[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ARE WE READY? RECOVERING FROM 2017 DISASTERS AND PREPARING FOR THE 2018
HURRICANE SEASON
=======================================================================
(115-49)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 18, 2018
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
38-032 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
transportation
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee, ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
Vice Chair Columbia
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
SAM GRAVES, Missouri ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
DUNCAN HUNTER, California RICK LARSEN, Washington
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
BOB GIBBS, Ohio DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
JEFF DENHAM, California ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky JOHN GARAMENDI, California
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania Georgia
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
MARK SANFORD, South Carolina RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
ROB WOODALL, Georgia DINA TITUS, Nevada
TODD ROKITA, Indiana SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
JOHN KATKO, New York ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut,
BRIAN BABIN, Texas Vice Ranking Member
GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina JARED HUFFMAN, California
MIKE BOST, Illinois JULIA BROWNLEY, California
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
DOUG LaMALFA, California DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan MARK DeSAULNIER, California
JOHN J. FASO, New York STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
A. DREW FERGUSON IV, Georgia
BRIAN J. MAST, Florida
JASON LEWIS, Minnesota
MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin
------
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency
Management
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania, Chairman
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas DINA TITUS, Nevada
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
MIKE BOST, Illinois Georgia
JOHN J. FASO, New York ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
A. DREW FERGUSON IV, Georgia, Columbia
Vice Chair ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
BRIAN J. MAST, Florida STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex Officio)
Officio)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ iv
WITNESSES
Jeffrey Byard, Associate Administrator, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency:
Testimony.................................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 36
Responses to questions for the record from the following
Representatives:
Hon. Lou Barletta of Pennsylvania........................ 43
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio of Oregon.......................... 51
Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford of Arkansas............... 73
Hon. Stacey E. Plaskett of the Virgin Islands............ 76
Hon. Garret Graves of Louisiana.......................... 82
Hon. Nydia M. Velazquez of New York...................... 88
Charles R. Alexander, Jr., Director of Contingency Operations and
Homeland Security, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:
Testimony.................................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 91
Responses to questions for the record from the following
Representatives:
Hon. Lou Barletta of Pennsylvania........................ 97
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio of Oregon.......................... 98
Hon. Brian J. Mast of Florida............................ 102
Hon. Nydia M. Velazquez of New York...................... 104
Patrick Sheehan, Director, Tennessee Emergency Management Agency,
on behalf of the National Emergency Management Association:
Testimony.................................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 105
Mistie Gardner, CEM, Emergency Management Coordinator, city of
Richardson, Texas, on behalf of the U.S. Council of the
International Association of Emergency Managers:
Testimony.................................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 115
Hon. Robert David Paulison, Former Administrator, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, on behalf of the BuildStrong
Coalition:
Testimony.................................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 121
Questions for the record for Mr. Paulison from Hon. Stacey E.
Plaskett of the Virgin Islands............................. 128
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
``Rollover of Disaster Management Costs: Increasing Capability
and Responsibility in Managing Disaster Declarations,''
submitted by Patrick Sheehan, Director, Tennessee Emergency
Management Agency, on behalf of the National Emergency
Management Association......................................... 114
Letter of April 20, 2018, from Kenneth E. Mapp, Governor of the
U.S. Virgin Islands, to Hon. William ``Brock'' Long,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, submitted
by Hon. Stacey E. Plaskett of the U.S. Virgin Islands.......... 129
ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD
Letter of July 18, 2018, from the North American Concrete
Alliance, to Hon. Bill Shuster, Chairman, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure et al., submitted by Hon. Lou
Barletta of Pennsylvania....................................... 135
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
ARE WE READY? RECOVERING FROM 2017 DISASTERS AND PREPARING FOR THE 2018
HURRICANE SEASON
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 18, 2018
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Economic Development,
Public Buildings, and Emergency Management,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 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. Without
objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess at any
time.
Before we begin, I ask unanimous consent that Members not
on the subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee
at today's hearing and ask questions.
Without objection, so ordered.
From hurricanes to floods and wildfires, no region of our
country was immune from the impacts of last year's disasters.
Last year we saw 10 hurricanes in the Atlanta region alone,
including Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria, which devastated
parts of Texas, Florida, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin
Islands.
We also had one of the worst wildfire seasons on record
with over 66,000 wildfires that burned nearly 10 million acres
of land. Disasters caused an estimated $370 billion in damages
in 2017. The purpose of today's hearing is to determine where
we are in recovering from these devastating disasters,
including challenges to recovery and suggestions on how we can
overcome those challenges.
We also want to understand State, local, and Federal
efforts to prepare for and respond to the 2018 hurricane
season, which began on June 1st. Additionally, we will discuss
reforms that are needed to incentivize and encourage mitigation
and the reduction of disaster costs and losses across the
country.
The 2017 disaster season not only devastated many
communities, but also highlighted challenges in how we respond
to and recover from disasters. We have a ways to go in
rebuilding, especially in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin
Islands. And it is critical, we do what we can to help
communities rebuild smarter and better. In November, this
committee came together to craft bipartisan legislation, the
Disaster Recovery Reform Act, which would allow communities to
rebuild in a way that would minimize future disaster costs and
save lives.
This legislation includes reforms that will change FEMA's
[Federal Emergency Management Agency's] disaster recovery
programs to make them more effective and efficient, and
encourage and facilitate mitigation projects that reduce
disaster risks and increase resiliency against disasters. This
legislation has now overwhelmingly passed the House twice,
including in H.R. 4, the FAA Reauthorization Act, which has yet
to be taken up by the Senate.
There are communities impacted by the 2017 disasters, and
preparing for future disasters, that would benefit today from
the reforms in DRRA [Disaster Recovery Reform Act]. Some
reforms were signed into law as part of the Bipartisan Budget
Act of 2018. Those reforms allow FEMA to create incentives for
State and local governments to implement mitigation. But we
need the other critical reforms, including, key wildfire
mitigation provisions and additional resources to State and
local governments for cost-effective mitigation projects.
Various studies by Federal agencies, academia, and the
private sector have shown that for every $1 of Federal
investment in mitigation, there is a $4 to $8 return in avoided
disaster damages. Mitigation projects, particularly
predisaster, are a wise investment of Federal dollars, and the
only way we, as a Nation, will be able to change the direction
of rising disaster costs and losses. It makes no sense for us
to continue to rebuild the same way, disaster after disaster.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today on where
we are in the recovery from the 2017 disaster season, where we
are in preparing for the 2018 hurricane season, and the
recommendations for changes that need to be made to make our
communities stronger and better able to recover from disasters
of any kind.
Thank you all for being here.
I now recognize the ranking member of the full committee,
Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for holding
this important hearing on recovery efforts from 2017 and
looking forward to the 2018 season. We already have fires
burning in the West, and it is going to be another bad fire
year, and we don't know what will happen with hurricanes.
On Friday, we finally got FEMA's ``After-Action Report'' on
2017. They admitted in that report what everyone knew, the
Agency's response was inadequate, to put it mildly, and in the
case of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, outrageously
inadequate. They admit that they did not pre-position enough
commodities, such as food, water, generators, before Irma and
Maria struck the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. They
acknowledged they experienced delays in delivering supplies to
territories, despite the fact that in 2014 they led a national
level exercise indicating that delays could be a problem during
a disaster and should be addressed. That is 3 years before
these disasters.
President Trump, living in a different reality, ignored the
obvious failures in the response efforts occurring on the
ground. He called it fake news. And then he went to Puerto Rico
and bragged about what a great job they had done and threw
paper towels at people. He put lives at risk and people died
after his visit, who should have been receiving assistance.
That his boorish behavior went beyond to attacking a mayor of
San Juan who was representing her people who were suffering
horribly.
And then the FEMA Administrator, to his discredit, Brock
Long, did the same thing, although later he admitted that that
was inappropriate. Trump never did admit that. FEMA
acknowledged its failures, but it was also, as it was
acknowledging its failures, it had other people on staff busy
eradicating any trace of any consideration of climate change in
its strategic planning. Now, that is going to work out real
well, isn't it? So we got to pay attention to things that are
important.
Then FEMA found, you know, that it also needs to
collaborate more with State, Tribal, Territorial, local
governments, but President Trump proposed cutting five
preparedness grants in his budget by $471 million, or 29
percent, and proposed reducing funding for education, training,
and exercises by $129 million, or 47 percent. What is going on
here? Are we going to take this seriously or not?
And throughout the ``After-Action Report,'' FEMA discussed
the need to make the Nation more resilient to disasters,
however, the administration again rescinded an existing
Executive order, because Obama did it, establishing a Federal
flood risk management standard, i.e., we are not going to build
any federally funded facility in a flood-prone area. Or if we
do build in those areas, special construction techniques would
be used to protect the structure, the contents, and the
personnel.
Now, that has been eliminated. We are not going to consider
those sorts of thing because we don't believe in climate
change, and I guess we don't even believe in natural disasters
or 100-year floods anymore. And then FEMA also mentioned the
importance of predisaster mitigation, while the President
proposed cutting funding for predisaster mitigation by 61
percent, down from an inadequate $100 million to an absolutely
pathetic $39 million, which could probably be spent in any one
potentially targeted city in terms of hurricanes, very well,
and mitigate a lot of loss.
So while FEMA's ``After-Action Report'' identifies specific
improvements needed, including the need for more preparedness,
mitigation, resilient rebuilding, the President in his budget
says, no, none of that, we don't want that. So we, here in
Congress, have a responsibility to move forward, and as the
chairman mentioned, we have in a bipartisan way. We are moving
forward in ways that deal with disasters and potential
disasters more thoughtfully.
We took up a bill in the House this week, I was a cosponsor
of, to say that we are not going to rebuild someone's house 20
times or 30 times. It is, you know, a very small percentage of
the buildings out there cost 4 percent of--cost 25 percent--is
it 4 percent or 2 percent? Never mind. Anyway, a very small
percentage. I had the numbers before me, then cost about one-
quarter of FEMA's budget. And FEMA, of course, our flood
insurance program is bankrupt.
So we passed a bill to get a study to see if entering into
agreements with people, in structures that have been repeatedly
destroyed, to agree to pay them full market value the next time
it is destroyed, and reducing their flood insurance risk
program will save money. I think it is a no-brainer, it will. I
mean, some people have been rebuilt multiple, multiple times.
So we need to do better. We need to act smarter. We need to
do actually all these things that have been enumerated, and
Congress is the only hope that we have on delivering on that
reality.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you. Right now I recognize the ranking
member of the subcommittee, Ms. Titus, for an opening
statement.
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I apologize for
keeping you and the committee and our witnesses waiting. I
won't make a habit of that, I assure you. I also thank you for
holding this important hearing. As you have heard, the
hurricane season began on June 1 and already we have had two
hurricanes form in the Atlantic Ocean.
Hurricane Beryl was downgraded to a tropical storm by the
time it hit the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, where they
were pummeled with strong winds and rain. And even though at
that point it was no longer considered a hurricane, Tropical
Storm Beryl caused over 40,000 homes and businesses to lose
power temporarily in Puerto Rico, which highlights the fragile
state of recovery.
Also, in the midst of hurricane season, we see that
numerous homes in both Puerto Rico and in the Virgin Islands
still have blue plastic tarps as roofs, due to damage that was
caused by last year's hurricane. Now, the intended lifespan of
these tarps is 30 days, so you can imagine the condition they
are in.
The territories aren't the only ones in the midst of
recovery from the 2017 disasters, and much work remains to be
done to solve those problems as well as prepare for 2018.
So in addition to the ongoing recovery issues and
preparedness, right in the middle of all this, FEMA has
released its 2017 hurricane season ``After-Action Report.'' In
it, they noted several failures, as you have heard mentioned in
their preparedness efforts for 2017, including inadequate
staffing, lack of sufficient commodities in place, and
logistical failures. At least they recognize what some of the
problems are.
In this ``After-Action Report,'' FEMA noted it had
exhausted its predisaster contracts for commodities, such as
food, water, and generators, which should have been in place to
give FEMA a head start on its disaster response efforts. The
Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act requires that FEMA
have contracts in place for recurring disaster response
requirements before the disaster strikes. Yet, over the years,
FEMA has failed to procure new contracts or renew existing
contracts for such commodities in advance of the disaster,
therefore, contributing to the state of unreadiness.
Last fall, the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority, PREPA,
entered into two separate contracts, one with Whitefish Energy
Holdings and the other with Cobra Acquisitions. Both contracts
contained terms that limited proper Federal oversight. Although
FEMA denies these claims, both contractors indicated that FEMA
approved the contract terms.
Now, I understand that the Office of Inspector General is
investigating these contracts to determine the accuracy of the
allegations. But I want to be clear, FEMA should never approve
contracts that purport to limit any oversight over disaster
funds. Now, by oversight, let's be clear what oversight means,
it doesn't mean exercise undue influence. For example, just
last May, PREPA entered into a new $900 million contract with
Cobra Acquisitions to complete restoration of the electrical
transmission system. Now, we have heard since then a potential
interjection by FEMA into that contracting process.
While FEMA needs to be diligent in ensuring that the
grantees comply with Federal laws when they are competing for a
contract, and that the terms are consistent with Federal
requirements, that does not mean that FEMA should improperly
interfere in the local contracting process, including the
selection of the winning bidders. FEMA's ``After-Action
Report'' also notes shortages of staff that hindered the
response to disasters. FEMA needs to address this and the other
problems listed in the report in a comprehensive manner, and I
look forward to hearing about your plans.
Finally, FEMA acknowledges the need to invest in mitigation
and better prepare for future disasters. Yet, in its 2018 to
2022 strategic plan, you remove all references to climate
change. As long as FEMA engages in this type of contradictory
behavior, the Nation and FEMA will fall behind in its
preparedness effort. So as we talk about natural disasters, I
think we have to be realistic.
Finally, I would just mention that pets are something that
are missing from our report and from our plans, and I would
like to see some discussion of the Pet Emergency Transparency
and Accountability in Disasters Act that we have introduced,
because if you take care of pets that often makes it easier to
take care of the people who are engaged.
So I thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I look forward to the
discussion.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you, Ms. Titus. Today, we are joined by
Mr. Jeffrey Byard, Associate Administrator, Office of Response
and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Mr. Ray Alexander, Director of Contingency Operations and
Homeland Security, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Mr. Patrick Sheehan, director, Tennessee Emergency
Management Agency, testifying on behalf of the National
Emergency Management Association, which represents State
emergency managers.
Mistie Gardner, emergency management coordinator, city of
Richardson, Texas, testifying on behalf of local emergency
managers, and the U.S. Council of the International Association
of Emergency Managers.
And the Honorable Dave Paulison, who served as FEMA
Administrator from 2005 until January 2009, testifying on
behalf of the BuildStrong Coalition.
I ask unanimous consent that our witnesses' full statements
be included in the record.
Without objection, so ordered.
For our witnesses, 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.
And, Mr. Byard, you may proceed.
TESTIMONY OF JEFFREY BYARD, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF
RESPONSE AND RECOVERY, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY;
CHARLES R. ALEXANDER, JR., DIRECTOR OF CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS
AND HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS; PATRICK
SHEEHAN, DIRECTOR, TENNESSEE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, ON
BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION; MISTIE
GARDNER, CEM, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT COORDINATOR, CITY OF
RICHARDSON, TEXAS, ON BEHALF OF THE U.S. COUNCIL OF THE
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF EMERGENCY MANAGERS; AND HON.
ROBERT DAVID PAULISON, FORMER ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY, ON BEHALF OF THE BUILDSTRONG COALITION
Mr. Byard. Chairman Barletta, Ranking Member Titus, and
members of the subcommittee, good morning. My name is Jeff
Byard, I am the Associate Administrator for the Office of
Response and Recovery for FEMA. On behalf of the Secretary
Nelson and Administrator Long, thank you for the opportunity to
discuss lessons learned from the 2017 historic hurricane season
and our ongoing progress made under, one, FEMA strategic plan;
and two, our preparations for the current 2018 hurricane
season.
As mentioned, Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria devastated
a Nation at a time when FEMA was already supporting dozens of
open federally declared disasters across our country. During
the response to the three catastrophic hurricanes, FEMA also
responded to historic wildfires in California. An estimated 47
million Americans were affected by last year's hurricanes and
wildfires. That is approximately 15 percent of the entire U.S.
population.
Following the 2017 hurricanes, we have reviewed
preparations for the immediate response and initial recovery
operations with a goal of identifying lessons learned, which
collectively benefit future emergency management operations at
all levels, both local, State, Federal, nonprofit, and the
private sector.
Last week we released our 2017 hurricane season ``After-
Action Report.'' The report examines the Agency's performance
during the record-breaking season and captures transformative
insights that will help FEMA, the emergency management
community, and the Nation chart a path into the future. The
report identified key findings across five focus areas, and
offered targeted recommendations for us to improve, as well as
broader lessons for partners throughout the emergency
management community.
You know, we took a hard look at ourselves, we pointed our
finger at ourselves, and we released that report. You know, we
hear terms like failure, we hear terms like admission. We look
at that as leadership. That not only helps our Agency, it helps
Director Sheehan, Director Gardner, and many others. In the
minute we stop looking at ourselves and taking that hard look
because of what we may fear others may say, we have lost the
ball, we have lost the leadership.
Aligned with key focus areas in the ``After-Action
Report,'' FEMA's strategic plan builds on the existing best
practices, identifies new initiatives geared towards achieving
three overarching goals. The three main goals to our strategic
plan are to build a cultural preparedness, ready the Nation for
catastrophic disasters, and reduce the complexity of FEMA.
These three goals are overarching and they are all hazards.
They are not applied to a specific hazard, they are not applied
to a specific cause. They are how we react and how we stabilize
our country in the event that something bad may happen.
As part of the initiative to ready the Nation for
catastrophic disasters, we are emphasizing the stabilization of
critical lifelines and coordination across critical
infrastructure sectors. This is a new terminology in emergency
management as we have always focused on State and locals, and
we continue to focus on State and locals. We have to broaden
our horizons. We have to bring people more under our tent.
Lifelines provide indispensable services that enable the
continuous operation of critical business and Government
functions, and if not properly restored, they risk health and
safety, and they also can risk national economic security.
Solutions to stabilize lifelines, as we found out in 2017, do
not fit in a single construct, like our existing emergency
support functions. So we must provide cross-sector coordination
to effectively stabilize critical lifelines.
For example, the critical lifeline of food, water, and
sheltering crosses many agencies, community partners, and
emergency support functions. But we must address holistically
in order to support the community, focusing on lifelines and
related impacts will allow decisionmakers at all levels to move
rapidly, and will allow better utilization of limited resources
toward restoration of critical infrastructure.
As we look at 2017, we are taking immediate steps in 2018.
For example, we have updated our plans, annexes, and
procedures. We made logistical improvements, specifically in
the Commonwealth and our island States and territories. We have
increased from thousands of bottles of water to millions.
Thousands of MREs to millions. Where we had one warehouse in
the Commonwealth, we now have five. We have redefined our
tactical and long-haul disaster communications.
We have had coordinated exercises and training with many
multiple partners to include the Commonwealth and the
territory. And we are modernizing our housing inspection. I
would like to take a moment to highlight one of our
initiatives. What we clearly learned is we have to increase our
stocks hourly, our OCONUS [outside the continental United
States] locations. That gives us better time to coordinate with
the private sector when we have limited shipping, limited air,
and limited receiving capabilities. What we know now is we can
coordinate better with the private sector when we have that. So
establishing larger footprints in the Caribbean will allow us
days and not hours to establish that and better serve our
citizens.
I am pleased to be here today to represent the dedicated
men and women of FEMA. I am pleased to be with the partners on
this panel. And I am happy to take any questions the committee
may have. Thank you.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you, Mr. Byard, for your testimony. Mr.
Alexander, please proceed.
Mr. Alexander. Chairman Barletta, Ranking Member Titus,
distinguished members of the subcommittee, good morning. I am
honored to testify before you today and discuss the authorities
and responsibilities of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers during
disaster response and recovery operations, lessons learned from
the 2017 storm season, and actions taken to ensure readiness
for 2018.
The Corps conducts its emergency response and recovery
activities under two basic authorities, the Stafford Act and
Public Law 84-99. Under the Stafford Act and the National
Response Framework, the Corps works under the direction of
FEMA, serving as the lead Federal coordinating agency for
Emergency Support Function 3, Public Works and Engineering.
For recovery missions, the Corps serves as the lead
coordinating agency for the Infrastructure Systems Recovery
Support Function under the National Disaster Recovery
Framework. Public Law 84-99 provides a separate source of
authority for the Corps to prepare for and respond to floods,
hurricanes, and other natural disasters.
Under these authorities, the Corps maintains more than 50
specially trained response teams supported by emergency and
pre-awarded contracts to perform the wide range of public works
and engineering-related missions. The 2017 hurricane season was
historic, and we continue to identify lessons learned in an
effort to sustain and improve our performance.
The extraordinary impacts of Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and
Maria, resulted in this unprecedented response. For Harvey,
FEMA issued the Corps 23 mission assignments, totaling over
$140 million. At its peak, nearly 1,000 Corps employees
deployed, and 40 employees remain engaged today, supporting 11
active recovery mission assignments.
In response to Hurricanes Irma and Maria, FEMA issued 49
mission assignments, totaling over $3.3 billion for Puerto Rico
and the U.S. Virgin Islands. We deployed thousands of
personnel, and today 369 Corps employees remain engaged
executing recovery operations. Additionally, we received 43
mission assignments in Florida and Georgia, totaling
approximately $45 million.
Detailed in my written testimony, mission assignments
encompassed a range of activities including removal of debris,
installation of generators to provide temporary emergency
power, and the construction of temporary ``blue roofs,'' which
enable impacted residents to move out of emergency shelters and
back into their home.
In response to Irma and Maria, the Corps was tasked to
assist in the repair of segments of the Puerto Rican power
grid. The collaboration of responders, which includes the Corps
and Federal agency partners, the utility industry, and the
Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority, have now restored over
99.9 percent of the nearly 1\1/2\ million customers who had
power before the storms.
Including these three major hurricanes, the Corps responded
in total to 32 events in 2017. Among these disasters was the
October 2017 wildfires across northern California. FEMA issued
seven mission assignments, totaling $1.2 billion for debris
management and technical assistance. Additional wildfires in
late December of 2017 in Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties
precipitated into deadly mudslides in Santa Barbara County
after significant rainfall in January of this year.
In response, FEMA issued two additional mission assignments
totaling $110 million for the removal of mudslide debris from
11 basins and natural channels. Other events the Corps assisted
during 2017, including the central U.S. blizzard, the Bighorn
River ice jam, and numerous flooding and other severe weather
events.
The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 appropriated over $17
billion for the Corps to repair and rehabilitate projects
across the Nation damaged by natural disasters, to construct
flood and storm damage reduction projects, and to complete
flood and coastal storm damage reduction studies. We recently
identified specific projects that will receive these funds and
are working as quickly as possible to complete this work.
Combining the lessons learned and best practices from 2017,
we have taken immediate actions to prepare for 2018. We
completed several hurricane exercises, along with Federal,
State, local, and territory partners, the gulf, and east coast,
as well as for Puerto Rico, and this week, in the U.S. Virgin
Islands. We participated in FEMA's 2018 intergovernmental and
private-sector national level exercise, and we too have updated
our hurricane plans, annexes, and our standard operating
procedures.
Based on lessons learned, we have worked with FEMA to
update and refine 34 prescripted mission assignments which
include new cells for logistic support, command and control
integration, and planning. We are developing an acquisition
center of excellence to create a robust and agile contracting
capability to support large complex missions that involve
debris, temporary power, and roofing, as nonstandard
contingency support requirements emerge.
In addition to our involvement in these and future response
and recovery missions, the Corps remains fully committed and
capable of executing our other civil works activities across
the Nation.
This concludes my testimony. I look forward to answering
any questions you may have. Thank you.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Alexander.
And, Mr. Sheehan, you may proceed.
Mr. Sheehan. Thank you, Chairman Barletta, Ranking Member
Titus, and distinguished members of the subcommittee for
holding this hearing.
In my statement for the record, I explain in detail the
hard work of my agency and our partners in Tennessee during the
2016 response to wildfires, and the drought that extended
across the State ultimately destroying thousands of acres, more
than 2,600 buildings, injuring more than 134, and resulting in
14 deaths.
But these fires were merely a precursor to a year in which
the Nation saw tremendous damage and losses from drought,
wildfires, and of course the incredible destruction caused by
Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria. This made 2017 the
costliest disaster year in our history. Emergency managers
constantly review our actions and work toward making continuous
improvements, building learning organizations, and diffusing
knowledge is incredibly important to our profession, and to the
emergency management enterprise.
In the 2017 disaster season and preparations being made for
2018, we must remember that all the various policies,
processes, and programs of emergency management are interwoven
with each other, and extend far beyond what we see happening at
FEMA or in the headlines every day.
Much of what happens to prepare the Nation happens every
day in the States, counties, and cities of our Nation. For
example, beyond any of the federally declared disasters in
2017, State emergency managers handled an additional 22,552
events. Local governments managed another 12,557 events. FEMA
is not a first responder during disasters or otherwise. So with
without a thriving State and local emergency management system,
many of these 35,109 events likely would not have received the
type of response that they needed.
A culture of preparedness and timely response capabilities
are vitally important to States and local communities. We
create this thriving emergency management system by fostering a
culture of preparedness to address threats and risks; building
capacity and capabilities; and creating the basis by which
States are empowered to assist one another.
Beyond specific preparedness programs that may strengthen
people or policies, mitigation strengthens our infrastructure.
This committee, this subcommittee, has taken bold steps toward
fostering a culture of preparedness. The National Public
Infrastructure Predisaster Hazard Mitigation program, included
in the Disaster Recovery Reform Act, will fundamentally change
how we prioritize and manage mitigation in this Nation.
The ability to utilize 6 percent of the total disaster
costs in a year to put toward mitigation projects will
fundamentally shift the preparedness paradigm and drive down
future disaster costs. Studies continue to show the value of
investment in mitigation and the alleviation of potential
suffering is apparent.
NEMA [National Emergency Management Association] is also
pleased to support the DRRA provision, increasing the overall
amount available for management costs. The increase from 3
percent to 12 percent will allow States and local governments
to assume more responsibility in this emerging environment of
collaborative disaster management. Any increase, however, must
be tied to the flexibility to roll over these costs from one
disaster to the next.
NEMA and IAEM [International Association of Emergency
Managers] developed a proposal explaining this concept, which
has been submitted to FEMA, and was submitted for the record
with my testimony. One of the other ways in which emergency
managers build capacity is through programs such as the EMPG
[Emergency Management Performance Grant], which is truly a
Federal, State, and local partnership. For every Federal dollar
invested in the EMPG, at least that much is matched by State
and local governments.
NEMA and IAEM come together every year to voluntarily
submit a report to Congress on EMPG's return on investment.
This report demonstrates the hard work that goes into
supporting these 35,109 events I mentioned earlier. Yet despite
the continued growth of disaster activity across the Nation,
EMPG funding has remained stagnant since 2012, and that is why
NEMA and IAEM call on Congress to approve a 5-percent
inflationary increase for the program in the 2018 omnibus.
While we were not successful in 2018, we repeat that request
again for the 2019 omnibus and trust Congress will find a way
to prioritize this program.
The effects of programs like EMPG and efforts to increase
management costs can be multiplied several times over when
States are empowered to assist one other. The best way we do
this is through the Emergency Management Assistance Compact or
EMAC. From August 2017 to July of this year, a total of 19,196
personnel deployed through EMAC. Capacity built throughout the
system is capacity able to be shared across the country, and
the National Guard is a vital part of that capability as well.
The emergency managers and our partners continue to work on
improving the speed and availability of this system. As we
examine the 2017 disaster year and look ahead to the rest of
2018, remember that even when FEMA is not actively responding
to a disaster, State and local emergency managers are still
recovering from the last event, and conducting the planning,
building the capacity, and setting the stage for the next storm
to approach, all while working diligently to implement and
manage sometimes complicated Federal programs.
Chairman Barletta and Ranking Member Titus, and
distinguished Members, thank you for your continued support and
keeping attention on needed capabilities and policy discussions
that need to be had. Your leadership and persistent support are
appreciated, and I am happy to take any of your questions.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you for your testimony. Ms. Gardner,
you may proceed.
Ms. Gardner. Good morning, Chairman Barletta, Ranking
Member Titus, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for
this opportunity to testify on lessons learned from the
historic 2017 hurricane season. My name is Mistie Gardner, I am
the emergency management coordinator for the city of
Richardson, Texas. I have worked in public safety for 23 years,
and 10 of which I have been a Certified Emergency Manager.
I appear before you today as a representative of the U.S.
Council of the International Association of Emergency Managers,
an advocacy organization for the profession dedicated to
protecting America's local communities from all hazards and
threats. Local governments serve as our Nation's first line of
defense. When disasters strike and immediately following a
disaster, emergency managers play a role in coordinating local
response and recovery efforts, working to mitigate further
damage from the disaster.
But the most consequential work local emergency managers do
actually happens before the disaster. Emergency managers wake
up thinking about, planning for, and mitigating for all types
of emergencies because we don't have the benefit of knowing
what may occur next. A public health emergency, a hurricane,
tornado, active shooter, the list goes on. And, unfortunately,
most of those things happen with little to no warning.
Every day, emergency managers are hard at work behind the
scenes at all levels of Government, coordinating with partners
from all sectors of the Nation, helping our communities become
better prepared.
Mr. Chairman, with the 2018 hurricane season already upon
us and numerous disasters have already struck our Nation this
year, I want to take a moment to look back at lessons learned
from last year's unprecedented disaster impacts. By sharing
these observations, I hope to contribute to the discussions
Congress and FEMA are having about reforming our Nation's
disaster recovery systems.
Ultimately, it is the hope of IAEM that Congress will pass
the Disaster Recovery Reform Act. As a demonstration of your
commitment to supporting predisaster mitigation, and helping to
develop a culture of preparedness in which we are all more
resilient to the impacts of disaster.
From August through October of 2017, I worked on three
deployments in response to Hurricane Harvey. First, I served as
the emergency operations center manager for the city of Dallas
in an effort to shelter more than 5,000 Texas citizens. From
there I was called to work in the State Operations Center to
help coordinate public works resources statewide. Finally, I
was deployed as part of a recovery assistance team, supporting
seven heavily impacted coastal jurisdictions.
Mr. Chairman, as a matter of practice, emergency managers
continually evaluate what works well, while actively seeking
opportunities to improve future response and recovery efforts.
Our success hinges on having the courage to make the changes
associated with these lessons learned. In my written testimony,
submitted to the subcommittee, I outlined some of the lessons
learned during Hurricane Harvey experiences. I would like to
highlight a few of those key points for your consideration.
First, information sharing challenges were an issue yet
again. Simply, emergency managers cannot adequately communicate
with the public and coordinate an effective recovery if we do
not have access to key information, that the nonprofits and the
Federal partners, that we invite in to assist, have. The right
to know must specifically include emergency managers through
Federal policy.
Second, the lack of available personnel resources
sufficiently trained in recovery and mitigation processes
challenged impacted jurisdictions greatly. Thirdly, we lack
adequate shelter capacity to meet the needs. Revising the
Stafford Act to allow utilization of spaces which are not
considered congregate shelters would have a tremendous impact.
But allowing locals to partner and utilize predisaster
mitigation funds to build shelters closer to the their
communities, even though the cost-benefit analysis may not meet
the current threshold, that builds resiliency.
The cost-benefit analysis alone does not adequately
represent the world's environmental and role social impacts
play. As the funding with the most potential to make
exponential strides toward resiliency, we must allow for
inclusion of multiple factors when determining project
eligibility.
Lastly, I urge Congress to show its commitment to disaster
readiness and resiliency by authorizing more predisaster
mitigation funding. To compare, in 2017, predisaster mitigation
for the entire Nation was $90 million, but for Harvey alone,
the State of Texas has been allocated $1 billion. Doesn't it
make more sense to invest in predisaster mitigation efforts,
working to avoid such massive post-disaster expenses?
On behalf of IAEM and all local government emergency
management professionals across the country, I sincerely
appreciate this opportunity to share my Hurricane Harvey
experiences. I hope my testimony fosters further discussion as
we strive to improve the way we as a Nation frame disaster
resiliency.
Use the opportunities in 2017, those lessons learned. Help
us build a generation of Americans who anticipate needs and
resolve to take action before disaster, empowering themselves
to be more resilient to disasters in the future.
Thank you, Chairman Barletta. I look forward to any
questions the members of the subcommittee have for me.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you for your testimony, Ms. Gardner.
Administrator Paulison, you may proceed.
Mr. Paulison. Chairman Barletta, Ranking Member Titus, and
members of this subcommittee. I want to thank you for holding
this important hearing today. As communities around the Nation
continue to recover in the wake of last year's devastating
catastrophes, I remain grateful for the leadership demonstrated
by this committee, the chairman, and the ranking member, and
for the opportunity to share my expertise with the committee on
the behalf of the BuildStrong Coalition.
The BuildStrong Coalition is a group of firefighters,
emergency responders, insurers, engineers, architects,
contractors, and manufacturers, as well as consumer
organizations, code specialists, and many others, committing to
build a more resilient America. During my 40 years' experience
dealing with natural disasters at the Federal, State, and local
levels, I have gained a deep appreciation for the tremendous
service of our Nation's first responders and emergency
management officials.
In my career, which began in 1971 as a rescue firefighter,
I served as Administrator of FEMA from 2005 to 2009,
Administrator to the U.S. Fire Administration from 2001 to
2005, Director of Preparedness for FEMA from 2003 to 2004, and
fire chief of Miami-Dade Fire and Rescue Department from 1992
to 2001. Maybe it looks like I can't hold a job, huh?
Responding to many major hurricanes, including Hurricane
Andrew in 1992, and Katrina in 2005, has provided me with a
unique understanding of how we can better position FEMA to
respond when disaster strikes. As we all know, last year was a
particularly devastating one for disasters with 17 storms
during the Atlantic hurricane season responsible for over $200
billion in damages, and a death toll in the thousands,
according to most estimates. These are astounding and
horrifying numbers. And our focus should remain on helping
those who lost so much.
Having sat in his chair, I know well the challenge
Administrator Long and his entire team face. While we are
helping those in need, it is beyond time to give serious
consideration to why we continue to leave lives, homes,
communities vulnerable. The evidence is simply overwhelming.
Better land use, modern construction standards, and increased
mitigation can dramatically reduce the devastation brought by
these disasters.
We must incentivize and reward communities who invest in
resiliency and stronger building codes. As lives are on the
line, we must provide incentives for States to promote fire
sprinklers, and insist that fire code officials get the
nonflammable and seismic standards right the first time and
make sure they are enforced. The cost share provision included
in the Bipartisan Budget Act, signed by President Trump just
earlier this year as part of the Disaster Recovery Reform Act,
passed by this very committee, represents a major step for
creating these incentives. And the work of this subcommittee,
including you, Mr. Chairman, as well as the work of other
leaders, such as Chairman Shuster and Denham, deserve a
tremendous amount of credit. Thank you for that.
With another busier than expected hurricane season ahead,
it is more urgent than ever that Congress send the entire
Disaster Recovery Reform Act to the President's desk. One
provision would dramatically boost the size of the Nation's
predisaster mitigation account, arming communities all over the
Nation with new tools to mitigate against the risk of wind
damage, flooding, and wildfires.
Also, before us is FEMA's task in implementing the cost
share adjustment provision, if passed into law. Let me make it
clear that I applaud FEMA for embracing this challenging task,
and I would like to offer four specific recommendations that I
believe, based on my experience, will help ensure the incentive
is implemented in a way that will protect homes, lives from
future storms.
First, the cost share incentive should be established as a
FEMA pilot program to ensure maximum flexibility and speed of
enactment.
Second, a minimum standard should be established such that
in order to be eligible for any enhanced Federal cost share, a
State must have a statewide building code within an enforcement
mechanism--a strong enforcement mechanism.
Third, the State must have a working mitigation plan that
identifies top vulnerabilities and the steps the State must
take to reduce those vulnerabilities. In order to receive any
funding above 75 percent minimum amount, States must implement
action identified in this plan.
Finally, it would be critical to push for incentives
offered to the House under State mitigation plans and building
codes that can achieve significant impact. This would mean the
adoption of the most recent recommended code and maintaining a
model code no older than 6 years, and implementing changes to
State and local building codes that address key
vulnerabilities.
As the 2018 Atlantic hurricane season gets underway, the
time is now to put predisaster mitigation at the forefront and
protect our Nation and communities from the next storm. There
is a critical piece of unfinished business from the disaster
legislation passed by this committee in the House of
Representatives this year. A key provision puts 6 percent of
all annual disaster spending on the budget for predisaster
mitigation.
This provision is critical and must be passed by this
Congress. Without preventative mitigation spending, people are
left vulnerable and losing their lives, property being
destroyed, and it simply doesn't have to be this way.
So I want to thank you again for holding this important
hearing, and I look forward to hearing your questions.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you for your testimony, Administrator
Paulison.
And 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.
And, first, I was glad to hear Ranking Member Titus mention
the importance of the needs of pets during a disaster, a topic
of great importance to me. We included a very important
provision in the DRRA that authorizes FEMA to set up a
veterinarian pilot program that will help communities get the
help they need in setting up shelters that include facilities
for pets. So thank you for bringing that up.
And I will begin. Twice this Congress--the House has
overwhelmingly passed the Disaster Recovery Reform Act, which
includes key provisions that will help speed disaster recovery
and mitigate disaster risks. The legislative changes in
authorities in DRRA will save lives, property and taxpayer
dollars. And the Senate has yet to act on this important
legislation.
To all witnesses here, how important do you think it is
that Congress enact the provisions contained in the Disaster
Recovery Reform Act?
Mr. Byard, you may start.
Mr. Byard. Yes, sir. We appreciate the committee's
commitment to improving our Nation's resilience and response to
disasters. You know, the DRRA will incentivize that investment
in predisaster mitigation very, you know, similar to what
Administrator Paulison just laid out. Building a Nation of
resilience--building a culture of resilience is one of the
Administrator's top strategic goals. Thank you.
Mr. Alexander. The Corps of Engineers certainly supports
any effort to increase the resilience of the Nation's
infrastructure and to promote life, health, safety measures. We
also support, you know, investments and mitigation upfront. We
are working on the Mitigation Framework Leadership Group with
our Federal agency partners on the development of a National
Mitigation Investment Strategy.
If you take a look at the dollar amounts associated with
the supplementals of storms since Hurricane Katrina, if you
took a fraction of that amount and invested it in mitigation,
perhaps we would be able to mitigate the damages that we see
today in our response and recovery operations. Thank you.
Mr. Sheehan. The National Emergency Management Association
supports this legislation and remains active in helping work
towards its passage. The key provisions that are most important
for us are the National Public Infrastructure Predisaster
Hazard Mitigation, the provision to take 6 percent of the
disaster funding and makes it available for predisaster
mitigation, is I think a game changer in terms of our Nation's
resilience.
We also support the increase in management costs. This
provision gives the ability to change that current level of
funding from 3.34 percent to 12 percent, split 7 percent to the
State and 5 percent to local governments. If that happens, if
we are ever able to implement that, Administrator Long's vision
for FEMA, for the emergency management enterprise, and the
Nation in creating a more collaborative disaster management
process will be realized. That allows us to fund that
capability and build a more collaborative emergency management
system.
The National Emergency Management Association opposes the
duplication of benefits provision there. We think that the
ability to waive some of these things could lead to other
agencies trying to reach into the disaster relief fund and that
that could create potential problems in funding streams for
funding the Nation's disaster readiness.
Ms. Gardner. Building on Mr. Sheehan's discussion there,
the International Association of Emergency Managers also
supports. And we urge everyone to remember that this policy--it
is written policy, but it saves lives. And if it is not saving
a life, it is impacting quality of life. And for those that are
less willing to look at passing such legislation, remember, it
may be your family that is dealing with this legislation and
policy in the future, and make sure that you can live with
whatever that comes up to be.
Incentives for States and locals are imperative, it helps
us to continue to drive mitigation as a culture in our own
communities so that we can teach that culture to citizens that
live in our communities. But consider the possibilities of
additionally adding the benefit and incentives to the local
citizen, the private-sector partners we have, the nonprofits,
and the other nongovernmental agencies within those
jurisdictions. How can those incentives also be directly
applied so that the culture can be continued to be built.
Mr. Paulison. As you are sitting here listening and you see
that almost every agency that responds to disasters recognizes
very clearly, very clearly that predisaster mitigation works,
it does save lives, it saves property. We saw very--after
Hurricane Andrew, we made significant changes in our building
code. You saw Hurricane Irma go through the Keys. The houses
that were built to the new code were still there, they are
doing fine. Some of them didn't even lose their roof tiles. It
went across the top of my house in south Florida, and no damage
at all.
If you look at last year's disaster spending, over $200
billion spent on disasters. Taking 6 percent of that and
applying to predisaster mitigation, can you imagine the impact
this will have across this entire country as far as building
resiliency in our system. So back to you, I know you are over
your 5 minutes.
But, look, Mr. Barletta, the question that you asked, will
it have an impact? Of course it would, and a very, very
positive impact. And I think it is extremely important that we
push this very hard to get it not only through here but also
through the Senate. Thank you for the question.
Mr. Barletta. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Titus for 5
minutes.
Mr. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A big part of the
recovery after a disaster is contracting with the private
sector to get assistance with some of the efforts. So I would
like to ask you, Mr. Byard, about some disaster contracting
with FEMA.
In October of 2017, the Puerto Rico Electric Power
Authority awarded a small company with just two full time
employees, located in Montana, the Whitefish Energy Holdings
Company, a $300 million contract to restore electricity on the
island in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria.
According to the Washington Post, before the White House--I
mean, before Whitefish--you can see where I might get the two
confused--Whitefish received the $300 million contract. The
only thing that they had done was a small effort in Arizona to
repair a 4.8-mile transmission line for a $1.3 million deal.
Now, they have eventually canceled their contract with
Whitefish, but so far they received a payment of over $30
million to work in Puerto Rico. And Whitefish claims that
Puerto Rico owes them an additional $100 million.
I would like to ask you what role FEMA played in the
awarding of that contract? Did they request any guidance from
you before making the award? Are you planning to reimburse them
for their expenses related to the contract?
I wonder if you are cooperating with the probe, I
understand that the Department of Homeland Security, Office of
the Inspector General, is conducting. And can you provide to
the subcommittee kind of a detailed justification or the
project worksheet for what was actually done to merit this kind
of payment of taxpayer dollars?
Mr. Byard. Yes, ma'am. So we have to look at the context of
where we were. So we have a devastating disaster, and I believe
it was in October of 2017, when PREPA, who is the legal,
responsible entity, to restore power for the Commonwealth. Just
as most of our co-ops, cooperatives around our Nation, just as
our private electric providers are around our Nation, PREPA was
the entity that was tasked and has the responsibility to
provide power to the citizens of the Commonwealth.
As with many storms prior to that and many different
disasters prior to that, standard practice within the industry
is mutual aid crews will come in to assist. That did not occur
at that time. So PREPA elected to do a contract. FEMA does not
get involved in the contracts between legal applicants,
necessarily, and who they contract with. We have Federal
procurement rules and regulations that are required to be
followed in order to get reimbursement for contracts at large.
The Public Assistance Program does give the ability for
FEMA to reimburse eligible applicants for eligible work. So any
reimbursement done under the Whitefish contract or any other
contract has gone through eligibility requirements as set forth
in the Stafford Act for reimbursement. So--and you had a list
of questions, but I am just going to give an overview of how
that works.
So at the time, you know, we had to make some very quick
and crisis action planning decisions on the ground, some of
which we have not been faced with in any disaster. For example,
the actual generation and distribution power of the
Commonwealth was devastated. And in most terms and in most
cases we turn to the Corps of Engineers, which is a vital
partner to what we do for emergency power restoration, and that
is generally done through generators. At this time we knew that
we had to have more than that. So we asked the Corps to step
up----
Ms. Titus. I am not interested in the Corps. I want to get
back to the Whitefish arrangement.
Mr. Byard. Ma'am, as far as the Whitefish, that is a PREPA
question. What we would do is reimburse eligible applicants
across the Nation for eligible work done.
Ms. Titus. And do you not think that FEMA should have in
place some greater checks on the contracts that are issued
before you just pay out this kind of money to a company that
you--even I, and I am not an expert in this area, would have
some reservations about contracting with--for such a major job,
and over time it has shown that they weren't up to the job.
Mr. Byard. Right. So----
Mr. Titus. You don't think that is your responsibility?
Mr. Byard. No, ma'am, I don't. I think the responsibility
is always best if it is locally executed, State-managed, and
federally supported.
So, you know, as you heard the esteemed colleagues on the
panel, all disasters begin and end locally. So, you know, what
are we asking FEMA to do? Do we support the locals in one hand,
and then, you know, manage, oversee, and dictate how they
contract in the other?
Ms. Titus. I'm not asking you to dictate----
Mr. Byard. Now we have many checks and balances in place--
--
Ms. Titus [continuing]. I am asking you to provide some
oversight for all this amount of money----
Mr. Byard. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Titus [continuing]. For all this amount of money of $30
million of taxpayers.
Mr. Byard. Right. And I believe the total bill was over
$300 million. So I feel very certain we have very strict
oversight on what the taxpayers' dollars are going to. We want
to build back better.
So, you know, there are oversight measures in place with
Whitefish and any other contract.
Ms. Titus. Is that part of your after-disaster report to
have greater oversight on these kind of contracts and you don't
think it should be?
Mr. Byard. No, ma'am, I never said I didn't think it should
be. I said we have current oversight and current policies and
procedures in place to ensure that Federal dollars are spent
wisely and that they are spent for the allocations set forth in
the Stafford Act as--we also have contract teams that will go
out and assist local governments. They have done that in Texas
and Florida and others. So I believe we have adequate oversight
in place.
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Barletta. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Crawford for 5
minutes.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Byard, are you aware what percentage of homes flooded
by Hurricane Harvey had flood insurance policies?
Mr. Byard. Sir, I don't know the percentage. I can
definitely get that back to the committee. I would hate to
guess or estimate.
Mr. Crawford. All right. Well, I am looking at a Washington
Post report on an analysis of FEMA data that shows only 17
percent of homeowners in the eight most affected counties had
flood insurance. Does that sound accurate to you?
Mr. Byard. You know, sir, I don't want to, you know, judge
the accuracy of the Washington Post, but what I will say is,
you know, insurance is the first and best line of defense.
Mr. Crawford. OK.
Mr. Byard. So if 17 percent is what they had, I would say
that would be low in that area.
Mr. Crawford. OK. Let me ask you this: Are you aware that
FEMA is legally required to assess the accuracy and need to
update a flood map covering an area every 5 years?
Mr. Byard. What I can do is get you information on the
National Flood Insurance Program. It is not under my purview.
Mr. Crawford. It is not?
Mr. Byard. No, sir. I am under response recovery. I handle
Stafford Act programs. But I can definitely get you information
and would be happy to provide any and everything on the
National Flood Insurance Program.
Mr. Crawford. Well----
Mr. Byard. I don't want to overspeak. I would hate to do
that to you in the fine committee.
Mr. Crawford. Well, that said, probably the line of
questioning that I have is probably better directed for
somebody else in your Agency. So you don't have any issues with
flood control, or flood mapping, per se?
Mr. Byard. No, sir, it is not under--again, it is not under
my responsibility, as laid out by the Administrator.
Mr. Crawford. OK.
Mr. Byard. But, again, we will be happy to work with you. I
don't want to come across like I am dodging the question. I
just----
Mr. Crawford. Sure. I understand. Do you have any knowledge
of that 5-year requirement, though? Is that, in fact, accurate,
that you have to update every 5 years?
Mr. Byard. You know, and I hate to look to my left, but our
State and locals may have a better understanding of the mapping
requirements. And, again, I don't want to put them on the spot,
but----
Mr. Crawford. Well, let me ask Ms. Gardner, because I think
you were in the area affected, correct?
Ms. Gardner. I was not.
Mr. Crawford. You were not?
Ms. Gardner. No. I actually am in north Texas.
Mr. Crawford. Oh, you are not. OK.
Ms. Gardner. I responded to the area to support.
Mr. Crawford. OK. But you were down there and so you kind
of--OK.
Ms. Gardner. Yes, sir.
Mr. Crawford. I guess I am asking you to speculate here,
but I have got some concerns about the accuracy of the FEMA
flood mapping, and how current they are. I am just wondering if
you could opine on whether or not you think FEMA is the best
agency to, in fact, engage in flood mapping.
Ms. Gardner. I will give you my opinion, based on my
experience. But yes, that would be a lot of speculation. I have
not personally looked at the flood maps for that impacted area,
so that is another piece that I am not aware of.
I will tell you that FEMA has played an active role, and
they engage actively other partners, such as the National
Weather Service and other partners that deal with flooding on a
regular basis. And because they are used to doing that, I don't
see a reason to change that process, because we have seen it,
and it has worked in our communities. We do not flood in the
city of Richardson, because of mitigation efforts that we have
taken in the past. Not to say we never will, but we do not see
the same flooding issues and we have used those maps.
Mr. Crawford. Let me ask Mr. Paulison, because you have
been a former FEMA Administrator, correct?
Mr. Paulison. Yes, sir.
Mr. Crawford. So would you be able to speak to whether or
not statutorily every 5 years that is required by FEMA to
update flood maps?
Mr. Paulison. Yeah. I can't speak about the 5-year. I know
that when I was the FEMA Administrator, we had started doing
LIDAR [light detection and ranging] flood mapping. We started
in the eastern part of the United States, and I know North
Carolina was one of the first States we started. I am not sure
how far they got, how far they have gotten so far, but I know
that FEMA had started that process of trying to do the entire
country to get more accurate flood maps.
Mr. Crawford. OK. Well, I appreciate you all being here
today. And I think I am probably going to have to submit my
questions for the record for someone else in your Agency to be
able to answer, but I appreciate your cooperation. Thank you.
Mr. Byard. Yes, sir.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you, Mr. Crawford. The Chair recognizes
Mr. DeFazio for 5 minutes.
Mr. DeFazio. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Just back to the line of questioning by the subcommittee
ranking member. I had asked similar questions at an earlier
hearing. And what we have is a contradiction here. The two
contractors claim that FEMA reviewed the contracts, and
actually signed off on excluding oversight. That has been
denied by FEMA, and again today.
And so, actually, the inspector general is going to try and
get to the bottom of this, how these rather fishy contracts
were entered into and what role FEMA played. But we can't
resolve that today until we have the IG report. So let's go to
some issues we might be able to resolve.
Mr. Byard, Ranking Member Titus and I just recently sent
the Administrator a letter expressing concern about your
personnel, your reservists for emergencies. Your own standards
say that you should have 10,928 reservists. You had 6,749 on
call last year, and you still have 2,383 deployed. So that
seems to leave us with something around 4,300 reservists. How
are you going to deal with that issue this year?
Mr. Byard. You know, sir, that is a very good question. And
as we outlined in our after action, we faced, you know,
personnel shortages in 2017. You know, if you go back, the
Agency faced personnel shortages in 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013,
2012, 2010. You can go back. And we are going to face personnel
shortages in 2019. So how do we do that? How do we accomplish
our mission without coming and saying, we need more FEMA
employees?
Several things that we are doing in the recommendation that
affect us. First of all, is changing our national-level
doctrine and revising the National Response Framework. What
that would do for us as a country, it puts more players at the
table so that the resources and the personnel we have, we can
better utilize those, by including the private sector in what
we do daily, in our deliberate planning, in our operational
planning, by incorporating our critical infrastructure nodes,
our 16 critical infrastructure nodes, and then cross-sector
planning with those so that, you know, if a problem hits, we
don't hit one bucket. We task organize around the problem.
Now, we are hiring in critical areas. We are hiring in
logistics. Also, as the report identified, we had issues with
the last-mile logistics, specifically in the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico. So we will have teams that can get on the ground
anywhere, not just in the Commonwealth, and help in the last-
mile logistics. For example, in Texas, very robust capabilities
on that end from the State and local side of the thing, so we
didn't have that same issue.
The other thing we have got to do is as you look to the
left or right, our best emergency managers, they don't wear a
FEMA shirt. They are our State and local partners. We have the
system, as you probably are aware of, the Emergency Management
Assistance Compact, and from the State, I am from State
emergency management, I have done that, I have assisted States
and I have brought in States.
But when we talk about a national catastrophe and similar
to what we saw in 2017, we need the ability to also rally those
resources, those well-trained professionals, and put those
resources to use. So that will increase our staffing also. And
we are doing that through what we call the National
Qualification System. And we feel like we are going to have
great buy-in from our State and local partners.
I personally did that in 2012 when Hurricane Sandy hit.
FEMA contacted me, and I led a team of eight from the State of
Alabama under FEMA's direction to help out the efforts in New
York City. Not only does that benefit us at the Federal level,
you bring those lessons learned back to your State and local
jurisdictions so you better the Nation.
So we have to look at--you know, in a perfect world, I
would love to have 20,000 reservists ready to go right now. And
every other Federal agency that is probably sitting in front of
you would say they would love to have, you know, X amount of
people.
But the reality of it is we have to look outside our
traditional means. You know, we talk about State and local
governments, and we talk about mitigation, but that is not
working. So how do we do things better? We have got to----
Mr. DeFazio. Wasn't there concern, and particularly in the
case of Puerto Rico, about reimbursement to the State and
locals if they provided mutual aid?
Mr. Byard. You know, there may have been. Again, but how
does FEMA get involved in that? Let me tell you how we did get
involved in that. We expedited what we call category B under
the public assistance that would reimburse the Commonwealth to
do that type of payment. We expedited that. That was our
priority, at the time, obligation to the Commonwealth. So there
were concerns, but, again, that is a question better asked to
the Commonwealth or to others.
To combat that, though, what we have done in 2018, we have
hired over 1,500 local hires on the island. And they are FEMA
employees. They are going through the National Qualification
System now. We have had very robust exercises. We have over
4,600 staff on the ground. We have people embedded with every
municipality.
We have done a tremendous amount of effort from 2017,
response-wise, into 2018; and we put that to the test, as I
believe somebody mentioned, with Tropical Storm Beryl, where we
could take that recovery operation and quickly turn that
machine into a response organization in about 14 hours.
We have increased a number of commodities fivefold in water
and MREs. Generators are currently still connected to critical
infrastructure. We know we are going to lose power in the
storm, but we will be able to power emergency power to those
critical facilities.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Well, thank you. My time has expired. I
was going to ask the Corps regarding the removal of the very
large generators that they delivered, if I could, Mr. Chairman.
I don't know if they have actually been removed or just
planning to remove them. I guess I would question why you would
do that now with the beginning of the hurricane season, since
their grid still seems somewhat fragile.
Mr. Alexander. Sir, there were three what we call mega-
generators rented and brought to the territory, two in Palo
Seco, to help stabilize the grid there. They remain in
operation today. There are no plans for immediate
demobilization.
Mr. DeFazio. OK, good. That may have been bad information
we received.
Mr. Alexander. But there is one, sir, in the community of
Yabucoa that will be demobilized effective midnight tomorrow.
And that is a decision that was reached, based upon assessment
by PREPA of the status of the grid in that area, and it was
concurred. That decision to demobilize was collaborated and
concurred by the Unified Coordination Group, which has a
representative from the Governor's office there who concurred
with that.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Well, hopefully PREPA is better managed
now than it was before.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Mast for 5 minutes.
Mr. Mast. Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Alexander, for representing the Corps of
Engineers at this hearing on hurricane preparedness. My
community dreads hurricane season, not just because of
impending storms, but because year after year, as a result of
the risk management that surrounds hurricane preparedness,
through the Corps of Engineers water is discharged out of Lake
Okeechobee, hundreds of billions of gallons of water, often
laden with microcystin algae, cyanobacteria, blue-green algae.
Right now, the water being released from Lake Okeechobee into
my community has 15 times greater the level of microcystin
algae, which leads to a number of human health hazards, 15
times greater than what any human being should be exposed to.
This is all in the aim of risk management for the dike
surrounding Lake Okeechobee.
So I want to ask you some pointed questions on the risk
management of the water levels of Lake Okeechobee, the risk
management of the dike, the potentially failing dike around
Lake Okeechobee.
What is the level of water in inches, feet, that Lake
Okeechobee should be at going into hurricane season so that
there is not a risk of dike failure?
Mr. Alexander. Mr. Mast, thank you for the question. Going
into the beginning of wet season, we strive to maintain a lake
level approximately 12\1/2\ feet.
Mr. Mast. Twelve and a half feet is the maximum level that
you want going into hurricane season?
Mr. Alexander. Yes, sir. And then up to 15\1/2\ feet
beginning of the dry season.
Mr. Mast. And is that for strictly the purpose of risk
management, or are you keeping that 12 to 15\1/2\ feet on the
lake for other purposes?
Mr. Alexander. That is a combination of trying to meet
other purposes and balance the needs associated with
environmental, you know, water----
Mr. Mast. Then you gave me an answer to a question I didn't
ask. I asked you what is the level on the lake for that lake,
that dike to be safe from dike failure? Not for other concerns,
not for drinking water, not for agricultural irrigation, not
for agreements with the Tribes around the lake. What level do
you need the lake at so there is no risk of dike failure with
the Herbert Hoover Dike?
Mr. Alexander. As I said, we go into hurricane season
attempting to reach a level no less than 12\1/2\ feet.
Mr. Mast. Now, getting into those other concerns--I know I
sent you these questions in advance so that I would have the
answers given to me on this--how much water do you keep on the
lake for these other concerns that you talked about? How much
water in inches or feet is kept on Lake Okeechobee for the
purpose of agreements with the Tribes?
Mr. Alexander. I will give you the bottom line upfront.
Lake Okeechobee is not managed like a Corps flood control
reservoir. The Herbert Hoover Dike, essentially, it is a levee
system that encompasses and contains a prior free-flowing lake.
The specific question on inches of water is not applicable in
the management of Lake Okeechobee.
Mr. Mast. Sir, Lake Okeechobee and the Corps of Engineers
absolutely keep track of every inch of water that goes on Lake
Okeechobee. Earlier in the season, the Caloosahatchee
municipalities were requesting 1,000 cubic feet per second for
several months, hoping to get about an inch of water off Lake
Okeechobee, because they needed that for the ecology of their
waterway. They were denied.
The Corps of Engineers has a call every single week where
they pay attention to exactly the amount of inches or quarter
inches of level of change on Lake Okeechobee. So absolutely,
Lake Okeechobee is managed and regulated in that way.
So let me ask you a different one. How much water is kept
on Lake Okeechobee, in the form of what is requested by
consumptive use permits for agriculture? How many inches, how
many feet of water are kept on Lake Okeechobee for that
purpose?
Mr. Alexander. Well, I would like to state that the Corps
of Engineers does keep track of probably every inch of water in
that reservoir. That being said, though, we don't have specific
allocations for those specific purposes in the consumptive use
agreements. Again, it is a balance between this 12\1/2\ and
15\1/2\ feet. And it is managed as a system along with some
other, I guess, laws that exist down there with respect to the
consumptive use, the Lake Okeechobee Surface Area water input
rules. So we have to balance the multiple purposes and
potential uses----
Mr. Mast. So in balancing those purposes, sir, I had a
conversation just a couple weeks back with the South Florida
Water Management District. I asked them about the ecology of
the lake. They said the optimum level of the lake for its
ecology is, at minimum, 11 feet. And I asked them, OK, if the
water level on the lake should not be below 11 feet, if
irrigation, or those that need water, agricultural irrigation
or those that need drinking water or somebody else needed water
for those concerns, if the lake was at 11 feet, would you still
send the water to the irrigation canals for agriculture? The
answer was yes. If it was at 10 feet, would you still send the
water to the canals for agricultural irrigation? The answer was
yes. If it was at 9 feet? The answer is yes. If the lake was at
8 feet, a dangerously low level, the answer was yes, they would
still get their water for those purposes.
So is it right that you keep the water at this higher level
when my community is destroyed because this water is at that
higher level when you are still going to send the water to
these other areas for their purposes, even if the water is down
as low as 8 feet on Lake Okeechobee?
Mr. Alexander. Sir, I have not been privy to any of those
conversations that you have had. What I will say is I know that
our Jacksonville District is engaged with the community, is
very engaged with you.
I am not an expert on Lake Okeechobee and the releases. But
what I will offer is an engagement of you, Colonel Jason Kirk,
the district commander, and anybody from his staff or here at
headquarters who could walk you through in detail how we manage
the lake and then what the risks are at the various levels.
Mr. Mast. Thank you for the answers to your question.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back and I do request a second round
of questioning.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes Ms. Plaskett for 5 minutes.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
the ranking member for having this hearing.
This is, of course, very important to me, representing the
Virgin Islands, after we have gone through the 2017 hurricane
season, are beginning the 2018 hurricane season, and are still
looking to ways in which not just to recover, but to begin the
rebuilding.
As some of you are probably unaware, for this entire school
year, children in the Virgin Islands have operated on a 4-hour
shift system, because so many of our public schools were
compromised. So the children had to share facilities and only
participated in school curricular activities for 4 hours during
the day.
Most of our dialysis and inpatient individuals are still
off island, because our hospitals have been compromised so much
from the hurricane that they have been unable to be at home for
those services. But I want to thank FEMA and the Army Corps,
Coast Guard, and so many other Federal agencies that were there
on the ground and are providing assistance.
I know that this action report really provides a blueprint
on how to have improvements and make things better, and I am
trusting that FEMA and the other agencies are really taking
those things to heart. You know, the sign of maturity is
recognizing when you have done things wrong and learning from
them and just moving forward.
But one of the things I wanted to ask these individuals
about, in particular, were some of the issues that we still
have. On April 20th, the Governor of the Virgin Islands,
Kenneth Mapp, sent a letter to Administrator Brock Long, which
I'd ask unanimous consent to submit into the record, requesting
support of some of the issues that we have.
Without objection, can that be admitted into the record?
Mr. Barletta. Yes, it may.
[The letter is on pages 129-134.]
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you.
One of the things we are concerned about that I would like
to bring to your attention, Mr. Byard, as well as Mr.
Alexander, if you can assist in answering this question, is
with regard to debris removal. The U.S. Army Corps is working
under FEMA mission assignment to remove all of the vegetative
C&D and marine debris from the territory. This work will be
completed in September. However, large stockpiles of debris
remaining, with hurricane season almost upon us again, is very
concerning. I know that there has been some discussion about
bidding this out and ensuring where it can be kept.
We were given an extension of the local share on this, but
due to the Army Corps, a bid protest that was done to the Army
Corps, which they believe will be overcome, debris will not be
removed until the end of December. If no extension that long,
the Government of the Virgin Islands will be hit with a 10
percent local cost share.
So my question is, Mr. Byard, will FEMA support 100 percent
Federal share extension, since the delay is not in the control
of the Government of the Virgin Islands?
Mr. Byard. Ma'am, that is a good question. As you know,
debris has been, you know, a difficult task in the Virgin
Islands. I was down probably a month or so back. And you are
right, there is still a lot of work to do there.
What we will do is definitely work with the Governor and,
you know, once--and if we have received a request, I don't want
to sound ignorant to that, it will be working itself out. If we
have not received a request, I will be definitely looking on
that. I spoke to Bill Vogel yesterday, the FCO, Federal
Coordinating Officer.
Ms. Plaskett. Right.
Mr. Byard. And I spoke to also Mike Byrne, who will be
going over to work----
Ms. Plaskett. So you will work with the Governor and try
and do that if it is necessary, because this is outside of our
control and, of course, you know, any cost share for us is
really a great burden.
Mr. Byard. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Plaskett. The second question I have is with regard to
the STEP [Sheltering and Temporary Essential Power] program.
You know, the STEP program is one which can be supportive of
individuals. This is the program that allows temporary repair
of homes in the Virgin Islands.
I know that there was some back-and-forth with regard to
the STEP program, because the limit initially for the STEP
program was $20,000. However, the Blue Roof program we know ran
an average about $25,000 per roof. We understand that that has
been increased. The STEP is now at $25,000. I know that the
Governor of the Virgin Islands has a request in for $35,000 per
home. Are you willing to support that request at this time?
Mr. Byard. Well, what I do know is that we have authorized
the use of the STEP program for any home in the territory with
a ``blue roof.''
Ms. Plaskett. OK. And would that include--there is one
thing that is really important to us. You did allow--the STEP
was used for rental properties in New York City after Hurricane
Sandy.
Mr. Byard. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Plaskett. But to date, you have refused to allow that
for low-income renters in the Virgin Islands. And some of those
do, in fact, have ``blue roofs'' on them. Will you be willing
to reconsider that?
Mr. Byard. What I would like to do is get back to you,
Representative. And the reason I say that is we have the Multi-
Family Lease and Repair program under the Individual Assistance
Program. I would like to see where that program is when it
deals with multifamily facilities, and also the STEP.
So I will have my staff definitely take that for action,
and if it is OK with you to get back with you, because I want
to make sure I give you a comprehensive answer on that.
Ms. Plaskett. Well, I have run out of time, but since you
have said you are going to get back with me on the record, I am
going to hold you to come into my office.
Mr. Byard. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Plaskett. It has been difficult to get FEMA. Bill Vogel
has been really good about being there on the ground and
answering any questions that we have, but I have had a little
difficulty in getting individuals from here at headquarters to
come into my office and have conversations.
I know we all have the same interest in mind. And I am not
trying to be, you know, the bad guy all the time. I really do
want to see how we can work together and make this better,
particularly as we are preparing people in the Virgin Islands
for this new hurricane season.
And also, I know my time is out, but, Mr. Alexander, I want
to thank the Army Corps of Engineers for really extending
themselves and committing to having biweekly meetings with me,
giving me an update of what they are doing. That has been
really helpful, and I am very happy for the cooperation and the
relationship that our office has with them.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you, Ms. Plaskett.
Mr. Gallagher.
Mr. Gallagher. Thank you.
I apologize for being late. I hope we are going not to
rehash ground or go over ground that has already been tread.
But in FEMA's ``After-Action Report''--this is a question for
Mr. Byard--of the 2017 hurricane season released last week, the
delivery of food and commodities to Puerto Rico and the Virgin
Islands was recognized as a major challenge, due to staffing
shortages and logistical failures.
Could you explain what happened with regards to commodities
in 2017, and what adjustments you have made in 2018,
particularly to address the potential needs of the territories
should there be another hurricane?
Mr. Byard. Yes, sir, I will be happy to. So your first
question was, you know, the 2017 issue. So, you know--and,
again, as we pointed out in the report, all of our national
planning, all the deliberate planning we do is built around,
you know, a three-legged stool, if you will. You have local,
you have State, and you have Federal Government support,
specifically when you talk about logistical movements of
commodities.
What we quickly found in the Commonwealth is two of those
legs were not there. And I don't mean that to be disparaging.
What I mean is, you know, we had a lot of impacted first
responders were survivors on the Commonwealth.
So we had the ability to get the commodities to, and there
were commodities always on the island. We accomplished that. It
was taking it from the port, for example, and getting it out to
the more difficult terrain municipalities. We did incident
action/crisis action planning on the ground. You always do that
to assess the needs, task, organize and move out. That was
accomplished. So what are we doing in 2018? As I mentioned
earlier, you know, one of our targeted hiring initiatives is in
our logistics. Everything we do is about logistics.
And so we are hiring more teams or more individuals that
will staff teams called incident support teams that we can send
downrange to further expand our footprint for the last-mile
logistics. Now currently, in the Caribbean, we have about 4,600
staff, FEMA staff that are doing the recovery mission. They are
dual-trained to do response.
So we have staff in each municipality; we have
communications satellites communication in each municipality;
we have backup generators already installed in critical
facilities to include communication towers; we have also done
logistical exercises, where we had one warehouse going into
2017, we have five on the island now. Where we had thousands of
commodities and maybe in water and MREs, we have millions now.
We have also done exercises with the municipalities where
we actually moved commodities from the distribution centers out
into the more rural or difficult terrain municipalities. We did
that to exercise the movement, but we didn't take the
commodities back. They are safe, secured, and stored. So we are
well-positioned from that standpoint in 2018 than we were in
2017.
Mr. Gallagher. I appreciate that.
Administrator Paulison, you have extensive experience as a
firefighter and a former U.S. Fire Aministrator. What do you
think is the most important thing we can do as a Nation to curb
devastating wildfires like the ones we have experienced in
2017?
Mr. Paulison. Thank you for that question. I think it goes
along with the mitigation that we talked about earlier about
setting aside moneys to--because mitigating from wildfires is
not any different than mitigating from any other type of
disaster. It is looking what are the issues, what are the
risks, and then having enough funding to deal with those risks.
So I think that we need to--I encourage this committee to
look very clearly at that 6 percent of predisaster mitigation.
States like your State of California, all the Western States
out there are having a very, very difficult time. I mean, we
have lost so many homes. We have had fatalities out there. We
have had infrastructure destroyed. We have had water systems
destroyed, because of wildfires out there and not having the
right types of materials in place to withstand those types of
disasters.
So a State having enough money with predisaster mitigation
to deal with those types of things, I think, will go a long way
toward resolving a lot of the issue you just talked about,
protecting our homes and our businesses from these wildfires.
Mr. Gallagher. Thank you.
And I yield the balance of my time.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Ms. Norton
for 5 minutes.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, this is a
very timely hearing and I will tell you why in a moment.
This is a question I suppose best addressed to Mr. Byard,
but also Mr. Alexander, because the question I am asking
implicates very deeply the Federal presence. With the climate
change throughout the country, we are seeing increasing
flooding, that has been alluded to already in this hearing.
There was sufficient concern about flooding here in the
Nation's Capital that we have a levee on the mall, that I
think, Mr. Alexander, the Corps of Engineers was involved with
as well, to protect the Federal presence.
Yet in real time, yesterday we had a disastrous flood in
this region. And nobody who lives here or was here, unless you
were in the Capitol and didn't have to go out, could have
missed what happened. And it seems to me it raises questions in
real time about flood preparedness, even in the area of the
Nation's Capital.
A portion of the George Washington Parkway was closed in
both directions, and to show you just how close or how
implicated the Capitol is, water poured into at least one Metro
stop, and that happened to have been Capitol South, the one
closest to the Capitol of the United States. Everybody, it
seems to me, ought to wonder is anybody protected in the United
States if that close to the Capitol itself we could have had
such a flood.
So my question really goes to a real test. In the District
of Columbia, we are very proud. We have built on both
waterfronts, the southeast waterfront and the southwest
waterfront. Many, many areas, of course, build on their
waterfronts. So this question implicates New York and many
other areas of the United States, because the waterfront is a
very ripe area for revenue.
By the way, if you go to the southwest waterfront, we call
it the Wharf, we finished phase 1, but we are still--and it
looks like the whole thing is finished, but phase 2 is yet to
come. We are building on the southeast waterfront called
Capitol River. And, again, that is ongoing. There will be
another 10 years of building.
So I have to ask you, is it safe to build on waterfronts?
What does FEMA require? What does the Corps of Engineers
require? What have they required of those who are building on
the waterfront, to make sure that those areas are not flooded
with a huge waste to the jurisdictions involved, not to mention
to the private sector? Can anybody just build on the
waterfront? What do you have to do to build on a waterfront in
the United States today? I mean, I am not--the waterfront, I
have no information that the waterfront was implicated, but I
would be a fool to sit here and say that everything is fine
unless you tell me that there are either regulations or
safeguards that have been required, or are required, for all
who build on the waterfront. And I would like to hear from both
of you, since the Federal presence is involved. Mr. Byard.
Mr. Byard. Yes, ma'am. You know, a majority of our
population, as you well know, lives on a waterfront. You know,
when I was with the State of Alabama, the Governor asked me at
the time, you know, how do we help hurricane evacuations? And I
jokingly said, you know, ban air conditioning 50 miles from the
coast and people will stop coming. Obviously, the economic
impacts are very, very good.
Ms. Norton. You have to build on a waterfront.
Mr. Byard. Exactly. So from a FEMA perspective, I would
first look at initiatives that were passed by the committee,
you know, the incentive to build stronger and, excuse me, the
bipartisan----
Ms. Norton. So you are telling me that when building occurs
on the waterfront--I don't know what you mean by incentives--
those who build understand either that they are required or
there are economic incentives to do so?
Mr. Byard. So what I am saying, and let me rephrase that,
part of the authorities that were granted in the Bipartisan
Budget Act that was passed was the incentive to build at a more
resilient rate. FEMA has no authority necessarily over what is
built. That is a local and State issue.
I would also, you know, as we have a working group, just
look at----
Ms. Norton. Of course, you have mitigation authority.
Mr. Byard. We have mitigation authority, again, working
with an eligible applicant. There is not mitigation authority
that we can direct or tell, you know, a local business how to
build. You know, we would work with the district in that case
to see what are the local codes of the district. I don't know
that. You know, FEMA is not in the position to know that. But,
you know, I would--and I will let the Corps talk about----
Ms. Norton. Mr. Alexander.
Mr. Alexander. Yes, ma'am. I will be quick. You know, as
Mr. Byard just said, I mean, the Corps has no authority and
oversight on the District or any State or territory.
Ms. Norton. I can't hear you, sir.
Mr. Alexander. As Mr. Byard just said, the Corps also has
no authority under which it can direct the District or any
State or locality on what they can build or what they cannot
build. But the Corps does urge local governments to, you know,
enforce their zoning, and certainly enforce building to
established codes.
And if you are going to build, you know, on the waterfront,
whether it is riverine or coastal, you know, ensure you are out
of the flood plain. You may have to do that by a standoff or
through elevation. It is the major reason that we do shore
protection projects along the Nation's beaches. It is not
primarily for recreation; it is for the protection of
infrastructure and the economy.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you.
We will now begin a second round of questions. I would like
to remind all Members, today is the annual hot dog lunch in
Rayburn, so we will hold everyone strictly to 5 minutes.
In February, as part of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018,
Congress enacted a provision that will allow FEMA to
incentivize mitigation through the increase of the Federal cost
share of disaster assistance.
Mr. Byard, what is the status of FEMA's implementation of
these provisions?
Mr. Byard. Yes, sir. We have got a working group that is
currently convened. It is looking at how do we best implement.
And as you heard Administrator Paulison, you know, say earlier,
you know, we need to look at a pilot program, so it will allow
us flexibility on how we do that.
We want to take full advantage of the authority that
Congress, you know, granted us in that provision. It fits the
Administrator's strategic plan. So, you know, definitely we are
looking at that. But we want to do it right to start with so
that we have the intent of the provision as laid out by the
act.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you.
Administrator Paulison, what principles do you think should
be driving FEMA's development of these mitigation incentives?
Mr. Paulison. Thank you. I think the most important thing
is it is not a giveaway program, that the States have to do
certain things to qualify for that extra money; have a
statewide building plan in place; have a rock-solid mitigation
plan; have done an assessment of the risk and put those
mitigation dollars towards alleviating those risks.
I think we need to make sure that we are not wasting these
taxpayer dollars, but we are actually giving the dollars to
States who have done things to reduce cost. You know, we had
$200 billion last year. If we have put strong mitigation in
place for 2018, perhaps next year it won't be $200 billion with
the same amount of storm.
So, you know, our conversation with FEMA is, you know, they
are doing a great job putting this thing, getting this thing
going, but let's make sure that the States do what is necessary
to mitigate the disaster cost. Otherwise, we are just wasting
our money.
Mr. Barletta. Mr. Sheehan and Ms. Gardner, what do you
think are the greatest challenges facing State and local
governments related to a cost share adjustment program designed
to incentivize mitigation?
Mr. Sheehan. Predictability of funding streams, I think, is
a kind of complicating factor for us. So as we look to
incentivize mitigation programs or projects, we need to be able
to plan. Mitigation measures take a long time to put into
place. And I think anything--I know one of Administrator Long's
priorities is to simplify or take the complexity out of FEMA.
Anything that we can do to reduce the complexity and build
predictability into funding streams will help us to be better
mitigators.
Ms. Gardner. And to build on that, we definitely share that
same concept. The actions that Mr. Paulison and Mr. Sheehan
discussed are all challenges that we face; but from the State
and local perspective, the more you do in policy to add
incentives, it just helps us to reiterate the importance of
those mitigation steps, and it gives us the leverage we need to
do those mitigation steps, even though they are lengthy and
even though they are costly, because there are other things to
spend that money on. And the more incentives that are there at
all levels and, as I mentioned earlier, directly to private-
sector partners and citizens would also be a benefit. The more
incentives that are there just gives us more leverage to back
up those mitigation projects, and hopefully do more in the
future.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes Ms. Titus for 5 minutes.
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would just like to go back to some questions I was asking
earlier. As you noted in your kind of generalized answer, I had
some specific questions. I want to ask you one more for the
record.
Can you, very specifically, provide to the subcommittee a
detailed justification or the project worksheets under which
PREPA is requesting reimbursement for power restoration in
Puerto Rico? Can you give us that information?
Mr. Byard. So I just want to make sure. You are asking for
the project worksheets that FEMA is working with PREPA on for
the remaining category B work for that?
Ms. Titus. For all of it, for the prior and the remaining.
You can give us the----
Mr. Byard. The remaining, you know, as we close on the
emergency work, you know, the permanent restoration work, which
is two different categories of work, as you well know, I am
sure, is done under a different authority, under the Stafford
Act, but under section 428. So the estimates are not there. We
are not there for the--you know, there is no forward project
worksheet, if you will, for the remaining work, you know.
Ms. Titus. Can you give us an accounting for what they did
that you are paying them back for? Very simple, commonsense
terms, things people understand, can you give us that? Will you
give us that?
Mr. Byard. Of course. Yes.
Ms. Titus. When will we be getting it?
Mr. Byard. I will check with our counsel to make sure, but
we have nothing to hide. We are transparent.
Ms. Titus. It should be public record, I would think.
Mr. Byard. It should be, yes, ma'am.
Ms. Titus. OK, great. Thank you. We will look forward to
getting it.
Then I would like to go back to Mr. Alexander to continue a
question that was asked by Mr. DeFazio. I guess we have
contradictory information, but in a letter that we got from
FEMA that was dated last night, it says that the two mega-
generators at the Palo Seco Power Plant will be demobilized on
August 18. Is that not accurate?
Mr. Alexander. Ma'am, we are working with FEMA to extend
the mission assignment for several months, I believe through,
potentially, mid-October. It is the Yabucoa Power Plant that
will be demobilized tomorrow evening.
Ms. Titus. And that was to go offline July 18, but you are
trying to extend the other two. You didn't make that very clear
in your answer to Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. Alexander. I apologize if I didn't. There are three
mega-generators we brought in, two at Palo Seco, gas turbine
engines. The intent now is they currently are to--that mission
assignment ends, I believe it is 18 August. Right now on the
island, the Federal Coordinating Officer is working with the
Corps and Puerto Rico on potentially extending that mission
assignment for several more months into the fall.
Ms. Titus. OK. But if that doesn't work out, then the
deadline is August 18, right?
Mr. Alexander. That would not be our decision, ma'am. The
current mission assignment ends 18 August for Palo Seco. The
Yabucoa generator will be demobilized tomorrow evening at
midnight.
Ms. Titus. OK. I just wanted to be sure that was clear,
because it sounded like you weren't going to demobilize the
other two, that there wasn't any question about it.
Also, I would now like to go back to the point we were
making about animals. We know that people are much more likely
to leave a disaster area if they can take their pets, or they
know what is going to happen to them. But we saw in the last
disaster, I think it is Harvey, pet shelters--Ms. Gardner, I am
sure you are well aware of this--all over Texas were taking in
rescued animals. They used FEMA resources to do that, yet there
is little or no reporting on how those funds were used.
That is why Mrs. Comstock and I introduced a bipartisan
bill called the PET AID [Pet Emergency Transparency and
Accountability in Disasters] Act, just to do minimum reporting
back to FEMA about how resources are used, how pets are
reunited, how they are cared for. It just seems common sense.
I would ask the local and the State emergency management
folks what they think about that bill, if they have any
suggestions for it, if they can help us work to get that
passed, wouldn't it make their job easier and also be more
accountability? Ms. Gardner or Mr. Sheehan?
Ms. Gardner. At the local level, it would help with the
accountability and would also help, again, just like the other,
with leveraging and helping us to reiterate the need, because
apathy is the biggest challenge that we have with all citizens.
It takes about seven warning messages to get a person to
actually take an action to protect themselves. And animals just
accentuate that problem, because they are not going to leave
their animals behind.
So the more we can do on the front end to explain what is
going to happen, what that process is going to look like and
that their animals will be taken care of, the more willing they
are going to be to actually evacuate when they are asked to and
do those things proactively instead of waiting until they are
already impacted.
Mr. Sheehan. Ma'am, we do know that people are less likely
to evacuate or there are additional complications if people
aren't able to take their pets with them. It does present a
logistical challenge when people bring pets. You know, our idea
of pets usually is dogs, cats, and perhaps birds, but other
people, our countrymen sometimes have other ideas on what are
pets and those things require special attention.
But I do think we have a lack of data around this, and that
reporting would be helpful for us in helping to manage it. So
if we are going to continue to manage it--we need to so that
people can evacuate--then we need the data.
Ms. Titus. That would be great. Thank you.
Mr. Barletta. The Chair recognizes Mr. Mast for 5 minutes.
Mr. Mast. Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Alexander, let's get back to risk management of Lake
Okeechobee during hurricane season. The Corps of Engineers
recently said when they were announcing the releases of water
to the Treasure Coast of Florida from Lake Okeechobee, that in
their risk calculation was the threat of life to 36,000 people
south of Lake Okeechobee. That is something that goes into that
risk assessment matrix. Knowing the situation there, 1 inch of
water, 6 inches of water, 1 foot of water, that can be the
difference of failure or not failure on the 730-square-mile
Lake Okeechobee during a storm.
So, again, I point out the Corps of Engineers absolutely
manages and pays attention to every inch of water that flows
into Lake Okeechobee, sits on Lake Okeechobee, evaporates off
of Lake Okeechobee, or is discharged out of Lake Okeechobee
into some other body of water that it probably has no business
being in. The Corps of Engineers pays attention to it.
Now, I want to ask again, you do not have the numbers for
how much water is maintained on Lake Okeechobee for the purpose
of drinking water?
Mr. Alexander. Sir, I do not believe I ever said that the
Corps doesn't manage it and knows exactly how much water is in
the lake itself. That being said, again, Lake Okeechobee is not
managed like our flood control multipurpose reservoir. We work
on a balance, again, between 12\1/2\ and 15\1/2\ feet. And that
balance is to meet multiple purposes, environmental, water
supply, water control, flood, navigation. But at the end of the
day, you know, we have to place a premium on risk.
Mr. Mast. At the end of the day, it is risk. And if you are
keeping more water on the lake than what should be on there,
then that puts at risk, according to the Corps of Engineers,
36,000 people south of Lake Okeechobee.
So I am formally requesting from the Corps of Engineers
that you do tell me exactly how much water you keep, in terms
of inches or feet, on Lake Okeechobee, or in terms of gallons,
for the purpose of agricultural irrigation, for the purpose of
drinking water in the communities, for the purpose of the
agreements with the Tribes. What are the amounts, through those
consumptive use permits, that is kept on the lake? Because the
Corps of Engineers needs to manage how much water is on the
lake, through your own admittance, for all of those purposes,
in addition to risk management, in addition to a number of
other things. How much water for each of those? I am making a
formal request to the Corps of Engineers to get those answers
to me.
I want to move to one other question here before my time is
expired. I recently sent a letter to the Corps of Engineers
asking, in the name of hurricane preparation and risk
management, this water that is being released into my community
out of Lake Okeechobee, the Corps does have discretion based
upon pollution concerns that could be in the water, and I asked
a specific question: What level of pollution or toxins of water
in Lake Okeechobee would be considered too great of a level
where the Corps of Engineers would say, we cannot discharge
water to these epicenters of human population, the Treasure
Coast of Florida or the west coast of Florida? What level of
toxin in the water would be considered too great? And the
answer was entirely avoided.
So I want to ask you, if there was cyanide in the water,
would the Corps of Engineers cease discharging water to these
epicenters of human population?
Mr. Alexander. Sir, I am not avoiding a question. I don't
have the answer. You know, again, I am offering an engagement,
whether it is here in DC or down in your district with the
district leadership, with experts here at headquarters, Army
Corps, and to discuss these matters. I am not an expert in Lake
Okeechobee.
I did receive your questions in advance, and if I had
specifics as to how many inches for this or that, I would have
provided it today.
Mr. Mast. If there were lead in the water, would the Corps
of Engineers cease discharging water to these epicenters of
human population?
Mr. Alexander. Sir, I cannot answer that. I don't know what
the tolerable levels are.
Mr. Mast. If there were arsenic in the water, would the
Corps of Engineers cease discharging water to my community, an
epicenter of human population that is not naturally connected
to Lake Okeechobee?
The Corps of Engineers is discharging the water as a result
of risk management, hurricane preparedness; that if they are
discharging water right now, clearly enough water was not
discharged earlier in the season.
Mr. Alexander. Again, sir, I don't have the specific
answers. I have to believe, though, that, you know, there are
other regulating agencies who do pay attention to what those
toxic levels are, and I am confident that they work hand in
hand with the Corps as we look at those releases.
But, again, I would offer a detailed laydown with you to
discuss these matters, and it probably needs to involve
officials beyond the Corps itself.
Mr. Mast. Thank you for the second round of questioning,
Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you. And thank you all for your
testimony. Your comments have been helpful to today's
discussion. If there are no further questions, I would ask
unanimous consent that the record of today's hearing remain
open until such time as 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.
Without objection, so ordered.
I would like to thank our witnesses, again, for their
testimony today. If no other Members have anything to add, the
subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:51 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]