400
million in competitive grants to State, local, and tribal
governments through the President's Opportunity, Growth, and
Security Initiative, we are puzzled why the program continues
to be slated for elimination.
State mitigation leaders in several States have told us
that, even with disaster declarations, the small amount can be
used for mitigation planning. They will be hard-pressed to help
communities to maintain those plans.
The committee has done much work in helping speed up
Federal mitigation assistance, but I would submit that what we
need to look at it speeding up the initiation of mitigation
projects, as opposed to limiting the overall timeframe for
funding to be spent.
What outcome are we striving for? Wouldn't it be nice if
you, as Members of Congress, didn't have to pass supplemental
disaster appropriation bills after a major hurricane or flood
strikes? Or at least deal with a much smaller bill. Hazard
mitigation can take us to the point that, when the next
disaster occurs, damage is minimized, cleanup is quick, and
people get back to their lives quickly, and with minimal
disruption.
As one of my colleagues says, ``We should be starting
mitigation when the fish is still flopping on the couch.''
Thank you.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you, Mr. Berginnis. I will now begin
the first round of questions, limited to 5 minutes for each
Member. If there are additional questions following the first
round, we will have additional rounds of questions, as needed.
Mr. Miller, we are focusing today on practical steps
communities can take to lower their costs and premiums. The
FEMA's Community Rating System that we talked about, CRS
program, is a voluntary program that allows communities to
engage in certain mitigation activities that will lower their
flood risk and, in essence, buy down their insurance premiums.
Can you talk generally about the specifics of the program, and
why it is beneficial for communities to participate?
Mr. Miller. Yes, sir. As you spoke, probably the most
evident beneficial piece of the CRS, is to buy down flood
premiums, community-wide. We would like to think that the
bigger effort, though, is to reduce the risk in the community.
And it starts with education processes.
One of the first things that happens in the CRS program is
we go do a community assistance visit to establish, in effect,
the baseline that they are starting from. In many cases, they
meet that first standard just by doing the public education
pieces that buy down some risk.
But after that, as everybody has pointed out, the effort
becomes more stringent, and requires investment, and sometimes
considerable investment for the community. We talk about
effective flood plain regulation, and those that go beyond the
pale. We have restrictions currently in the NFIP about how we
build, where we build, and the permitting processes. This
builds that up a piece. It also recognizes more stringent
building codes, and those efforts. But those become permitting
processes that agencies go through. They take other effective
measures to protect their communities, whether it is building
structural or nonstructural projects that mitigate loss. Those
count in the CRS program.
Recently, we went through in the last year and re-evaluated
all the things that counted for CRS. One of the parts is now
that we have a history of what has been most effective. At the
same time, in doing the realignment, we didn't penalize
communities that had already reached a level--we are giving a
transition period because the point system changed. So it
wasn't to penalize, but it was to update and move to a more
effective mitigation, based on our history and experience.
Mr. Barletta. Now, currently, Mr. Miller, 1,273
communities, representing 67 percent of all NFIP flood
insurance policies are participating in CRS. How does a
community not currently in the program apply, and what are some
of the basic requirements for entering?
Mr. Miller. I would need to get back to you on some of the
basic requirements. The application process basically is
telling us you are interested in it.
I think one of the ones that shy communities away is this
community assistance visit, and the statement of where they are
in their mitigation efforts, and the risks that are there in
the community. It is an evaluative process. For instance, in
New York, we had a discussion of participating in the CRS by
New York City. The other question was could they come in
borough-by-borough. Well, right now our rules are about cities.
But I know one of the things that weighed on their minds was
this establishment, this visit that says, ``How do we get
through this? Look at the documentation where we are, so we
know starting points.''
But then it is about the investment that is considered as
they went through. And in some cases, it represents thousands
of dollars in small communities. But in other communities, it
can represent millions of dollars to be involved in the
program.
It requires some design. When we met with officials in
Oregon, they found it was very, very much to their benefit to
move in certain areas, and the benefit of their community. But
to get to a level one was going to be cost prohibitive for
them, and they weren't seeing the return on that investment. It
does cause us to relook the CRS, it does cause us to look at
those mitigated benefits. But the community investment, the
community discussion, the expression in interest, where their
baseline is, and that investment is an important part to the
equation.
Mr. Barletta. Ms. Langston, out of the more than 1,200
communities in the CRS program, only one has the highest
rating, with the 45-percent discount on their insurance
premiums. In Pennsylvania we have 25 communities in the
program, and the highest discount is 20 percent.
Now, Mr. Koon, you talked about what some of the hurdles
were. Ms. Langston, can you talk about what some of the hurdles
are, and how can--what can communities do to improve their
rating? And how do they overcome them?
Ms. Langston. Well, first, I think, as Mr. Koon noted,
especially in smaller communities it can be a challenge, just
in terms of time, and the reality, as Mr. Miller has noted,
thinking about a visit.
I know my county is a participant in CRS. We are, sadly,
one of the only counties in Iowa that is doing that. And we are
encouraging some of our fellow counties to come on. It does
take the work of really looking at your stormwater management
plan, your engagement plan. And I think, in the land of local
government, we are stressed to do more with less right now, and
that oftentimes makes these arenas difficult.
So, it really does become about an education effort. And
when the discount is relatively small--5, 10, even 15 percent--
it may not be seen as enough of a motivation. If you can do the
work that actually gets you to the 30, the 40 percent, then you
actually have people in your community who say, ``Sign me up.''
So I think that is the balance that we face in this, is trying
to make it accessible enough.
I also think there are opportunities for, whether city or
county, to do more. It is really that education effort that
makes a difference.
Mr. Barletta. Mr. Berginnis, can you add anything that you
see as a hurdle, or what they can do to improve their ratings?
Mr. Berginnis. Yes, certainly. In terms of strategies on
improving--and I will actually turn to my good friend, Mr.
Koon, in Florida, and emphasize something that was really
groundbreaking that the State of Florida did at the State
level, is hiring a CRS coordinator at the State level. That is
something that States could do. They do have capacity through
their State flood plain management offices. They build
capability through assistance, through a community assistance
program.
But what those States here, as coordinators, can do is they
can also look and obtain credit, what are called uniform State
credits, that then help any community in that State, when they
join the CRS, to have better scoring changes. And we think that
is a good possibility.
If your small or rural communities--I have been in the
flood plain management--State flood plain management office
where I have done those community visits, and I have worked
with rural communities that way, as well--and communities might
want to think about banding together regionally, and perhaps
securing a CRS coordinator resource that way.
Another idea might be a new use for the pre-disaster
mitigation program. And a new and unique use, and maybe a gap
here, is to allow, from an eligibility standpoint, projects
that would help build CRS capability at a local level, at least
to get that--provide that seed money to get communities through
the application process.
So, those might be a few strategies. Thank you.
Mr. Barletta. Mr. Koon, do you have anything to add to what
you have already testified to?
Mr. Koon. Yes, sir. I think one of the things that we are
trying to accomplish in Florida--and perhaps other States could
do as well--is, as Mr. Berginnis said, get enough points at the
State level to apply to that uniform minimum standard, so that
those smaller communities could take advantage of all of those
points available at the State level to get them enrolled in the
program. And that will spur further interest to drive them to
do additional work at the local level.
So, if the State can get above, say, the 500 points
necessary to achieve the Class 9 5-percent discount,
automatically enroll, or allow the State to automatically
enroll those communities, that gets the conversation started.
That gets them aware of the program, into the program, and then
they will start thinking about how to reach that 10 percent, 15
percent, and additional discounts.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you. I would like to now recognize
Ranking Member Carson for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Carson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Miller, as part of the fiscal year 2015 budget, the
President is proposing a pre-disaster mitigation fund. During
the budget briefings with staff, FEMA personnel indicated that
this is being called a pre-disaster mitigation fund, but it is
completely different from the existing mitigation program,
which funds mitigation projects before a disaster even occurs.
Please explain for us, sir, the differences between the
existing program and the proposed program, as well as provide
some examples of the type of projects that are currently
eligible for the existing PDM program that would no longer be
eligible.
Mr. Miller. Thank you. I think one of the big differences
is the focus. In the President making the announcement, the
focus really focuses on climate change and climate adaptation
strategies.
One of the criticisms of FEMA, even in our mitigation
program, although it is about mitigating against future losses,
is the data and the analytic that we often use is historical in
its view. We are always mitigating against yesterday's event.
What I think the new effort is to do is to mitigate against
future events, and give a better look to the science that
projects into the future. Now, a lot of that science, a lot of
that data, is less precise than what we would normally allow in
the program. One of the issues that would come up under the new
PDM is how do we get to a different benefit cost analysis that
allows a more future look. There is a lot of work in that area.
But I think the key difference is it is focused more on the
climate, climate adaptation strategies, even though they have
an overall mitigated value.
One of the other things that has always concerned us as we
walk through projects is a lot of times what we do, especially
when things aren't cost beneficial, we actually penalize
communities by taking advance measures, because we won't fund
them. Under the public assistance program, if you wanted an
alternative product or--alternative project or an advanced
project, it might not be eligible. This changes that equation.
It is a greater partnership between us and public assistance.
It is a way to do pre-disaster mitigation with a completely
future look. So, while the mechanism would be the PDM grant
mechanisms, I think the look of PDM would change, and it would
have that deeper analytic for a future projection.
Mr. Carson. Thank you. Madam Langston, for years the
committee has held hearings on the benefits of mitigation. And
all of us here today recognize the need of benefits of
mitigation. Yet, it seems that some communities are still
resistant to undertaking mitigation activities, even if
incentives are provided.
So, as a local community representative, what do you
think--why do you think other communities are so resistant to
mitigation activities, even when the evidence overwhelmingly
shows that lives and money are being saved?
Ms. Langston. I would say that this hails back to the issue
of education. At the local level, we have many counties--I
would say even within cities--whose property tax levels are
constrained. And within that constrained environment, taking
mitigation efforts where you spend minimal dollars--and you
have to get community buy-in--can be something of a challenge
at the local level.
So, as I noted before, I think a lot of it is within the
realm of education, and being very specific about what the
risks are. So, to Mr. Miller's comments, in my own home
community we have looked at the flood risk. We are trying to
not only advance buy-outs, but we are also trying to do flood
walls.
The response that we got from the community for two rounds
of using a sales tax to build flood walls was to turn it down,
albeit by a very small amount. The community said they didn't
think it would ever happen again. Now, partially, that could be
our fault, that we were not clear enough in doing the future
forecasting that Mr. Miller spoke about. It hasn't happened
that much in the past, so why would it happen in the future?
Why should we spent all of this money and time?
The secondary part, I would say--and we worked very hard to
build our partnerships with, for instance, the home builders.
And developers put a lot of pressure on local officials in
their zoning laws. So when you seek to not only do mitigation
itself, but you seek to put the zoning in place that requires
people to build out of or further away from flood hazards, it
is seen as an attractive place, and home builders want to do
that. So that takes a long-time effort in local communities,
building the kinds of partnerships that people see this as a
value. Having open space next to rivers is a valuable thing.
Parks are good. And that is where our community is going, is
turning that entire area next to the river to greenways. That
takes a lot of relationship-building.
So, I think it is really--it is a time issue, and it is
about having your local officials, who are committed to
building those kinds of relationships that really have the
longer view in a community. Thank you.
Mr. Carson. Thank you, ma'am.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you. The Chair would now like to
recognize Ms. Norton, who is the former ranking member of this
committee, and currently the ranking member of the Subcommittee
on Highways and Transit.
Ms. Norton. Well, first, let me thank you, Chairman
Barletta and Ranking Member Carson, for this hearing. This is a
very important and, I think, timely hearing. And may I ask the
ranking member if I might be added to his bill? I commend him
for it.
Mr. Carson. It would be more than an honor, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, this is one of my
favorite programs that the Congress has. It is--but it is a
very rare example of the Congress being able to fund before the
fact. We just don't do that. Congress, of course, has an annual
appropriation process; that may be one of the reasons. But it
almost never funds to save. It insists on funding with a great
deal more required after something has happened. It need not
even be a disaster. Whatever it is, it has to have happened.
Its effect, though, on communities now, we have to begin to
take account of. If for $500 million invested you can get $1.6
billion in return, if you were a private investor, you couldn't
resist that. Only the Federal Government could resist that, and
it continues to do so, and it is very bothersome.
Indeed, I have to ask you, Mr. Miller. Apparently, this
program is being revamped. I commend you in the way you are
looking at the new kinds of disasters, climate-change disasters
we are having. But how could you revamp the program for the era
of climate change with the same amount of money, no increases
in funds? How do you justify that?
Mr. Miller. The fact is, ma'am, we are in those tight
budget times. And you are right, they ask for mitigation, the
investment of mitigation. The requirement that we hear from our
communities far exceeds the funding that we have. A lot of the
answer that we are looking for is how do we streamline our
efforts, remove some of the road blocks of use of funds, and
where is the best place for investment.
Ms. Norton. Remove some of the what? I am sorry.
Mr. Miller. The road blocks to funding. We have looked at
the Administration processes, and streamlining through our
grants process. So whether it is the hazard mitigation grant
program that comes after a disaster, whether it is the flood
mitigation assistance programs that come with severe repetitive
and repetitive loss under the flood insurance fund, whatever
those programs are, we are working to streamline them, make the
application processes easier, and get the money out faster.
Ms. Norton. Are you saying that all of that is going to
produce savings in some way? I am trying to figure out how you
are going to do what you clearly understand has to be done with
the same funding at--that we have had before, when there was
less understanding.
So you talk about savings. Are those savings going to be
applied to this program?
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Ms. Norton. So it is going to be more than $400 million
when it is all over.
Mr. Miller. Well, the $400 million proposed, ma'am, is yet
to come. It is in the President's Budget.
Ms. Norton. Yes.
Mr. Miller. The plan is what are we going to do with it if
we get it. And if we get it, it will come through the PDM----
Ms. Norton. What is the present funding?
Mr. Miller. The present fund, under PDM, as the vice chair
has pointed out, is zeroed in the President's Budget. Congress,
last year, put in $25 million nationwide in that budget. It has
been as high as, I think, $100 million or a little over $150
million in previous years.
I think one of the questions that always came up was the
ability to execute funds. We talked about it, Mr. Berginnis
talked about using the funds for planning. And yet, when we
analyze the use of the PDM, only about 18 percent of it was
used for planning. Part of it is because planning dollars are
available in other programs. They come in the Emergency
Management Performance Grant. You can fund them under the post-
disaster HMGP, although it is a limited amount of money. You
can fund them under flood mitigation assistance. There are
other mechanisms for the planning part.
I think the larger question there is what is available for
projects. And when we get to projects, a lot of the projects
are multiyear in their purpose. So, one of the questions that
always came--and this gets into the streamlining--is how
quickly can we execute the money that we are given, and--rather
than rolling it over. And we have to execute those monies. And
yearly in the PDM, and in any of those programs, we tend to
roll money over for projects. That becomes bothersome.
So, it is a streamlining, it is a looking at where funds
are otherwise available, it is moving projects faster through
the system, whether it is getting through construction seasons,
doing more pre-planning upfront, it is working with the
communities to make those things happen quicker.
Ms. Norton. If you--if climate change--and I commend you
for factoring climate change into your work; I am very
interested in how you do that.
We are having unprecedented climate. There was a recent
report released just--I think it was this week or last week, in
which scientists, the scientists who have all the knowledge,
and we understand it now more than--almost 100 percent of
scientists say that climate change is in operation. But this
report says we are already in it. This is no longer we are--
``This is what is going to happen.'' It is happening. And you
talk to the people who experienced Sandy or the mud slide, and
they will tell you that for those who want to be deniers, they
have experienced it.
The problem is that these were unprecedented disasters.
Sandy, for example, has had--we have had hurricanes going all
up and down the east coast, but nothing like that. The
President--I am sorry--the Governor of New York is talking
about doing away with part of the shoreline, and no longer
having what is there there. Are you engaged in that kind of
really foresighted advice to--as part of mitigation that
apparently the whole vision of what you did before is no longer
viable, in light of these unprecedented storms and other
climate events that we are experiencing?
Mr. Miller. Yes, Congresswoman, we are. And let me use an
example. When we did Superstorm Sandy, we knew that we were
already--in different places within the community we were all
looking at mapping actions that reflected current risk. And you
know for our flood insurance program, the mapping actions,
whether you are in the special flood hazard area or not is a
big part of what drives the program.
We also knew, because of Biggert-Waters legislation, that
if we did the rebuild wrong, and people built below base flood
elevation, they used old data and old maps, they would build
wrong and they would get penalized under the NFIP. So, the
effort was to give them best available data, even though the
maps weren't refined, weren't completely vetted, didn't go
through the process. We worked very hard in doing that, worked
with the State of New York, worked with the State of New Jersey
to put those maps out.
But here was the difficulty, and I think it exemplifies
what happens in the community. We could put out best available
data, and the thing we got pressed on is were we going to
account for one of the areas relative to climate change and
adaptation, sea level rise. There is a number of studies about
sea level rise, that they happen on this continuum, with this
variable of this many feet over this many years.
How much of that were we going to incorporate in our maps?
And, probably more importantly to the communities, what were we
going to use to regulate, and what were we going to use to
inform?
But as we were looking at sea level rise data, just sea
level rise data, given the preciseness of our maps, and getting
the information out quickly, because we were thought to be
conservative, in some cases they thought we over-projected what
sea level rise would do. Instead of promoting building, we
stopped it, because people were waiting on more preciseness to
know whether they had to build to this standard or this
standard, whether they were in the special flood hazard area,
or they weren't. It is about that monetary investment, and it
lives in that fine line of data and data analytics and, more
importantly, the preciseness of that analytic.
So, while we want to move in those directions, communities
have real decisions to make about the level of dollars
invested, and the permitting they are going to do.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you, Ms. Norton. We will have a second
round of questions. Very important hearing, and a lot of
information.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina,
Mr. Meadows.
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Mr. Berginnis, I
will start with you on this end. This question applies down the
road.
As we look at the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act, and the
mitigation implementation as it relates to that, two things
that work really well--I want you to give me two things that
worked really well, and two things that didn't work well, if
you can do that, so that we can hopefully address that in
future legislation. Mr. Berginnis?
Mr. Berginnis. Sure, and I apologize to Mr. Miller; I may
take some thunder from FEMA. But I do want to compliment them
on a couple actions they took after the Sandy Recovery Act. And
one of those was the advanced assistance program, in terms of
authorizing that, and allowing States to use those funds, for
example, to do things that they couldn't previously do.
When I was a State mitigation officer in Ohio, for example,
we needed to do flood studies to prove benefit cost analysis.
And under HMGP we couldn't do that. The advanced assistance
specifically authorizes activities like that so you build good,
credible mitigation projects.
And it also--I think the spirit of SRIA then also allowed
FEMA to prioritize the program delegation--or program
administration by States. That, again, allows States to have
more stake and more control over the whole application process.
I only have--I have one, I think, critique and perhaps
unintended consequence. And that is the legislation basically
shortening the period of obligation and the time that funds are
available for mitigation. And this is--this goes to my earlier
point, that maybe we should look at when mitigation projects
actually start, because there is a lot of work to be done
between the time a disaster happens and actually getting a
full, eligible mitigation project that communities buy into.
There is a lot of time. And many States, that takes over a year
of process.
Sometimes States can be very quick and do things in, like,
6 months or those types of things. We need to look at that part
of the process. FEMA has been doing a good job of improving
some of the tools, benefit cost analysis and things, but we
have the next bottleneck, which is when States actually get
those projects turned in, and then reviewed, and then funded.
And by shortening a deadline, that doesn't have much of an
impact, in terms of improving that process. Thank you.
Mr. Meadows. So let me follow up on that.
Mr. Berginnis. Sure.
Mr. Meadows. So you are saying for a longer deadline is
going to get the States--it is going to encourage them to move
quicker?
Mr. Berginnis. Not necessarily. What I am saying is that--
--
Mr. Meadows. Because, normally, deadlines make--if the
funds go away at a particular time--and maybe it is different
in some of the States you deal with, but they normally work
towards a deadline. And if you give them 18 months, a whole lot
of work gets done in the last 2 months, prior to the end of the
18 months.
And so, I don't know how that would help speed up, or make
it any more efficient.
Mr. Berginnis. What----
Mr. Meadows. I think Mr. Miller wants to comment on that,
and I am running out of time.
Mr. Berginnis. Oh, OK, sure.
Mr. Meadows. So let me jump to you, Mr. Miller.
Mr. Miller. Yes, I would like to add on to Chad's comments.
There is a couple things that we notice, relative to timelines
and implementation. And for purposes of disclosure, I used to
be the State director of emergency management in Iowa, and
worked with Linda in the 2008 floods.
Mr. Meadows. So you had the other shoe on the other foot.
OK.
Mr. Miller. Yes. The challenge about working at FEMA is all
the questions I had I now have to answer.
But I think a part of it, and what we discuss often, as
much as we have worked in FEMA in trying to streamline our
processes, it is how communities are positioned to take
advantage of them. One of the things we have all struggled with
is that community capacity to engage mitigation when it becomes
available. And too often, especially if you don't have a large
number of disasters, you haven't built that capacity, or there
is no State or local investment in that capacity, all the
things necessary to move a mitigation project come after the
disaster, when time is of the essence.
So, it is delayed, you are trying to rebuild, you are doing
all the public assistance stuff, mitigation gets set aside. And
yet it should complement the rebuild. It is about that capacity
and capability building, as Linda has echoed. It is about
positioning your community to take advantage of that prior to
the disaster. And too often, we don't see that happen.
Mr. Meadows. All right. And I can see I am running out of
time, so I would ask each of you, for the record, if you would
just respond--two good things, two bad things--and get it back
to the committee.
And I thank the chairman for his indulgence. I yield back.
[Hon. Linda Langston, president, National Association of
Counties, and supervisor, Linn County, Iowa, responds below to
Hon. Meadows' request for information:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Bryan Koon, vice president, National Emergency Management
Association, and director, Florida Division of Emergency
Management, responds below to Hon. Meadows' request for
information:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Barletta. Thank you, Mr. Meadows. The Chair now
recognizes the gentlewoman from Maryland, Ms. Edwards.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you. And thank you to the chairman and
the ranking member. For somebody like me, who is not
particularly an expert or know anything about disaster
management and those things, I just have a kind of question
that I get a lot of times from some of my constituents, and it
has to do with areas where there are repeat losses and
reimbursements and relief efforts. Times when there are areas
of the country that are in the flood plain where, you know,
there are numerous disasters, and disaster relief kicks in, and
it feels like the relief is just over and over again.
And I wonder how, in the use of community rating, other
than a community sort of stepping up and saying, ``I want to
participate, I want to do these things so that we can reduce
our cost and liabilities,'' but also so that communities have
the ability to kind of better manage a disaster--but it seems
to me that there are more incentives in various parts of our
statutes that are disincentives for participating in the
Community Rating System. And I wonder if you could speak to
that.
So I am thinking, for example, under--in our agriculture
support statutes, the kinds of reimbursements that are made,
and when. And for, you know, general kind of disaster relief,
that there are more incentives for not participating than there
are for participating. And so that might actually account for
not as many communities as we need doing the things that they
need to do to mitigate disaster, and then enable taxpayers to
save a little bit of money.
And so, I just wonder if you could speak to that. Anyone?
Mr. Miller, start with you.
Mr. Miller. All right. I think there are a number of pieces
that are there. And you talk about the disincentives. I think,
as Ms. Langston has pointed out, a lot of that is an education
process. One of the problems that we have in disasters always,
in FEMA trying to put its good foot forward, was we are here to
assist, we want to be very active, and we get very much
disaster survivor-centric.
But what that does--and it sends a message, inadvertently--
is no matter what your disaster, regardless of your level of
loss, we are going to be here to help you recover. But the
truth is the money is to help you get back on your feet. You
don't come close to recovering all of your losses. So the
message is mixed, is if I don't do anything I get this, but if
I do something I may get some of this, but I will get it in a
different avenue.
Again, an experience in New York for me, personally, was we
went up and went to a disaster assistance center. And I am
standing there, and I am watching people walk in and apply for
individual assistance status. And they think they are going to
get a max grant, which is a little over $33,000. But the
average grant is only $5,000. So, they are disappointed.
Then we go to the other side, and I have somebody who comes
in who has flood insurance. And what they saw was people were
getting their individual assistance check in days. But, because
of the insurance process, I have to go out, verify loss, and do
these things. The person who bought their insurance was waiting
weeks to get it. Now, we worked to streamline that process and
get them their assistance quicker. But in their mind, ``I paid
for my insurance, I did the right thing, and you just penalized
me by delaying my payment for weeks, while people on the other
side were getting theirs in days.''
Those are the misperceptions and the issues that we have to
solve to change this risk dynamic and how we pay for disasters
and how people recover.
Ms. Edwards. Do you think we can do that by statute, or is
it really by education? And go ahead, Ms. Langston.
Ms. Langston. I would humbly suggest, Congresswoman, that
some of this really has to happen in the local community, and
it has to be driven by community engagement. I am not entirely
sure you can legislate that.
I would give you the example of something that is very
personal. In 2002 my house flooded. It was the day of a
primary. The headline read, ``Wins Primary, Loses House.'' So
that was back in 2002. I just sold my house on Tuesday at
something of a discount, I might add, but after the city had
made the decision--this is 12 years since that flood happened--
to use some money that they had gotten through local option tax
for flood recovery to put in a berm in this neighborhood.
I would humbly suggest that, were I not an elected
official, and I did not bother my city officials, that may
never have happened. I made sure that the Watershed Management
Commission stayed alive. I kept doing that so that all of the
community said, ``We cannot afford to lose this tax base. This
would be a poor idea.'' But that is to the future, something
that the Army Corps of Engineers does not take into effect.
That was a community responsibility. Sadly, that money was in
place because the wider community had a flood in 2008. And,
while that got close to my house, it didn't take it down again.
So, it is about that engagement process. As I said, most
commonly, people do not understand risk in their community. I
would humbly suggest if you look to Japan from the 1600s, they
have little markers up in the hills that say, ``Do not build
below here,'' and the tsunami came, and the building--it
happened at the shoreline. We have to put rules in place.
I would note again in Black Hawk County and in the city of
Cedar Falls, their city council took very proactive, very
stringent flood requirements about where and how homes could be
built. And it was a political risk. But it will make a
difference to the future of that community. It will prevent
people from flooding. I am not sure that those things can be
legislated, truly, from either here or from the State level. It
has to be a community having a conversation about their risk.
And whatever incentives we can get, I would appreciate. But it
has to be that partnership. Thank you.
Ms. Edwards. Thanks, and I think my time has expired. I
know Mr. Berginnis wanted to respond, but my time has expired.
Mr. Berginnis. Thank you, Congresswoman. There--and these
are all some very good points. I want to go back to a few
points that were made earlier in terms of the value of
mitigation planning. And one of the requirements that exists
right now is that if a State fails to maintain its mitigation
plan, there is no public assistance available after a disaster.
We still don't have within the Federal Government the right
ties, I think, between incentives and disincentives. And we
have to, I think, talk frankly about disincentives or penalties
for also not doing the right thing.
So, what would happen if you brought that requirement down
to the community level, that if a community doesn't update and
maintain its mitigation plan, they no longer receive public
assistance, which is really the largest category of disaster
assistance? There can be more disincentives built in to
existing programs.
I would also look at the U.S. tax code. Currently, the
casualty loss deduction is maximized to--for people that do
nothing to mitigate, because you deduct things like insurance
settlements, mitigation, and those kinds of things. Can we make
some reforms in the tax code in the casualty loss deduction or
even tax credits--Mr. Koon, I think, mentioned, and I know
there is a legislative proposal for tax-favored disaster
savings accounts--those are the kinds of things, I think, that
can also be changed to incent the right behavior and reverse
these perverse disincentives that we have. Thank you.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. I am going to
recognize each Member for an additional 5 minutes. This is a
lot of good information.
Mr. Berginnis, you mentioned that the lack of technical
assistance is one of the hurdles for communities in the CRS
program. Can you talk more about this, and what could help
address this problem?
Mr. Berginnis. Certainly. I think there is--there are two
things that could be helpful. One of those--and, again, it is
an existing FEMA program called the CAP-SSSE program--that
provides some funding and resources to States to build and
maintain a State flood plain management capability, and that
has been very successful over the last several years. And so,
the CAP-SSSE program could be resourced adequately to help
communities and also help apply for those uniform State credits
for the CRS program.
What doesn't exist right now is in the State mitigation
program side of the world. There is no equivalent program to
CAP-SSSE. And a lot of States, especially those that don't
receive many disaster declarations, they--typically, their
capability ebbs and flows, depending on disasters. And, as Mr.
Miller pointed out, we need continuous State capability to
handle the big event when it comes. So, to build a similar
program that could be funded under PDM or another mechanism
would be helpful. Thank you.
Mr. Barletta. This question is for all the witnesses here.
Between the hazard mitigation grants, the pre-disaster grants,
and the flood mitigation assistance grants, we spend hundreds
of millions of dollars on mitigation. How can we better target
these grants to reduce flood risks and enable communities to
lower their flood insurance premiums, either through the CRS
program or otherwise? And, Mr. Miller, you can begin.
Mr. Miller. I think part of it is--and it is a discussion
we have had for a long time--is where do we focus. You
mentioned, sir, that the main area of focus is on flooding and
flood mitigation as the number-one cause of damages. A lot of
our efforts, I think, if I remember right--and I can get you
the true figure for the record, but I think 60 or 70 percent of
our funds go through--for flood mitigation kind of activities
out of--in 2012 I think the total mitigation assistance was a
little over $800 million. It is clearly not enough to do
everything we need to do in those areas.
But more importantly, what we try to do is get States and
local governments some variability. And we have seen areas
where they have tried to direct assistance to focus on a
particular hazard, because that was the event that occurred. We
have seen others where they have seen a large variability in
what they want to do. For instance, in my State, if we had a
disaster, the cause may be flood, but the disaster assistance
available through the mitigation program is for any hazard in
any county, whether they were affected or not. Other States
changed that focus.
If communities aren't well-positioned to do that, you see
them reach for low-hanging fruit. They may do property
acquisitions. In some States they may do elevations. But they
may not do the more effective or harder projects that need to
get through cost benefit that may have a broader community
benefit. Those are some of the challenges we all have. Are they
ready for project? Have they planned for projects? Do they know
where they are going to go and how they are going to get there?
Are they going to pick low-hanging fruit that has a mitigative
value, but probably not the bigger bang for the buck that we
are all looking for?
Mr. Barletta. Ms. Langston?
Ms. Langston. I would note that certainly flexibility is
good, and the comment has been made earlier that regional
opportunities exist. From my perspective, disasters rarely know
political or geographical boundaries. They happen--and
certainly, Chairman, in your home State of Pennsylvania, being
familiar with a number of your Members there--because it takes
in a good deal of land, I think the critical piece is giving
the flexibility and incenting local governments to work
together.
So, flood plain management, thinking of watershed, regional
watershed, authorities that cover thousands of acres so that
your mitigation is not always looking at building a flood wall,
which may be partial to the solution, but the larger solution
may be a 15-county response to watershed management. And that
kind of flexibility is not something we have been as good at
incenting, although there are dollars now available to that.
So I think, especially when it comes to that kind of
response for flooding and disasters, the requirement to look
more broadly, incenting communities to work together.
Mr. Barletta. Mr. Koon?
Mr. Koon. Mr. Chairman, I believe we can make progress in
this by helping to incentivize the communities to participate
in the Community Rating System, by streamlining the processes
involved with applying for and continuing to improve your
standing within the program, helping to raise awareness of
citizens and the elected officials as to the potential return
on investment on time and money spent on that program, and
providing the assistance to those 94 percent of the communities
not currently enrolled in the Community Rating System. Get them
into the program, help them understand how it can save their
policyholders money, and how it can improve the resilience of
that community. Once they understand that it exists, once they
understand how the monies that are out there can be spent and
utilized, I think you will see a continuing evolution, and
people participating in this program, and a continued benefit
to the country from their participation.
Mr. Barletta. Mr. Berginnis?
Mr. Berginnis. I think one way that this can be done is
having--as mitigation plans get updated and get better, is to
focus mitigation plans on the action piece of those. You know,
we spent over a decade building that local capability, and
communities have all-hazard mitigation plans. But a deficiency
that I have tended to see in those, in having reviewed many of
them, is that the action element of that plan tends to not be
as specific and as action-oriented as it could.
And to the extent that those plans can be specific and very
proactive, and even perhaps to the extent that the plans
achieve what I think folks initially thought mitigation
planning should do, which is to almost have fairly ready
projects that could be funded once disasters happen, or when
other opportunities occur, then I think, as a Nation, we will
be able to take advantage of those mitigation opportunities and
target resources that are available more towards this flood
problem.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Ranking
Member Carson.
Mr. Carson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Langston, you
mentioned that you are pleased with the Sandy Recovery
Improvement Act advance of hazard mitigation funds. Do you feel
that counties are sufficiently aware of this provision, and
have the capacity to really utilize it, or should FEMA even be
doing more to educate counties on this provision?
Ms. Langston. Thank you. I believe there is always more
opportunity. I spend a lot of time going around the country
right now, talking to people about whether or not they have
read their hazard mitigation plan, and if they have been to an
emergency drill. I will sadly tell you that probably no more
than 50 percent of any room that I ever talk to has fully read
their hazard mitigation plan.
But, in response to my being there, I hear from a lot of
people who have gone back and read their hazard mitigation plan
because I challenged them about it. So I think Mr. Miller and I
have an opportunity to serve on the National Advisory Council
together, and I think there are always those discussions that
we have about how do we advance that. And within NACo, the
whole focus on a resilient, thriving county is really focused
on helping counties understand that.
So the flexibility is good, the opportunity for education
is never ending. Because, in general, I would say that within
my State I know that in any given election year the turnover of
county elected officials is somewhere between 25 and 30
percent. So that means you are in a constant education process.
So we always have work to do.
Mr. Carson. Mr. Miller, in your written testimony you
mentioned that there is a community input phase, and that
individuals and communities are able to provide their own data
for FEMA's consideration. I have two questions related to this,
effectively.
First, what is the average cost for individuals and
communities to provide this data? And, secondly, if individuals
and communities bring information to FEMA's attention before
the maps are final, does FEMA pursue this information to
determine if their maps are incorrect? Or does FEMA just
publish the maps, knowing that they could possibly be
incorrect?
Mr. Miller. Well, there is a lot in there. Number one, the
cost of challenging the maps, I think, can be significant. And
it will vary, given the science or the engineering that needs
to be brought forward to do that. But I can give you an average
cost figure, and we will have the staff work that up.
I think the other part, though, as we go through it--and
there have been some changes in the recent law about how we pay
for challenges to the maps that I think are important.
More importantly, we always get into the discussion about
whether the maps are wrong, or what data is right. Often it has
to do with the level of preciseness. FEMA maps to a standard.
And the standards that we set, both in the methodology we use,
but, more importantly, the level that we map to, are vetted
through a number of panels. Now you have the Technical Mapping
Advisory Committee that will weigh in on those standards that
came out of Biggert-Waters.
There is a number of things that will happen to look at the
standards of mapping. But our investment only maps to a level
of preciseness. And what communities often have is greater data
and more precise data than we have. And when they bring that to
the table, we will consider it.
Now, that said, if there is questions of methodology, like
there recently was in Massachusetts, we will look at the
methodology and sometimes, like in many places in science,
there is disputes over if it is applicable. I think, at the
end, we can always say we have looked at the science, we are
going to apply it this way, we have to draw a point in time.
But, more importantly, when we look at it, we want to look--
does it change the outcome? And if it significantly changes the
outcome, we really do want to take it into consideration. And
is it a one-time event, or something that we bake into our
science and methodology?
Mr. Carson. All right, thank you. Yield back.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you, Ranking Member Carson. The Chair
recognizes Ms. Edwards.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. And here, I
thought I wasn't going to be totally interested.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Edwards. I just have a question. I recall--I visited
the areas that were devastated by Katrina down in New Orleans
and Mississippi, and then again we also, as a committee,
visited the areas that were devastated by Sandy. And my
recollection is that one of the things that was discussed, in
addition to the kind of hardening structural activity that
needed to take place, was also a discussion about the kind of
green wetlands replacement and those sort of things that could
go a long way to help mitigate.
And so, I wonder if you could tell me how the sort of green
infrastructure elements factor into improving community ratings
and into the considerations for mitigation all together, and
whether there might be things that we could do that would
actually encourage some of those activities that tend to be
less costly than some of the physical hardening structures.
Mr. Miller. No, you are right, ma'am. Too often, our
efforts, where we get the most focus and then discussion in
community, is about structural mitigation, the hardening of a
structure, the flood-proofing of a structure, or building
levees or flood walls, or doing those things, and we lose the
benefit and analysis of the benefit for nonstructural efforts
that mitigate against loss. We do take those into
consideration, and we want to continue to consider those.
Matter of fact, I was recently at a briefing from a
colleague from North Carolina, University of North Carolina,
who also was with a colleague from Texas A&M. They have done a
study and it actually says the more beneficial benefit are the
nonstructural ecological and changes that can be made.
On our side, one of the things that we look at for benefit
cost is how we do the calculation. Recently, what we did was
build in some of the benefit costs for environmental
considerations. The harder part of that, because we don't
always have the body of science to evaluate, was to go look for
the studies that put a value on that, so I could really get a
dollars and cents benefit cost analysis. But we have done that,
and updated our benefit cost accordingly to make more projects
reach that, especially where they take those kinds of measures.
It is not widespread. It tends to be more in coastal areas than
in other areas. But it is something we want to look at.
I think, more importantly, where we are going to gain
advantage in these others, it is something you mentioned
earlier about how I would regard Agriculture or the other
agencies. Under that Mitigation Framework Leadership Group,
where we have a chance to bring people together, these are some
of the issues we discuss, everything from unified review for
environmental historical preservation pieces that came out of
the Sandy Recovery Act to the kind of standards that we would
set and policy would set. But at the bottom end of this it
becomes about dollars and cents and can I find the monetary
value that gives me benefit cost that allows these projects to
move forward.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you. I would just call attention to--I
have a bill that deals with using green infrastructure around
stormwater management. But I think it would be important for us
to begin to consider ways that we can provide more substantial
kinds of incentives for incorporating those activities in
county and locality plans. In the stimulus package that passed
a couple years ago, they were some of the most sought-after
funds, but they were quite limited. And I think it would prove
very cost-effective for some of our communities. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you. Again, this is very good
information, a very important hearing. So maybe if--we will do
a third round, maybe limit it to one question, if we can.
Ms. Langston, I was a mayor for 11 years, so I will be
interested in your opinion. It takes public money to
participate in CRS. But the savings go to the policyholders.
Does that make it difficult for the local government to make
that a priority?
Ms. Langston. Well, I would say it was not for our
individual county, but I do understand it could be for some,
particularly when you look at what is required to get to the
higher levels of rating that get a larger response.
I think, to me, over and over again, it is about the
engagement of the community. As a former mayor, you clearly
understand this, that getting your constituents to understand
that you are spending part of the money to actually help them
put money back in their own pockets, but it doesn't always rise
to top of mind.
I know I have had conversations with flood plain managers
due to some work with FEMA, and trying to help people
understand how do these various levels of government
communicate. So how do I, as an elected official, know what is
going on with the flood plain manager, and how do I know that
that is really important, now that they have figured out what
the risk is? And then, how do I turn around and use my leverage
and my convening power to get back to my constituents to say,
``It is really important that we do this''?
So, to my mind, the barriers are primarily one of
communication between elected officials such as us, and the
Administrators who have to put information in front of us that
empowers us to take action.
Mr. Barletta. Mr. Koon?
Mr. Koon. Chairman Barletta, the--for every 500 points in
Florida, if I could generate--if I could move every community
up by one level on the Community Rating System, based on the
premiums that the policyholders in Florida were paying a couple
of years ago, before any increases, about $1.2 billion a year,
that would be $60 million in savings across the State of
Florida. That $60 million goes back into those policyholders'
pockets. That is money they are going to spend in the local
economy. That is money that is going to generate jobs, generate
additional revenue in those communities. That is additional tax
revenues going back to the locals and the States. That is going
to reduce their flood insurance premiums, which could increase
their property value, which could increase property taxes
within the State, as well. So this is not solely a savings for
the policyholder. That money goes back into the local economy
and has a reverberating effect as it progresses through.
And oftentimes, achieving that 500 points is going to cost
far, far less. You know, we have gone through and identified
all the different things we can do in the Community Rating
System to save those points. And many of them are low- to no-
cost, particularly some of the outreach efforts that you can
get credit for within a Community Rating System, simply by
having the public aware of the hazards, or working with the
Realtors to develop brochures. Those kinds of things, again,
have little to no cost, and can generate tremendous savings.
So, we have gone through a prioritized, from zero to
expensive, where should we put our dollars. And, again, many of
them, it is going to cost us a very small amount of money to
generate tens of millions of dollars of savings for Floridians.
Mr. Barletta. I agree. I know the roads in Florida are very
good, but the roads in Pennsylvania, there are a lot of
potholes. And sometimes elected officials hear it every day
from their neighbors and people in the community, ``When are
you going to fix these, the potholes?'' So it is a tough
decision for elected officials to realize that this money has
to go into saving the taxpayers in that community. So, it is, I
believe, one of the factors maybe why communities aren't
investing in mitigation.
Ranking Member Carson?
Mr. Carson. Well stated. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Very
insightful, Mr. Koon. Thank you for that.
Mr. Berginnis, even if local communities are aware of the--
for the need of mitigating, they may not have the capacity to
do so in many instances. Do you have any suggestions as to how
Congress can help local communities obtain the capacity
necessary to even implement effective mitigation strategies for
participating in CRS?
Mr. Berginnis. It is an excellent question, and I think it
largely has to do with making sure the assistance mechanisms
for communities to join and to continue to participate are
robust enough to handle the demand that is there.
You know, in Ohio, the CRS program, when I was working
there at the State, was not a particularly large program. We
had over 700 communities in the State, and I think we had less
than 20 participating in the CRS. But, among those, we had
communities the size of small villages--5,000 people--that
participate in the CRS and did it successfully. And I think
sometimes--and maybe it goes back to the communication--the
experience that people tend to think they hear, in terms of
applying and things like that, is a lot different than the
reality.
In fact, the way FEMA administers the CRS, there is
assistance in doing applications and those kinds of things. And
so, probably, a couple things Congress could do, again, would
be, one, to increase the State capability to provide the
technical assistance. Secondly, perhaps to allow CRS
application assistance to be an eligible item under mitigation
programs that communities could participate in. And then the
third is making sure that the CRS program itself has enough
resources to address any of these delays that were talked about
in terms of once a community is excited, they want to
participate, by golly, let's get them in the program as soon as
possible.
Mr. Carson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you. I would like to thank all of you
for your testimony today. It was incredibly insightful. And,
again, it shines a light on how important education is, that we
go back to many of these communities. If anyone has experienced
as you all have, the sorrow and devastation after a flood, I
think at that point in time we would do anything within our
power to prevent it from happening. But it is times like right
now, when we are not experiencing those in our communities,
that we really need to get to work to try to stop those times
from happening. So, again, I want to thank all of you.
I would ask unanimous consent that the record of today's
hearing remain open until such time as our witnesses have
provided answers to any questions that may be submitted to them
in writing, and unanimous consent that the record remain open
for 15 days for any additional comments and information
submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in the record
of today's hearing.
[No response.]
Mr. Barletta. Without objection, so ordered. I would like
to thank our witnesses again for your testimony. If no other
Members have anything to add, this subcommittee stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:36 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]