[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
NATIONAL LEVEE SAFETY AND DAM SAFETY PROGRAMS
=======================================================================
(110-38)
JOINT HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
AND THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 8, 2007
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
35-920 WASHINGTON : 2008
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia JOHN L. MICA, Florida
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon DON YOUNG, Alaska
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
Columbia JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
JERROLD NADLER, New York WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
CORRINE BROWN, Florida VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
BOB FILNER, California STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland JERRY MORAN, Kansas
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California GARY G. MILLER, California
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington Carolina
RICK LARSEN, Washington TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
JULIA CARSON, Indiana SAM GRAVES, Missouri
TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri Virginia
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
DORIS O. MATSUI, California TED POE, Texas
NICK LAMPSON, Texas DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio CONNIE MACK, Florida
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa York
JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr.,
HEATH SHULER, North Carolina Louisiana
MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia
JOHN J. HALL, New York MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
JERRY McNERNEY, California
VACANCY
(ii)
?
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency
Management
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of Columbia, Chairwoman
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine SAM GRAVES, Missouri
JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania Virginia
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota York
(Ex Officio) JOHN L. MICA, Florida
(Ex Officio)
(iii)
?
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
DORIS O. MATSUI, California WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York GARY G. MILLER, California
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii Carolina
HEATH SHULER, North Carolina TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizaon BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
JOHN J. HALL, New York JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin CONNIE MACK, Florida
JERRY MCNERNEY, California JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of York
Columbia CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr.,
BOB FILNER, California Louisiana
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia
MICHAEL A ARCURI, New York JOHN L. MICA, Florida
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota (Ex Officio)
(Ex Officio)
(iv)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vi
TESTIMONY
Larson, Larry, Executive Director, Association of State
Floodplain Managers............................................ 35
Maurstad, David I., Director, Mitigation Division and Federal
Insurance Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency... 9
Moyle, John, Manager, Dam Safety Section, New Jersey Department
of Environmental Protection, Association of State Dam Safety
Officials...................................................... 35
Roth, Larry, Deputy Executive Director, American Society of Civil
Engineers...................................................... 35
Stockton, Steven L., Deputy Director of Civil Works, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers............................................. 9
Williams, Warren D. ``Dusty,'' Director, General Manager-Chief
Engineer, National Association of Flood and Stormwater
Management Agencies............................................ 35
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Altmire, Hon. Jason, of Pennsylvania............................. 50
Baker, Hon. Richard H., of Louisiana............................. 51
Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri................................. 56
Cohen, Hon. Steve, of Tennessee.................................. 58
Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois............................. 59
Ehlers, Hon. Vernon J., of Michigan.............................. 61
Hirono, Hon. Mazie K., of Hawaii................................. 63
Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona.............................. 65
Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota............................ 70
Tauscher, Hon. Ellen O., of California........................... 73
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Larson, Larry.................................................... 75
Maurstad, David I................................................ 88
Moyle, John...................................................... 94
Roth, Larry...................................................... 109
Stockton, Steven L.,............................................. 116
Williams, Warren D. ``Dusty''.................................... 119
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Stockton, Steven L., Deputy Director of Civil Works, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers:
Response to question from Rep. Norton.......................... 19
Response to question from Rep. Norton.......................... 21
Response to question from Rep. Napolitano...................... 30
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.005
JOINT OVERSIGHT HEARING ON NATIONAL LEVEE SAFETY AND DAM SAFETY
PROGRAMS
----------
Tuesday, May 8, 2007,
House of Representatives,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and
Emergency Management,
joint with the Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Doris
O. Matsui presiding.
Ms. Matsui. I would like to call the Subcommittee to order.
Today, we are going to have a joint hearing on national
levee safety and dam safety programs before the Subcommittee on
Water Resources and Environment and the Subcommittee on
Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency
Management.
I would like to welcome today's witnesses to our hearing on
national levee safety and dam safety programs. We will hear
from representatives of Federal and State agencies and national
associations.
In the aftermath of the 2005 hurricane season, the American
public again focused on the importance of adequately designed,
constructed, and maintained flood control infrastructure. The
images of flooded streets, homes, and businesses continue to be
a vivid reminder that we cannot take our Nation's
infrastructure for granted. The potential for loss of life and
property are too great to be ignored.
Unfortunately, no one entity has a complete inventory or
understanding of the Nation's flood control infrastructure.
There has never been a comprehensive review of the adequacy of
the levees that protect so many at-risk communities around the
Country.
Since receiving authorization and funding in the Fiscal
Year 2006 supplemental appropriations bill, the Army Corps of
Engineers has begun to review the status of levees in the
United States. This initial review of over 2,000 levees found
56 percent to be acceptable, 38 percent minimally acceptable,
and 6 percent or 122 levee segments at risk due to unacceptable
maintenance. My home State of California has also conducted an
initial review of its levees and identified 29 critical sites.
In the fall of 2006, California passed a $4 billion general
obligation bond dedicated to levee repair work. Additionally,
last month in my district of Sacramento the voters passed a
local assessment by 82 percent that will raise an additional
$326 million dedicated for current and future flood protection
projects. We in Sacramento understand that there has to be a
local share.
These results point to the terrific need for a
comprehensive review and approach to maintain our Nation's vast
flood control infrastructure. While I am encouraged that we are
making some progress in addressing these long-range flood
protection issues, I firmly believe that better coordination
from a policy perspective and a resource allocation perspective
needs to be put in place. I am also glad that FEMA is here with
us today. FEMA and the Corps share responsibility for the
protection of communities behind the levees. FEMA, through its
management of the National Flood Insurance Program, and the
Corps, through its role in certifying the condition of flood
control levees for structural soundness, determine the minimum
level of protection in the 100-year flood plain.
I look forward to hearing more about how the two agencies
are collaborating and what ways things can be improved. I also
look forward to the ideas that our non-Federal witnesses can
offer for how all affected parties can better work together for
the protection of our at-risk communities.
Flood protection has been my top priority since taking
office. Sacramento is the most at-risk river city in the
Country for catastrophic flooding. How we proceed in developing
a comprehensive national policy has direct impact on my
constituents. I am committed to working with congressional
leaders as well as industry leaders in an effort to streamline
an over-arching flood protection policy that meets our Nation's
long-term needs as well as our communities immediate
vulnerabilities.
This hearing is a good first step. I look forward to
hearing from today's witnesses.
At this time I would like to recognize Ranking Member Baker
for any opening comments.
Mr. Baker. Thank you, Madam Chair. I certainly appreciate
the convening of this hearing on what is an extraordinarily
important topic. I do not know that any State delegation has
more sensitivity to the issue of levee integrity than the State
of Louisiana and the lessons unfortunately learned by the
failures there in 2005. What is extraordinary I believe is the
recognition that dam structures and levees exist everywhere in
this Country and that many were built 35, 40, 50 years ago
without any modern standard of engineering or materials
specifications and that they continue to be the barrier between
significant new residential development and disaster.
The bill that has been introduced by the gentlelady from
Ohio, Mrs. Schmidt, which would at least begin the process of
inventorying all of these structures around the Country, seems
almost incredibly way overdue; and then secondly, to assess the
structural integrity of those structures, again almost seems
incredibly late at this point.
In Louisiana, we have a combination of distressing
circumstances. We reside in an area where the land is literally
sinking as a result of the depositional activity of the
Mississippi River. Much of our State was constructed by that
process over many millions of years. And so as we build a levee
to a designated height, over time the levee sinks. But the
higher you build the levee, which means the bigger the material
base must be, the more weight you have and the faster it sinks.
Some people look at that and say, well, why would anyone
want to live there, and what responsible person would want to
live behind a levee given those dynamic problems. Well, we have
an environment which is extraordinarily rich in oil and gas,
seafood, and other assets, and I constantly point out to my
friends across the Country that 70 percent of the Nation's
grain harvest goes through the Port of Orleans to destinations
around the world.
And so there is economic necessity for people to live in
this region. In fact, it is estimated that within a few years
almost 90 percent of the American population will be within
some reasonable drive of an American coastline. So it is a
trend that is not likely to be reversed. Therefore, assessing
the integrity of drainage and flood protection structures is an
absolute necessity.
I guess the ultimate question is how we are going to pay
for all the improvements that ultimately are going to be
determined to be necessary. Madam Chair, I read with great
interest one estimate of the assessment of cost per mile of
levee is $60,000. Now this is not to do anything, this is just
to look at them. I have got to get a better understanding of
how much looking you get for $60,000. But in any event, it
tends to lead me to conclude that this is going to be a very
expensive proposition to rectify. Unfortunately, it is going to
be a great deal more expensive if we do not. I yield back.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Baker.
Now I would like to recognize Chairwoman Norton, Chair of
the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and
Emergency Management, for any opening remarks.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Madam Chair. I, too, want to welcome
you to today's hearing on dam and levee safety, which is an
integral part of a national plan to ``reduce risks to life and
property from dam failure in the United States.''
As you know, the National Dam Safety Program Act was passed
in 1996 with the stated goal of reducing risk of life and
property through the establishment and maintenance of an
effective national dam safety program to bring together
expertise and resources of Federal and non-Federal communities.
The Army Corps of Engineers works closely with State and local
dam safety officials, FEMA, and various other agencies to
update information on over 79,000 dams currently in the United
States and Puerto Rico.
As would be expected, safety regulation is an indispensable
part of reducing hazards associated with dams. The
responsibility for safety rests entirely with the States and
every State except Alabama has a dam safety program. Most State
programs include safety evaluations, a review of plans and
specifications for dam construction, periodic inspections, and
review and approval of emergency action plans.
Through the National Dam Safety Program, States receive
grants directly from FEMA and can use these funds to supplement
State budgets to hire much-needed personnel, buy equipment for
dam inspections, and perform safety analysis. These grant funds
have been used to successfully train State personnel and to
carry out in the field training for dam owners to conduct
annual maintenance reviews. Further, FEMA funds have been used
to revise and update State maintenance and operation guidelines
to identify and operate dams to be repaired or removed.
Almost a year ago, on July 26, this Subcommittee met to
discuss amendments to and reauthorization of the National Dam
Safety Program Act. I am eager to hear from today's witnesses
about the progress this program has made since its
reauthorization, and what, if anything, still needs the
attention from the authorizing Committee.
I thank you again, and welcome today's witnesses.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you. At this time I would like to
recognize the gentlelady from Ohio, Mrs. Schmidt, for any
opening remarks.
Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you for
recognizing me and for holding this important hearing on levee
and dam safety programs.
The terrible devastation of Hurricane Katrina underscores
the need for reliable hurricane and flood protection
infrastructure. An inventory and assessment of our Nation's
levees is long overdue and it is shocking that we do not yet
have one.
I was pleased to support legislation that passed our
Committee by voice vote last Congress, and in consultation with
Congressman Duncan and our Committee leadership, was pleased to
reintroduce this legislation this past March. This legislation,
H.R. 1587, would greatly strengthen our levee safety
infrastructure by providing inventory, inspection, and
assessment of our Nation's levees. It would establish the
National Levee Safety Program Act, which is modeled after the
National Dam Safety Program Act.
Thanks to the Dam Safety Program Act, we know a great deal
more about our Nation's dams. When it comes to our Nation's
levees, however, we know very little. We do not know how many
we have, where they are located, and often do not know their
condition. In addition to significant health and safety
concerns, this lack of information is also frustrating as we
try to prioritize future spending on flood protection. We often
do not know what our levees are protecting or at what level of
risk is associated with them. Establishing an inventory and
assessment will enhance safety and help us prioritize future
spending on flood protection so taxpayer dollars are spent as
wisely as possible. The legislation I reintroduced to establish
the National Levee Safety Program Act will allow us to develop
a national inventory of levees, and work with States, local
officials, and private entities to develop and strengthen levee
safety programs.
Thanks again for holding this hearing. I have talked or met
with many of the experts who are testifying. I look forward to
hearing more from them today. I know there are some ideas about
how we can improve upon the legislation I introduced. As we
move forward, I am optimistic that we will hopefully soon send
the strongest possible bill to the House floor. Thank you.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you. I would now like to recognize the
gentlelady from California, Mrs. Napolitano, for any opening
remarks.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for
holding this very important hearing. As the Chair of the
Subcommittee on Water and Power, this is of great interest to
me for a number of reasons.
We need to be more proactive about how we protect those
areas that will affect the water delivery, the power delivery,
and also the economy of many of our Nation's best resources. So
I am very much looking forward to hearing the testimony and
seeing how we can dovetail some of the efforts, because the
dams produce electricity, which then goes to the grid. We are
looking at global warming effects on those dams. And, of
course, the levee protection, protects our economy, especially
in California, and we saw what happened in Louisiana and some
of those areas.
So I am very much looking forward to this, Madam Chair, and
thank both of you for opening it up. I yield back.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you. Now I would like to recognize the
gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Brown, for opening remarks.
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I thank both you
and the Subcommittee for calling this important hearing today.
Levees and dams serve an important purpose for both
providing safety protection of communities, but also in
providing other services such as recreation. While one may not
think of coastal South Carolina as home to many dams, there are
59 dams in my district providing important services for their
owners and thereby communities. Unfortunately, 12 of them are
considered high hazard dams, and each is privately owned.
My coastal district knows the impact of floods and storm
surges. So I am pleased to see that this hearing is
additionally focused on the needs to improve our Nation's
levees. The coast of my whole district depends upon beaches,
marshes, and barrier islands to protect it from hurricanes and
many areas have levees to provide additional protection. We
must get a better handle on the conditions of our levees across
the Nation and we must do it in a way that cuts through the
bureaucracy that has clouded decisionmaking on this issue up
until now.
Madam Chairman, I look forward to hearing from our
witnesses. Thank you for coming.
Ms. Matsui. I would now like to recognize the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Hall, for opening remarks.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member, and thank
all of our witnesses today.
I represent a district, all five counties of which are now
under a FEMA and State Disaster Declaration. Dutchess County,
Westchester County, Putnam County, Orange County, and Rockland
County, New York, straddling both sides of the Hudson River,
were hit very hard about two weeks ago by the nor'easter that
came up through the eastern seaboard. I feel that we are living
in an experiment. I also sit on the Select Committee on Energy
Independence and Global Warming and we have heard testimony
most recently from the insurance companies and their
representatives and from reinsurance experts about how they are
computing the future damage likely to be caused by increased
storm severity and frequency. We had in the last 18 months
three 50 year floods, according to the farmers in Orange County
who I have met with whose fields are still drying out.
Obviously, all of us need to be concerned, and we in the
19th District need to be concerned about the dams, about water
projects in general, river clearing and snagging and
channeling, and levees when necessary. We do not have that many
of them in our part of the Country, but I certainly support the
restoration and maintenance of those in parts of the Country
where they are essential. I also share with my fellow
Congressman Napolitano the concern that she voiced about the
potential or the actuality of low-head hydro-electric power or
even larger scale hydro-power being generated when possible.
But the first thing is to assess the safety of the structures
for those living downstream.
Yesterday, I visited three dams in my district, all of
which are over a hundred years old. The Whaley Lake Dam has
burrows on the surface of it. It is a dam that is largely earth
and rock with some concrete structure. It has a frozen relief
valve for the emergency release, a 48 inch pipe, and that valve
is in the middle of the dam where it would not be accessible
were the dam being overtopped by high water. Also at the Beaver
Dam in Orange County, and Veterans Memorial Park Lake Dam in
Putnam County. In this latest storm, there was severe damage to
Wappinger's Falls Dam where there is a low-head hydro plant.
How we catch up is the question. My understanding from
speaking to representatives of the Corps of Engineers is they
feel that the budget that was presented for this year by the
Administration does not give them adequate flood control
funding. I am interested in hearing about that. And then as
long as we are out doing assessments for safety, I am curious
to know how much extra time or effort is involved in doing an
assessment at the same time for hydro-electric potential.
So I am glad you are here. I am looking forward to your
testimony. Thank you Madam Chair. I yield back.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you. At this time I would like to
recognize the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Salazar, for opening
remarks.
Mr. Salazar. I want to thank the gentlelady. Thank you,
Madam Chair. I appreciate that we are addressing the safety
issues of our Nation's levees and dams. I believe there is no
question that having a safe and secure infrastructure is vital
to our Country's overall well-being.
Many of our Nation's dams are aging and deteriorating.
Currently, there are over 3,300 unsafe dams across the United
States. Look no further than last month when dam failures
caused major problems in both New Hampshire and New Jersey.
This morning's front page news in the Pueblo Chieftain
talks about Fond Creek floods embankment fails. Much of Pueblo
was flooded yesterday because of unsafe levees.
It is unacceptable that our Nation's dams receive a D from
the American Society of Civil Engineers in their 2005 Report
Card for America's Infrastructure. I believe that dam safety
affects millions of people, and I am pleased to be sponsoring
the Dam Rehabilitation and Repair Act of 2007 along with my
good friend on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Randy Kuhl from
New York. Our bill, H.R. 1098, will help our local communities
fix their high hazard deficient dams. Many of these dams, all
State or locally owned, have been neglected for years and now
pose a great risk to their nearby communities.
In my State of Colorado, we have over 1,800 dams, 741 of
them are in my district. Of those, 340 are classified as high
hazard dams, which means they are near people and can
potentially endanger life. An additional 19 dams are deficient
and the State has determined that they are in serious need of
repair. H.R. 1098 is a modest start to addressing the safety of
our Nation's dams. We should continue to be proactive in
funding rehabilitation of critical infrastructure, and dams
should be no exception.
I look forward to today's testimony. Thank you. I yield
back.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you. At this time I would like to
recognize the gentlelady from Hawaii, Ms. Hirono, for opening
remarks.
Ms. Hirono. Chairwoman Matsui and Chairwoman Norton, thank
you very much for holding this very important hearing. I
represent a district with 136 regulated dams. On March 14 of
2006, one of these, the Kaloko Dam on the Island of Kauai, was
breached after an unusually heavy rain of 40 days. This
resulted in the failure of the dam and 1.6 million tons of
water crashing down from the reservoir, resulting in the deaths
of seven people including a young child and a woman who was
eight months pregnant. In addition to the tragic loss of life,
this catastrophe led to an ecological disaster with significant
damage to streams, reefs, and coastal waters, not to mention
the hardship on the farmers who relied on their irrigation from
the dam.
Kaloko Dam was not even characterized as a high hazard dam,
although it was categorized as a regulated dam. It was supposed
to be regularly inspected. Unfortunately, this did not happen.
This dam, like the majority of old earthen dams in Hawaii, was
constructed and maintained for many years by Hawaii's formerly
strong sugar industry. After the closure of many of these sugar
companies, what we were left with was a dam owned by one party,
the irrigation ditches by another party, and users of the water
were a number of small farmers. And so the oversight formerly
performed by the sugar company was simply nonexistent.
The tragedy of Kaloko Dam focused the attention of the
State of Hawaii on the need to assess the condition of the many
old earthen dams in the State. And with the critically
important assistance of the Army Corps of Engineers, all 136
regulated dams have now been inspected. However, the need for
funds to repair, renovate, and in some cases demolish these
dams is significant. This is why I have cosponsored, with our
fellow Committee Member Representative Salazar, his bill H.R.
1098, the Dam Rehabilitation Repair Act of 2007. This bill
provides Federal funding to assist States to address urgent
needs to repair dams that pose a significant threat to public
health and safety. I am hopeful that our Committee will
consider H.R. 1098, which provides much needed assistance for
our States in meeting this very urgent safety challenge.
I yield back my time. Thank you.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you. I would like to recognize now my
colleague from California, Mr. McNerney.
Mr. McNerney. I thank the Chairs and the Ranking Members
for holding this important hearing. I represent a portion of
the central valley in California just South of Sacramento,
including the major city of Stockton that, like Sacramento, is
very susceptible to levee flooding. Our district either
contains or abuts a large number of the 122 levees that the
Corps has determined to have unacceptable maintenance. So I
clearly have a keen interest in today's hearing.
In the last few weeks, a delegation of local
representatives from San Joaquin County and local jurisdictions
within the county came to visit us to push for Federal funding
on several issues. But the one issue that they stood out upon
was levee failure and the levee security. I hear the same thing
when I talk to members of my community, of the residents, they
are all genuinely concerned that an earthquake or other natural
disaster could cause major flooding and the disastrous
consequences for decades in our area.
We had a failure in 2004 of the levee Jones' Tract and it
took $90 million dollars to repair that levee. That should have
been a wake-up call. Estimates are that a massive or multiple
simultaneous failures caused by earthquake or similar event
would cause $40 billion dollars in damage, undermine the
environmental integrity of the entire delta, and shutting off
water to approximately 23 million Californians. It is a matter
of time before we have this sort of event in California. I want
to make sure we are doing everything we can to make sure we
prevent that sort of event from being a catastrophe.
I am looking forward to your testimony today. I appreciate
that you are willing to come down here and talk to us. I yield
back the balance of my time.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you. Now I would like to recognize the
gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Carnahan, for opening remarks.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Madam Chair. It is great to be
here with my colleagues to talk about this key issue. I am here
today after we have all seen the news about the Missouri River
in my State that made it within a few feet of the historic
flood crest of 1993.
I am very concerned and I just want to express in my
opening remarks the lack of a nationwide inventory of all the
locations for Federal and non-federal levees and their
condition. Levees protect the human lives, agriculture,
commercial/residential property from flooding on our Nation's
treasured waterways. There is absolutely no excuse for the
Federal Government's lack of understanding of the condition of
every levee. For that reason, I support the creation of a
National Levee Safety Board.
I would also like to express my opinion regarding the need
of coordination among levee districts. These levee districts
are responsible for the maintenance of Federal levees but often
do not sufficiently coordinate with neighboring districts.
Because floods in our major waterways can affect numerous levee
districts, Congress must encourage these districts to better
coordinate their efforts.
With that, I am going to ask that the remainder of my
opening remarks be submitted for the record. I look forward to
hearing this panel today.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you.
We will now proceed to our witnesses. We are so pleased to
have a very distinguished panel of witnesses on our first panel
here this morning. First we have Mr. David Maurstad, Director
of the Mitigation Division and Federal Insurance Administrator
of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. We also have Mr.
Steven L. Stockton, Deputy Director of Civil Works of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. We are pleased that you could join us
this morning. Your full statements will be placed in the
record. We ask that witnesses try to limit their testimony to a
five minute oral summary of their written statements as a
courtesy to other witnesses.
Mr. Maurstad, please proceed, and then we will follow with
Mr. Stockton.
TESTIMONY OF DAVID I. MAURSTAD, DIRECTOR, MITIGATION DIVISION
AND FEDERAL INSURANCE ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY; STEVEN L. STOCKTON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CIVIL
WORKS, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Mr. Maurstad. Good morning. My name is David Maurstad. I am
the Assistant Administrator for Mitigation in the Department of
Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency. I am
honored to appear before you today to discuss FEMA's National
Dam Safety Program and the Agency's policies as they relate to
levees and areas of residual risk.
The December 22, 2006 reauthorization of the National Dam
Safety Program will greatly benefit the States and enable the
program to continue effectively addressing the risks associated
with the more than 79,500 dams across the Nation.
Through grants, training support, research, data
collection, and other activities, the program provides a much
needed impetus for the continued safeguarding and protection of
people, property, and the dams themselves.
The National Dam Safety Program provides critical support
for the operation, maintenance, and improvement of the Nation's
dams. Thanks to the recent reauthorization, the program
continues to improve.
The States regulate approximately 95 percent of the
Nation's dams. From fiscal year 2004 through 2007, FEMA
distributed a total of approximately $12.9 million in grant
assistance to 49 participating States and Puerto Rico for dam
safety. The number of State regulated high-and significant-
hazard potential dams with emergency action plans, or EAPs, has
increased by about 50 percent since 1998, to approximately
8,000 dams. State dam inspections have also increased from
13,000 to 15,000 inspections per year. This increase is
particularly impressive considering that State dam safety
budgets have been declining.
The National Dam Safety Program also funds research
projects in support of dam safety. To guide funding decisions,
the National Dam Safety Review Board developed a five year
strategic plan which ensures that priority is given to research
projects that demonstrate a high degree of collaboration and
expertise and will yield products that contribute to dam safety
in the United States. Other important areas of focus are
training and exercise initiatives, funding information
technology projects, and collaboration with Federal agencies on
dam safety and security issues.
Federal agencies responsible for dams owned or operated by
the Federal Government have made significant strides in
ensuring the safety of dams within their jurisdictions. Federal
and State coordination has also increased in many areas,
including emergency action planning, inspection, research and
development, training, and information exchange.
Despite the program's achievements, the dam safety
community continues to face many challenges, most critical the
aging of America's dams. Recent data indicates that the number
of deficient dams in the U.S. has increased by more than 33
percent since 1998 to more than 3,500. It is also estimated as
of 2002, 85 percent of the dams across the Country were 50
years or older.
The dam safety community is working on a number of options
to remediate dam deficiencies and progress is being made. Some
examples include: model loan programs for the repair of dams,
dam removal projects, and rehabilitation programs. The program
also is working to address the identification and
classification of dams and to ensure that all 50 States
participate in the program. Alabama, the only State not
participating, is developing legislation needed to provide
State participation in the program complete.
Finally, let me turn to a significant challenge FEMA is now
facing, how to depict areas situated behind levees on the
agency's flood insurance rate maps. These maps are currently
being updated through FEMA's Map Modernization Program. They
are important community planning tools that depict flood risk
levels and enable FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program to
set fair and affordable rates. Accurately depicting levee
protected areas has become a critical matter. Some firm panels
may depict levees that have never been evaluated for compliance
with applicable mapping criteria, yet the map modernization
budget does not include resources for levee evaluations. In the
case of private levees, the levee owner is responsible for
providing documentation that the levee complies with regulatory
requirements. In the case of federally-owned levees, the
Federal owner agency is responsible.
If FEMA, the National Flood Insurance Program, and our
floodplain management partnership do not address this matter
judiciously and wisely, the production of modernized maps could
be significantly delayed. Of course, we must balance this
concern with the need to provide levee owners enough time to
evaluate levees and to submit required data to appropriate
authorities. FEMA is doing all that it can to make sure that
the risks in communities with levees are properly documented
and communicated, and that areas behind decertified or failed
levees are mapped in a manner that clearly identifies risk to
life and property.
Let me conclude by indicating to effectively prioritize and
address issues of concern, we believe that a comprehensive
national levee inventory system and database should be
developed, monitored, and maintained. FEMA is encouraged by the
Army Corps of Engineer's initiative to develop a national levee
inventory and we are working closely with the Corps at the
headquarters, regional, and local level to address flood risk
and insurance implications of levee certification. Thank you.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Maurstad.
Mr. Stockton, you may proceed.
Mr. Stockton. Thank you, Chairwoman Matsui, Ranking Member
Baker, and Members of the Subcommittee. I am Steve Stockton,
Deputy Director of Civil Works for the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and a registered professional engineer.
I am pleased to be here today and to have the opportunity
to speak to you about the National Dam Safety Program and the
proposed National Levee Safety Program. My testimony today will
provide a brief discussion on the benefits of the programs, the
need for establishment of a National Levee Safety Program, an
update for the current Corps of Engineers Levee Safety Program,
and the coordinated efforts between the Corps, FEMA, and others
in the Flood Risk Management Program.
Following the failure of Teton Dam, Kelly Barnes Dam, and
others in the 1970s, there was an emphasis placed on
inventorying and inspecting dams and the need for a coordinated
Federal and State program for dam safety. Through the years
following these catastrophes, the program has developed into
the National Dam Safety Program that FEMA administers, and
State programs exist today with 49 of the 50 States. Like the
dam failures in the 1970s, the levee and flood wall failures
associated with Hurricane Katrina and the major levee repair
needs in California, emphasize the need for a National Levee
Safety Program and State levee regulatory agencies.
The National Dam Safety Program provides benefits to the
Nation by reducing risks to life and property from dam failure
through an effective program that brings together the expertise
and resources of the Federal and non-federal communities in
achieving hazard reduction. These benefits are being achieved
through the publication of various technical documents, through
the training of dam safety professionals, through cooperative
research, and through publication of the National Inventory of
Dams. The program has allowed the Corps to leverage its
resources through work with other Federal agencies and with the
various States. The program has improved dam safety programs by
providing a forum for the States to share information as well.
Just as the National Dam Safety Program has improved dam
safety across the Country, the establishment of a parallel
National Levee Safety Program would improve levee safety. Such
a program would provide support to new State agencies being
established to regulate levees. This program would bring the
expertise and resources of the Federal and non-Federal
communities together in achieving levee safety hazard
reduction. Development of the program will not be overnight. It
has taken 25 years for the dam safety program to grow to
maturity, but the levee safety program will use the lessons
learned from the development of the dam safety program as a
basis to allow for quicker implementation.
The first step in establishing a levee safety program will
be inventorying and assessing the levees. The Corps is taking
the first step with supplemental appropriations provided in
Fiscal Year 2006 to inventory levees in the Corps program and
to develop risk based methodology for the assessment of these
levees. At present, we have accounted for all levees in our
program and by the end of this Fiscal Year we will have
completed detailed surveys of over two-thirds of all levees.
Assessment methodology development is ongoing and is currently
being beta tested. It will be ready for use in risk assessments
in Fiscal Year 2008.
Notwithstanding the Administration's concern with the
proposed Water Resources Development Act currently under
consideration by Congress, I would like to present the Corps'
factual assessment of that bill's proposed National Levee
Safety Program. The proposed program is modeled after the
current National Dam Safety Act. The legislation would
establish a national committee of Federal, State, tribal,
local, and private representatives to advise the Secretary of
the Army on levee safety matters. The committee would lead the
development of Federal and State standards for levee safety and
the establishment of a model for State levee safety programs.
The committee would draw on the expertise and knowledge of the
National Dam Safety Review Board and the Interagency Committee
on Dam Safety in the development of the program. Substantial
changes that were added to the National Dam Safety Act in 2006
would be included in the levee program from its beginning.
The inclusion of an assessment of each levee in the
inventory could enhance the value of the inventory when used by
various emergency agencies and local governments during times
of natural disasters. The assessments could allow the first
responders to focus their actions in critical areas where
failures are most likely to occur. This could save time and
possibly lives in emergency situations. In addition, these
assessments could provide information to assist local
governments, public utilities, and private individuals when
making investment decisions concerning property protected by
the levees.
If the proposed legislation is enacted in its current
version, authorization of appropriations would be included that
are consistent with the appropriations that have been provided
over the years for the National Dam Safety Program.
We are committed to continuing to improve the safety of
Federal dams and levees, continuing to cooperate with other
Federal and non-Federal agencies to reduce the risk to public
safety in areas located below dams and behind levees,
continuing to help decisionmakers set priorities for future dam
and levee safety investments, and continuing to ensure that all
Americans can make more informed decisions on building homes,
locating businesses, and purchasing flood insurance based on
the actual risk of flood and storm damages where they live.
This concludes my statement. Again, I appreciate the
opportunity to testify today. I would be pleased to answer any
questions.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much. I would like to begin by
asking Mr. Stockton a question about watersheds in a sense. We
all know that we cannot look at an area just segment-by-segment
because every area affects every other area. And we are looking
more at watershed planning, how one area affects the other, and
what we do in the various areas. So I was wondering what
changes to existing authorities or new authorities will be
needed for the Corps to better analyze cumulative impacts of
flood control projects and better incorporate these projects
into more realistic watershed plans.
Mr. Stockton. Thank you, ma'am. Coming out of Hurricane
Katrina, we did, in fact, find that we had a hurricane
protection system in name only. The projects had been
authorized as individual components. A lot of our policies
drive us to work with non-Federal sponsors to authorize and
then to construct individual projects. What we are hoping to do
is develop a more comprehensive, integrated systems approach to
planning; manage all of the projects within a watershed to
achieve multiple purposes; look at life safety as being the
primary objective; and really improve our ability at risk
communication and lifecycle management of infrastructure.
As far as the needed authorities, I think we have many
authorities now that allow us to take a step in that direction.
One of the main obstacles to doing watershed planning has been
the provisions that require non-Federal sponsors cost-share
those studies. We were funded in Fiscal Year 2006 to do five
pilot watershed studies at 100 percent Federal funding, and I
think those experiences and the lessons learned out of those
five pilot watershed studies will inform future decisions on
what additional authorities may be needed.
Ms. Matsui. To follow up, would you be considering some
nonstructural elements as you are proceeding in analyzing
watersheds, not just the structural elements of levees and
dams?
Mr. Stockton. Absolutely.
Ms. Matsui. I have a question for Mr. Maurstad about the
100-year floodplain. Is it an appropriate level of protection
for most flood control decisions? I know it is as far as a
marker for flood insurance. But is it an appropriate level of
protection?
Mr. Maurstad. I think the thing to keep in mind relative to
the 100-year level or the 1 percent annual chance is that it is
a minimum Federal requirement for the Flood Insurance Program.
That has become a marker for making other decisions, other
policy decisions which may or may not be appropriate. I think
we need to continue to move forward in making sure that people
understand that as we communicate what a 1 percent annual
chance is, that is just the minimum level. We want to continue
to encourage communities to base decisions on higher levels and
reward them for doing that through the community rating system
and providing discounts to policyholders in their particular
area.
A similar issue to the one that you have raised is to make
sure that people understand and that we look toward recognizing
residual risk behind levees and dams, and that people
understand that the levee and the dam is providing a particular
level of protection up to a particular design for a particular
size of storm. But, again, that is just a guide for us to use,
it is not an absolute as to whether or not you have protection
for every and all events that may occur.
So I think we need to better communicate. I think we need
to make sure local and State governments base their decisions
that this is the minimum Federal requirement, that the private
sector also look at it and recognize that there may be issues
of risk that they need to take into account as they make
decisions on development. So communication, identification, and
analysis of the risk I believe we just need to continue to
improve upon.
Ms. Matsui. For both of you. I know that FEMA and the Corps
work pretty well together. I see this in Sacramento a lot. But
what changes would you like to see to improve program
efficiency and interaction between the Corps and FEMA?
Mr. Maurstad. Well, I will start in saying that there has
been a very good working relationship between FEMA and the
Corps historically. I believe that with the support of
Administrator Paulison, General Strock, General Riley, we have
raised that to a higher level, going back to August of 2005
when senior leadership began meeting and working in conjunction
with the Association of State Floodplain Managers and NAFSMA on
how we can better coordinate our programs so that the end
user--communities, States, and local citizens--can better
understand the relationship and the responsibilities and the
role of the respective agencies.
We have done more than just meet at that level. We also
have taken steps together with General Riley to have greater
working relationships at the field level with the FEMA regions
and the Corps districts so that there is a better coordination
and consistency throughout the Country on policies that affect
both FEMA and the Corps of Engineers.
So I think we had a good foundation. We have built on that
foundation for greater communication and collaboration. Part of
why we are doing this is so that we can identify those areas
that we do not need additional legislation to better provide
service to the Country. And in those areas where there may be
changes in regulation or guidance, that we do it in cooperation
and collaboration instead of individually, and then finally, if
there are areas that need legislative remedy, that we bring
that to the attention of decisionmakers.
Mr. Stockton. I could not agree with Mr. Maurstad more. I
think collaboration has been excellent at the national level
and at the regional level. Before we go out with policies on
certification of levees, or vegetation management policies on
levees, or issuance of flood risk maps, we coordinate those
very, very closely so we do not confuse the public by having
different policies. So, a very good collaborative relationship.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you. I would now like to have Ranking
Member Baker ask questions.
Mr. Baker. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Stockton, I want to
engage in a more detailed discussion about Katrina assessments.
Since the event of the storm and the extensive work the Corps
has engaged in, which has been monumental, to restore and
improve the levee system, does the Corps now have a database of
levee integrity to know where we still have identifiable
problems, or is there insufficient data yet to make a levee
system assessment?
Mr. Stockton. Specifically within New Orleans and vicinity,
we have that information. We have done detailed assessments of
the Hurricane and flood damage reduction systems in that
vicinity.
Mr. Baker. How granular is that? Is it just by drainage
basin? Can we get to neighborhood? In other words, if I am a
homeowner and I want to know what my circumstance looks like,
what kind of risk assessment am I as a homeowner able to make
by calling the Corps, or do we need more data?
Mr. Stockton. I would say within the next month we, in
collaboration with FEMA, will be issuing risk maps, that try to
take a lot of the technical information that has been acquired
through assessments of the levee systems and be able to
communicate that and inform the public about that residual
risk. So we are probably about a month out from being able to
really issue those maps and that information in an
understandable form.
Mr. Baker. Okay. Were there are actually two parts here.
One is I guess the FEMA part, which is the hydrology, storm
surge kind of assessment. I am more interested in the
structural side. If the entity that is there is sitting on top
of a clay and we have got a T-wall barrier that might get
tilted with the storm surge and the water seeps down the front,
all of a sudden you have got that leveraging effect that causes
failure. Do we have a good understanding about the structural
integrity of the levee as separated from the overall storm
management risk issue, which is the FEMA part?
Mr. Stockton. Yes. We have completed the detailed
assessments and we are now in the design phase for those areas
that are deficient and implementing remedial designs for those
areas.
Mr. Baker. Based on that assessment, and I know that the
system varies from section to section as to what level storm it
is competent to withstand, Orleans area only, are we now back
to pre-Katrina level? Are we at 90 percent? What is your
assessment of our condition in a categorical sense?
Mr. Stockton. Today, we are back to pre-Katrina levels. The
pre-Katrina levels after the Interagency Performance Evaluation
Team looked at the entire system were not as high as we thought
they were pre-Katrina. So they are higher than they were prior
to Katrina but they are not as high as we thought they were
because of a lot of factors.
Mr. Baker. I know there is litigation pending, but have we
made any determination on the governmental side about prior
failure to meet design standards by contractors constructing
any element of the levee system? I know you may not be able to
say in some cases because there is some litigation about this
ongoing I understand. But I will make it easier. As opposed to
construction and adequacy, or design and adequacy, or design
built to the 100-year level and the storm simply overwhelmed
appropriate design based on that frequency of storm, what is
the most common problem in assessment of the post-Katrina
event: contractor deficiency; design deficiency; and maybe I
ought to add a fourth, lack of maintenance to maintain the
integrity; or an unpredictable storm that simply overwhelmed
the generally accepted standard for protection?
Mr. Stockton. Sir, I think those are all contributing
factors. As you know, we have produced our Interagency
Performance Evaluation Team Report that was peer reviewed by
the American Society of Civil Engineers and which is being
reviewed by the National Academy of Science. All that
information on the engineering forensics of what happened and
why, is publicly available, it is posted on the IPET website.
So the information is out there. I cannot give you a breakdown
of the root causes from each of those contributing factors, but
they all come into play.
Mr. Baker. Equally? There is no predominant observation as
a result of the storm there is one area we need to be more
concerned about than others?
Mr. Stockton. I think if there is one predominant area, it
was the overwhelming nature of the storm. It exceeded the
design standards in many areas. But there were other
contributing factors.
Mr. Baker. And it was a 3 storm that hit rather than a 5.
Thank God for that. Going forward, we have another Katrina on
the horizon, and this is maybe a FEMA contributing response as
well, but assume for the moment it is that 3-plus storm this
season, are there areas where we should have particular
concerns? There is a balance here. People will not leave more
than three days in advance. If you maximized outflow for three
days from the Orleans area, there is not enough concrete to get
everybody out under sort of the existing protocol that is
usually adopted. Has there been any modification, FEMA, your
agency, as to how we notify in this particular locale the
people with better information earlier on, a more sophisticated
risk quantification? So that we know there is a problem with
the levee, we know this storm has a high likelihood, and we
know we have got too many people to get out. What can we do to
avoid that, and what structural, organizational, informational
changes have been made since Katrina going into this storm
season?
Mr. Stockton. Sir, as you know, we are continuing to build
the system stronger and better. Every day that goes on, we
continue to complete work that provides additional protection.
These risk maps that will be published within a month will show
at different points in time how much risk is reduced based
upon----
Mr. Baker. Excuse me. I am way over my time and I want to
get the point in.
The publication of the map a month from now is certainly
helpful and will give people with the ability to make their own
personal independent assessment. What I am speaking to is the
public service notifications that come across the media based
on your structural and engineering knowledge, complemented by
FEMA's own assessment of the severity of the storm to give
people more adequate warning to take actions on their own to
avoid what happened before.
I will point out, you said we are back to pre-Katrina levee
construction standards which were less than what we thought
they were, which, in my view, is probably inadequate to
withstand a storm of the severity which we faced two years ago.
I hope my assessments are incorrect. But in light of that, do
we have a better ability to notify people of the pending risk
so that they can get the heck out in a more deliberate time?
Mr. Maurstad. Mr. Baker, I would say we certainly do, built
upon the work that was started this time last year, fine tuned
throughout the year, and again working on as we approach
hurricane season again this year by the Louisiana Transition
Recovery Office in New Orleans, working very closely with the
State and very closely with New Orleans on refining and making
sure that the community has an evacuation plan that encompasses
all the various needed components to identify, as you have
talked about, if a certain situation exists, how are we going
to assist, how is the community going to evacuate for that
particular set of circumstances, including at-risk individuals
that may not be able to evacuate themselves, better sheltering
in place, and a whole variety of components that make up a
good, sound, solid evacuation plan. Of course, primary
responsibility for that, with the support of FEMA and the
State, is the City.
Mr. Baker. Madam Chair, I thank you for your indulgence in
the time. This is an area where we have a lot of work yet to do
I am afraid.
Ms. Matsui. I understand, Mr. Baker. At this time I would
like to recognize Chairwoman Norton for her questions.
I know we have another panel following this. I would like
to try to limit the questioning to five minutes. Thank you.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Mr. Stockton,
I could not help but notice, I hope you noticed, in the New
York Times yesterday a report where one of the critics of the
dam construction in New Orleans offered more criticism. This,
of course, is Robert Bee, the professor of engineering from the
University of California at Berkeley, who was concerned about
erosion on a levee by the Mississippi River Gulf outlet. This
is a navigation canal that helped channel water into New
Orleans during the storm. He indicated that the Corps had done
good work and he could not be certain without further
inspection, and did not want to cry wolf, but he did say he
also did not want to ignore what he calls potentially important
early warning signs.
Now what he points to is the use in the levees in New
Orleans of a dense clay-rich soil that is supposed to resist
erosion, and he cites recent work in the Netherlands that
suggest that clay-capped levees with a porous core were prone
to a failure in high water.
My question is, why did the Corps reject the suggestion
that the levee should be armored with rock or concrete against
overtopping and instead use this porous clay-rich soil which
may erode over time?
Mr. Stockton. Ma'am, as I stated earlier, our number one
priority is public safety. I, too, read the article. We
imported most of the clay-rich soil because it is more
resistant than some of the----
Ms. Norton. I am asking a very specific question. Why the
soil rather than the rock or concrete? Do you disagree that the
rock or concrete overtopping would have been more secure? I
understand that you are doing your best. I want to know why you
chose one material over the other.
Mr. Stockton. We have some funds included in there to
provide overtopping protection. We do not have enough funding
to provide overtopping protection everywhere. That said, we are
importing high-quality materials, they are meeting ASTM
standards, and they are being built to very high standards. You
can always build things better and stronger if you have enough
money to build them better and stronger.
Ms. Norton. So I take it you are not using the rock or
concrete topping anywhere in the levees in the Gulf region?
Mr. Stockton. No, we are in many areas.
Ms. Norton. So how do you determine where to use it? How do
you determine, given the limited funds which I think you cite
as a reason for not using them universally, how do you
determine when to use them and where to use the rock or
concrete overtopping? Where are they being used, for example?
Mr. Stockton. In the highly dense urban areas, we have now
modified our structures to prevent erosion on the backside of
those levees where there is high risk and high consequences to
human life and property. In other areas, we have used lesser
standards where there are lower consequences.
Ms. Norton. Would you within 30 days submit to this
Committee an indication of where the rock or concrete
overtopping is being used and where the porous clay is being
used, and what percentage have rock or concrete overtopping? I
understand what you are saying and also understand that you
have very severe funding issues.
[Information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.006
Ms. Norton. Finally, let me ask, I am depending here upon
one of your critics, and he has been a critic for some time,
even though he says he is trying to be balanced here and gives
you some considerable praise, the question is suggested whether
or not there is any systematic peer review of the work of the
Corps, or whether we are always dependent upon your critics,
because here in the New York Times article, some said it looks
all right to me, some say it did not. Here I am a Member of
Congress trying to make a judgement. Is there any peer review
system that the Corps uses?
Mr. Stockton. Yes, ma'am. Every product we produce has an
independent technical review of that product, and depending
upon the risk and consequence, we will use other societies,
like the American Society of Civil Engineers, as we did on the
Interagency Performance Evaluation Team, the National
Academies. For general design things, we will have architect
engineer firms design them. So we are very open. We want the
best possible solutions to problems.
Ms. Norton. And this has been peer reviewed, the use of the
clay reinforcements has been peer reviewed and has been
approved?
Mr. Stockton. I am not familiar with the specific
allegations and locations. All I know is that the new designs
that we are constructing go through an independent technical
review process. If this is in a location where we are
instituting a new design, it will go through that process.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Stockton. I am very
concerned. We are going to have in my Subcommittee hearings on
the over-arching issues that we think will keep or help
repopulation of New Orleans, in particular. One of the things
we are looking at, for example, is insurance, because if people
cannot get insurance, I do not care what you do or what anybody
does, it is not going to occur.
And another thing we are looking at is the levees. Unless
people believe that this is not going to happen to them again,
people can keep saying come home, but people are not going to
come home. So I am going to ask you to get to my Committee
within 30 days what the peer review details are. Who did the
peer review for the use of the clay-rich soil that is now being
used on the levees around New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, which
agency, National Academy of Sciences, the Association of Civil
Engineers, whichever one. Please get that and a copy of the
peer review to our Subcommittee within 30 days.
I thank you very much, Madam Chair.
[Information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.008
Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Norton.
Now I would like to recognize Mr. Boustany.
Mr. Boustany. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I will stick to
the five minute rule as well. I do want to refer to an article
that came out in the New York Times yesterday that Ms. Holmes
Norton referenced. The initial response by the Corps was that
the engineer from the University of California at Berkeley was
overstating the risk. But the Corps issued a statement saying
that they would basically go back and reinspect these areas
where there was so-called rills or furrows. And granted there
is some ongoing erosion as you construct levees, has the Corps
completed the reinspection of those areas? And is there still a
disagreement about the risk? And what can be done?
We are talking about potential lives here going into the
next hurricane season. We are also looking at the specter of
law suits. How can we get everybody together on determining
what these risks are so that we can construct appropriate
levees? Mr. Stockton, would you answer that please.
Mr. Stockton. I cannot respond specifically to the
allegation. Now I need to explain something about levees. They
are designed to a certain height, and they are designed to be
durable, and sustainable. But there is always going to be a
certain amount of residual risk that there could be a potential
storm that will exceed that. So what you want is a levee, that
if overtopped, won't fail catastrophically, that it will resist
erosion. And it becomes then a balancing act--do you build it
higher within the resources you have available, or do you build
it lower but more durable to sustain that overtopping at a
lower level. You are trying to strike the right balance because
you can never build something high enough or strong enough to
resist all possible storm events. So there is always a certain
amount of residual risk which falls into the Flood Insurance
Program to cover.
Mr. Boustany. Clearly, there are designs that you take into
account and then there are also the soil conditions. I was just
curious to know, after reinspection have you come out with any
further statements with regard to the allegations that were
made by this University of California engineer. Is the Corps
talking to others in academia who have looked at this
independently to see if we can come to some kind of an
agreement as to what needs to be done?
Mr. Stockton. We work very closely with others, and this
gets back to the independent technical review. This IPET study
had over 150 individuals, engineers, scientists from inside the
Federal Government, academia, outside the Corps of Engineers;
we have Dutch experts involved in our design teams, we have
internationally renowned architect engineer firms helping us
with not only the design but the peer review. It is very
difficult to respond to allegations that are in the New York
Times when you do not know exactly where it is, or what they
are referring to, or the time that they were referring to it.
Mr. Boustany. I understand.
Mr. Stockton. So, we take it very seriously. Public safety
is our primary concern. We are going to provide the best
possible flood damage reduction, and reduce the risk within the
resources we have available.
Mr. Boustany. Thank you, Mr. Stockton. I yield back.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you. I would like to recognize now Mr.
Hall.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a question for Mr.
Stockton. Would you support assessments of dams for low-head
hydro-electric power generation? And how much extra time or
effort would that take if you were assessing a dam for safety
and your people are there anyway? I am aware of at least one
project in Pennsylvania where the Corps is currently involved
in a low-head hydro project. So there is obviously experience
and expertise. The question is, while we are at it, how much
would that add to your job?
Mr. Stockton. Thank you, sir. I think it is really two
separate issues. When you are doing the dam safety assessment
you are looking at the structural integrity of the project. To
look at a hydropower potential assessment, I know about 20
years ago we did a nationwide assessment of hydro potential
throughout the United States.
But that is more hydrologic, economic evaluation of the
quantity of water, the amount of head you have, and then
looking at what kind of capital investment you would want to
make to produce that hydropower. So I think they are two
separate activities. I do not think they could be bundled
together to do them concurrently. There would not be a lot of
common purpose in doing them. I think it is a great suggestion
that we do evaluate them for hydropower potential, but it would
be a different group of people having to do that with different
skill sets.
Mr. Hall. Okay. But would it be cheaper or would it not if,
say, a spillway or a release pipe were being repaired or
installed, to, if one were going to do a hydro application at
that dam, to do that at the same time that the repair is being
made?
Mr. Stockton. Absolutely.
Mr. Hall. Okay. And are you, and I guess this would also be
a question for Mr. Maurstad, are you planning currently for
increased storm severity and frequency due to climate change?
Mr. Maurstad. We are. Currently, Congress is looking at
whether or not we should be moving more forward in doing that
right now. As we utilize the information that we have available
to us to determine the premiums for national flood insurance
policies, we look at what the current circumstances are, what
the current risk is, and with the current program limitations,
what premiums can we charge. Clearly, that is one component of
the overall assessment. Do we need to do more in looking at
what the potential is for future damages as a result of climate
change? Arguably, we do. We currently insure about a trillion
dollars worth of property throughout the 50 States and
Territories. So we know what the potential downside risk is.
Are storms going to increase in severity, increase in
frequency, and what effect does climate change have on that, we
are going to look at that more closely.
Mr. Hall. Mr. Stockton, you do not have to add to that, but
you can if you would like.
Mr. Stockton. I just wanted to say that we have always been
in the business of attenuating the hydrograph peaks and valleys
with droughts and floods. And we continue to adopt and update
based upon changing hydrologic records, depending upon the
severity and frequency of those events. So, yes, we are
adjusting.
Mr. Hall. We have in my district in the Wallkill River
Valley a multistage project that the Corps did over the course
of the last century, the most recent installment of a three-
part planned straightening, clearing and snagging, and
channeling of the river and its tributaries was completed in
1984 and there has been no work done since then. This is one of
the areas where black dirt farmers were completely underwater
and their planting season was severely disrupted.
The question is, since the upstream part of the project is
what remains to be done, how does FEMA or the Corps assess
whether to straighten a stream or a river, and/or to place
levees on it versus encouraging development to move out of the
flood prone areas? Obviously, we have got a lot of not just
farmers, but homes being built now because of the extension
North out of the city. Is there a decisionmaking process as to
whether you straighten a stream, do a project, or induce people
to move out of that area based on the likelihood of flooding?
Mr. Stockton. Yes, sir, we have a very comprehensive,
technically rigorous planning approach where we will look at
the project, develop alternative solutions, and we will look at
all those things, look at moving folks out of the floodplain,
we will look at nonstructural solutions, we will look at
structural solutions. We will evaluate all of those different
options and, in conjunction with our local sponsor, we will
make recommendations, investment recommendations to the
Administration and Congress based upon all of those factors,
and it is very project-by-project.
Mr. Maurstad. FEMA will provide assistance to local
communities in the development of a local mitigation plan that
will look at situations and circumstances like you have
described. But the decisions as to development and whatnot are
left at the local level. Mitigation projects, by the same
token, are developed at the local level to determine if there
are areas that the community would like to have folks relocate
from, turn back to green space. Again, local decisions. But we
have mitigation funding programs that are available to help
assist with the economic aspects of those decisions made at the
local level.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you. I would now like to call upon the
gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. I had
the privilege of chairing this Subcommittee for six years up
until this Congress. In the last Congress, we reauthorized the
Dam Safety Program Act. Also, I introduced the original
National Levee Safety Program Act, although we did not complete
the work on that. Congressman Costello and I a little over a
year ago toured various water projects for a week in California
and part of that time we spent in Sacramento and we saw the
flooding and the levee problems they have had there. So I know
how important this work is.
I guess one of the things I would like to point out is that
we have had a lot of people working on these programs in the
past. These are not new all of a sudden type situations we are
talking about here. In fact, I notice in our briefing paper it
says the Congress directed the Secretary of the Army to
undertake a national program on the inspection of dams in 1972.
Then we authorized the first Dam Safety Program in the WRDA Act
of 1996. The Corps, as one of our key staffers said to me a few
minutes ago, the Corps wrote the book on levee construction and
got into it in the early 1800s, and the Dutch even sent their
experts over here to learn about levees from us.
So Mr. Stockton, there are a lot of people that are already
working on all of these program about dam safety and levee
construction and problems in the Corps right now and have been
for many years. Is that correct?
Mr. Stockton. Yes, sir.
Mr. Duncan. But then I see that the estimate is it would
take $100 million, $60,000 a mile, just to assess the 1,600
miles of levees in the central valley of California. Now the
Corps, by our information, has constructed 9,000 of the 15,000
miles of levees in this Country. Is that correct or fairly
accurate?
Mr. Stockton. I am not familiar with those specific
numbers, but it sounds close.
Mr. Duncan. That is what we have in our information here,
so I assume it is fairly close to being correct. You know, I
guess the point I want to make is, this work is very important
and needs to be done, but it also needs to be done in a cost-
effective way that keeps the taxpayers in mind. You know, when
you say $100 million, I bet that if we put out a contract for
$50 million to do these assessments that companies would be
jumping to get it. Also, you might want a Rolls Royce or a
Mercedes, but a Chevrolet might do just as well to transport
you to and from where you are going. So I hope that we try to
do these things in a cost-effective. We need to do them, but I
hope we do them in a cost-effective way that is fair to the
taxpayers.
In addition to that, because we have had so many people
working on these things for so long, surely we know where the
greatest threats are or where the biggest potential problems
are. Do we not have information about that already, Mr.
Stockton, since we have so many people working on these things
already?
Mr. Stockton. Yes, sir. What we have done is we have tried
to divide this into groups and it really has to do with
ownership. There are the levees that we designed and
constructed and we still own, the ones we have turned over to
local entities to operate and maintain, and then those
categories of levees that we have adopted into our
rehabilitation and inspection program. We have a pretty good
grip on those and those are the ones we are currently
inventorying. We are also taking steps to get the cost of these
assessments down. We produced numbers about a year ago based
upon not knowing that fourth category of levees, all the non-
Federal ones_who constructed them, where they are, or even how
many there are_and we came up with some rough order of
magnitude cost estimates. We are going to conduct five beta
tests the latter part of this year to test the risk assessment
methodology and to get the rough order of magnitude cost
estimates down to a reasonable number.
But as you can imagine, some of these levees were designed
to current engineering standards, others where you might have a
farmer's levee out there that you have no technical information
on when or how it was constructed. And so I think through these
beta tests of our risk assessment methodology we will come up
with a much more economical way of doing these assessments.
Mr. Duncan. All right. My time is up. All I am saying is
let us just use a little commonsense on this very important
work. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Mr. Duncan. I would like
now to recognize Mrs. Napolitano for questions.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am very
interested in all of the discussion over the dams. Of course,
Mr. Maurstad, in your testimony you indicate that the Dam
Safety Act budgets have been declining, and you give
information about 2003, 2004, but you do not give any
information on 2005 or 2006 of whether or not it is still
continuing to decline. That is one area.
I note the fact that the American Society of Civil
Engineers gave a 2005 report with a D for the status of the
infrastructure of America's dams. And following along with Mr.
Duncan's line is the prioritization of areas where we know that
you have a greater risk, whether it is earthquake or flood,
hurricanes, et cetera. How do we tell the States you are not
putting a focus, you are relying on the Federal Government for
bailout or for assistance knowing full well that you are in an
area where you are at risk for a catastrophe of some kind.
Would you address that.
Mr. Maurstad. I will try. The reference in the testimony I
believe was to the declining support at the State level for dam
safety programs, and that information I believe we generated
from the National Dam Safety Review Board information. I do not
think we necessarily solicited that information. It is more of
a general comment as to this is the environment that exists in
the States with some of the States that have had revenue
shortfalls in the previous years. The support for the National
Dam Safety Program from the Federal Government has remained
fairly level during that period of time. We continue to do what
we can to support the States in their efforts.
If I did not fully address your question, maybe you could--
--
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, have you been able to identify those
States whose budgets are getting lower or continue to decline?
Are those areas where you know they are at risk?
Mr. Maurstad. I would have to go back and see if we could
generate that information on specific State-by-State support of
the Dam Safety Program in their particular State.
Mrs. Napolitano. Madam Chair, may I ask the Committee to
get some information on that.
The other question I have, and we do not touch on that, is
personnel issues, for both of you, whether you have continued
to decline in personnel, professional personnel that you can
rely on to be able to carry out the duties or the work that
needs to be done for the safety of the dams.
Mr. Maurstad. Well our level of personnel has not changed
during my tenure that I am aware of. We continue to have very
competent people that are working to assist the Dam Safety
Program. Throughout my particular directorate, of course, we
all face transition and folks coming in and going out of
Federal Government service, but I think it has been fairly
stable in the dam safety area, and of good quality people.
Mrs. Napolitano. Has your budget been as stable?
Mr. Maurstad. Again, the budget has been relatively stable
over the course of the last few years. We continue to try to
put forth the necessary resources. The grants have remained
fairly level. We recognize that there is always a need for
greater support and we continue to try to find ways to do that.
Mrs. Napolitano. I am sorry but my time is running out,
sir. I really wanted more focus on whether you are getting
enough funding to be able to do the review of the safety of the
dams with the personnel that you have. Every year I know almost
every agency's budget has been cut. So how then would you be
able to do the job, if that is happening to your agency?
Mr. Maurstad. This is not an area where the budget has been
cut. I think we have remained fairly close to the authorized
levels. This is an area where there is a great need out there.
It is a relatively small program that has done fairly well with
the resources that it has been provided. The statistics in my
testimony I think indicate that a lot has been done. There is
still more that needs to be done.
Mrs. Napolitano. If you have been able to put in some kind
of format the catastrophes that have happened in the last, say,
five years that have indicated an increase of need of services,
an increase in budget for services, because we have had some
major catastrophes, and how can we look forward to dealing with
those in the future?
Mr. Maurstad. Well, again, it really would be necessary to
go back and see which of those disasters were less than
whatever the design level for the particular control structure
would be. Again, I have to harken back to we have developed a
risk consequence equation in the Country that bases resources,
both Government and private sector, on trying to withstand a 1
percent annual chance flood event. And let me just speak to the
area of flooding. There are many events that occur every year
that exceed a 1 percent annual level of opportunity to occur.
That is the balance that we try to pose. That is why we
strongly encourage communities and individuals to mitigate
against greater storm levels than that. That is just a minimum
Federal level requirement. It is not an indication that a
community or an individual is not at risk for flooding or other
type of hurricane-related event.
The Dutch has been mentioned a couple of times. After their
great catastrophe over half a century ago, they developed a
system that is not a 1 percent annual level, but a one one-
hundredth of 1 percent annual level. We have a different
attitude toward risk in this Country. I am not quite sure why.
But to be able to answer your question more pointedly, a great
deal of research would have to be done on the disasters that
were caused, that were less than the 1 percent annual chance.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would ask Mr.
Stockton if he could reply in writing to any of the questions
that he may.
Mr. Stockton. Yes, ma'am.
[Information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.009
Ms. Norton. [presiding] I thank the gentlelady very much.
Mr. Dent.
Mr. Dent. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mr. Maurstad, my
question deals with some issues I have been confronting in
eastern Pennsylvania. As you are aware, we have had some major
weather events in eastern Pennsylvania; three significant
floods in the past two years. There has been quite a bit of
public discussion about the reservoirs up in New York State and
at what level of capacity they should, and that if we had less
water in the reservoirs and provide for releases of water, that
might somehow mitigate flooding downstream or down the
Delaware. This has been the source of a number of debates and
discussions among the Delaware River Basin Commission, FEMA
officials, Department of Environmental Protection officials. I
have had meetings and a lot of conversation about it. I just
want to get your take on this, about releases of waters from
reservoirs, in this case the ones up in New York State that
feed New York City. How do you think that would impact on flood
mitigation efforts on rivers like the Delaware?
Mr. Maurstad. Well my reaction would be that our programs
can be affected by the decisions that are made by State and
local governments. And as a result, we certainly want to be a
part of those discussions to know how our programs,
specifically, National Flood Insurance Program, and our
policyholders would be affected by that.
I do not have the expertise to know the proper level of a
particular reservoir in a circumstance like that. Again, we try
to look at and understand and assess what the risk is in a
particular area against the 100-year level flood that I talked
about before. But it is really outside the scope of the
National Flood Insurance Program to weigh in on that, sir.
Mr. Dent. I guess my main comment would be we would like to
continue to see an active FEMA presence in these discussions as
we wrestle with the issues of flooding along the Delaware,
which has become more pronounced in recent years.
My second question also to Mr. Maurstad. Last year when we
held a similar hearing, we heard that FEMA was having
difficulty developing specific criteria to define what a State
regulated dam is for purposes of allocating State assistance
awards. Has FEMA developed a definition? And if not, how is
this being addressed?
Mr. Maurstad. I believe the criteria that you requested is
currently under review by the National Dam Safety Board. I
think a draft has been developed, it is going through the
decisionmaking process of the Board, and would anticipate that
a proposal will be provided to the Dam Safety Review Board when
it meets in June, and we will know the outcome at that point to
that draft performance guidance.
Mr. Dent. Thank you. The National Weather Service too has
advised that the eastern part of the United States is in a
tropical weather pattern where we should anticipate additional
extreme storm events. Has FEMA developed any strategies under
the National Dam Safety Program for mitigating against an
increased likelihood of these floods?
Mr. Maurstad. Well I think we expect that there is going to
be activity, and so the prospect or the likelihood does not
drive our actions as much as just making sure that we do what
we can to be prepared--to have planned, to have exercised, to
have programs in place--so that if an event happens in a
particular dam area, the community and individuals will know
what actions to take. Part of that is to try to encourage
individuals and communities to take actions today that will
reduce their vulnerability in the future. So I would say our
actions are less driven by forecasts and more driven by what we
understand events are going to happen somewhere in this Country
and we have to be prepared for them.
Mr. Dent. I thank you, Mr. Maurstad. Mr. Stockton, the
Corps recently produced an inventory of levees at risk of
failure due to lack of proper maintenance. What can be done to
ensure that levees are properly maintained by the responsible
parties once they are built?
Mr. Stockton. Yes, we have put out guidance to more
strictly enforce our existing standards. What we have is our
Public Law 84-99, Rehabilitation and Inspection Program. And
under that, if a levee owner's levee is in that program, we
will actually rebuild and restore that levee if it is damaged
to 100 percent of what its pre-storm condition was. So we
encourage them and incentivize the non-Federal owners to
maintain them at a high standard so they can stay within this
program. If they are levees of maintenance concern where they
do not maintain them to a certain standard, then they are no
longer in that program.
Mr. Dent. Thank you, Mr. Stockton. Madam Chair, I yield
back at this time.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Dent. Mr. McNerney.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Maurstad, you
stated that FEMA is evaluating levee safety and decertification
and the impact that will have on insurance. A lot of my
constituents are going to be impacted by this, so I would like
to develop some degree of comfort with the outcome.
What are the timelines? I see my notes say there is going
to be about two-thirds of the levees will be inspected and
judged by the end of this year.
What sort of scientific tools are going to be brought to
bear on this? For example, $20 million was spent on a levee in
our district recently and now they are worried that it is going
to be decertified. So we need to know that if money is spent on
these levees that it is not going to be decertified soon
afterwards.
And will the outcome be used to decide what the priorities
are for levee work from the Corps of Engineers?
Mr. Maurstad. Thank you. I can answer part of that question
and part of it may be more in Mr. Stockton's area. FEMA does
not certify the levee. What we are doing, in coordination with
the Corps' levee assessment, is as we are going through a
mapping process in a particular county or a particular
jurisdiction, we are asking the owners of the levees to provide
to FEMA certification that that levee either meets or continues
to meet the 1 percent annual chance standard. We develop
processes during the map development to allow communities the
adequate time, if they believe that their levees are
certifiable, to provide us with that information. And we are
coordinating, again, with the Corps while that process is going
on.
Our role in this is to make sure that as we develop new
modernized, digital flood maps that they accurately relay the
risk of flooding to that particular jurisdiction. Because we
think it is important that people know what their risk is to
property and to life associated with the levee, and that the
levee in fact does provide the level of protection that people
believe that it does. So it is that coordination that is
occurring with Corps that I hope provides you with the
assurance that you need.
Mr. Stockton. Yes, sir. We provide standards for levee
certification for them to resist the one year exceedance flow
event. We do that certification for levees which we own. It is
the non-Federal owner's responsibility to do the certification
for their levees based upon those standards.
I think the scenario you are describing is where the
situation changes; you have a new hydrologic record, a
different flow frequency, you might have new information on the
under-seepage underneath the levee, you might have erosion, you
might have incomplete maintenance. So that is why we have the
Inspection of Completed Works Program, to annually reassess
whether those levees are meeting the standards, and where they
are not they become decertified.
Mr. McNerney. Okay. I yield back at this point.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. McNerney. Mr.
Carnahan.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thanks again to
the panelists for being here. I just had a couple of quick
questions I wanted to continue with. In my home area in St.
Louis, Missouri, we have a very large levee called the St.
Louis Flood Protection System, which I am sure you are familiar
with. During the great flood in 1993, a section of the flood
wall failed even though the water level was below the height
for which the flood wall was designed.
Today, 14 years later, the problem has still not been
fixed. My constituents, thousands of acres of commercial/
industrial property, railroad tracks and roads would be
affected if that were to fail. Some insurance experts have
estimated that $3 billion worth of claims could result during
the next disastrous flood if the wall were to fail.
The Army Corps has expressed an understanding of the
severity of the situation, yet the leadership refuses to spend
the necessary resources because it classifies the flood wall as
``designed efficiency.'' If the Corps does not address this
problem immediately, the City of St. Louis and the economy of
our entire region could be devastated during the next great
flood. Our actions now will determine whether or not the next
great flood is the next great disaster.
During Fiscal Year 2006, the Army Corps spent $30 million
on levee inventory. Can you give me, this is for Mr. Stockton,
what is the status of that inventory, and is the Corps making
an effort to prioritize those levees within that inventory?
Mr. Stockton. Yes, sir. As I said in my statement, we are
about two-thirds of the way through the inventory of those
levees within our system. Once we know how many levees we have,
and where they are, then we can begin the assessment phase. We
have half a dozen of these pilot studies to test the assessment
risk methodology that we are going to use to assess the levees.
We will be moving into that phase and we really have not yet
begun doing the assessments, we are just doing the inventory at
this point.
Mr. Carnahan. And are you looking at all levees, or just
only Corps levees?
Mr. Stockton. We are looking at levees that are in our
program. Those are the federally owned levees, they are levees
that we have constructed and turned over to the local entities
to operate and maintain, and we are looking for ones that have
been constructed by non-Federal entities and have been brought
into our Rehabilitation and Inspection Program. It does not
include the universe of levees that have been constructed by
local entities that are not in our program and are not in the
National Flood Insurance Program. One of the reasons for doing
the inventory is to figure out the size and magnitude of the
problem, where all the levees are.
Mr. Carnahan. And what is the plan for looking at those
levees that do not fit into that universe?
Mr. Stockton. Well, once we know where they are, once we do
the inventory, we will have a better sense of how many there
are, the extent, and locations.
Mr. Carnahan. Because one of my concerns also is about the
lack of coordination among local levee districts. They often
are very focused on their parochial needs of their own
particular levee district. But there seems to be a real
hodgepodge of communication between those various districts
where one's failure or success could really impact the others
along in their area of the river. Do you see a need for
increased coordination among these districts, and do you have
any recommendations on how to address that?
Mr. Stockton. Yes, sir. That was one of the key lessons
learned coming out of our engineering forensics after Katrina.
We did not have a truly integrated, comprehensive system. We
had a collection of individual projects that were at different
stages of completion, at different heights, and there were gaps
between them. Part of that has to do with local
responsibilities in each levee district. Each entity is
responsible for their own funding, their own operations, their
own maintenance, their own repair, and there is no integrated
approach at the State level.
Now the solution in the case of New Orleans was to
consolidate a lot of those individual levee boards into an east
bank and west bank levee board, which gives you fewer levee
entities to actually work with so you get more uniformity in
policy, and construction, and operations, and maintenance.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Carnahan.
I want to thank both of these witnesses again. Very helpful
and informative testimony. Thank you.
Ms. Norton. I invite the next witnesses to the table.
Mr. Larry Larson, Executive Director, Association of State
Floodplain Managers; Warren Williams, Director, General
Manager-Chief Engineer, National Association of Flood and
Stormwater Management Agencies; Larry Roth, Deputy Executive
Director, American Society of Civil Engineers; John Moyle,
Manager, Dam Safety Section, New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection, Association of State Dam Safety
Officials.
Mr. Larson, if you want to go first, you may proceed. I
will ask the witnesses to keep their testimony within five
minutes, if at all possible, recognizing that your full
testimony will be entered into the record.
TESTIMONY OF LARRY LARSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ASSOCIATION OF
STATE FLOODPLAIN MANAGERS; WARREN D. ``DUSTY'' WILLIAMS,
DIRECTOR, GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF FLOOD AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AGENCIES; LARRY ROTH, DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS; JOHN
MOYLE, MANAGER, DAM SAFETY SECTION, NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, ASSOCIATION OF STATE DAM SAFETY
OFFICIALS
Mr. Larson. Thank you, Chairwoman Norton. Thanks to both
Subcommittees for holding this joint hearing on this important
matter.
My name is Larry Larson. I have worked for 40 years at the
local, State, and national level to reduce flood losses. I
managed the levee safety and dam safety programs for the State
of Wisconsin for 30 years. I am a registered professional
engineer in California and Wisconsin.
We all know that levees can lead to catastrophic losses and
that not just the levees in New Orleans that we saw in 2005. We
have had a lot of discussion about levees elsewhere in the
Nation today, including Sacramento where the levees are in far
worse shape than they were in New Orleans prior to Katrina. We
must have programs, policies, and institutions that can
adequately handle these events and efficiently use taxpayer
money and build a sustainable future.
One thing I would like my testimony to do today is to
hopefully disabuse anyone of the notion that our current system
of managing flood risk in this Nation is working. It is not.
And we are not going to solve it by tweaking around the edges.
And we are not going to solve it by throwing a bunch of money
at it. We need an approach that is entirely different than our
current model.
Our current model is the Federal top-down model, where
locals, through the Congress, come up and ask for levees and
dams, Congress provides the money, the Corps builds it, and
then turns it over to the local sponsors for operation and
maintenance; then things start to fall apart. We have no entity
to oversee and continue to oversee those activities and ensure
that levees and dams continue to be safe. The only way we are
going to get there is to put the entity in charge of that
activity that has the actual authority in the Constitution to
do it, and that is the States.
Why are States and locals not doing more? Mainly because
they think this is a Federal Government problem. They have
gotten to that notion because of the 1936 Flood Control Act,
the National Flood Insurance Program, the Disaster Relief Act,
and now we are talking about the Dam Safety Act that has been
around for 10 or 12 years. And as you just heard, FEMA is
testifying that as local and state governments assume the
Federal Government is doing something on dam safety, the State
governments start to back away from providing funding for dam
safety. That is not a model that is working.
We need to put the States in charge and we need to do it in
a way that has incentives and disincentives. The States have
the ability to prevent future disasters. Under the
Constitution, they are the only ones that have the ability to
do things like land-use management, building codes, regulatory
authority over levees and dams. The Federal Government does not
have that authority, only the States have that. If we get them
to do it and do it right, we are going to reduce Federal
disaster costs, and that is what we are all seeking.
ASFPM has always urged the Nation to seek other
alternatives than levees. Levees should be the option of last
resort. And if we invest in levees at all at the Federal level,
it ought to be levees that provide 500-year protection. As we
discovered, 100-year protection is not doing it, and it will
not do it especially where you have critical facilities like
hospitals, police and fire stations, emergency shelters, water
supply, all the rest of that. We need to change what we are
doing and build only 500-year or higher levees with Federal
dollars.
In terms of incentives and disincentives to get States and
locals to act, we have always favored a sliding cost-share.
States and locals that do more should get a better cost-share
in Federal programs. Right now that is topsy-turvy--those that
do the least get the most Federal money. We need to change
that. The States and locals that spend money to reduce risk
should be able to bank that money, for example, toward the non-
Federal share of the next disaster:
Disincentives can be provided in Public Law 84-99 program,
for example, needs to be properly administered so that it
withholds support for those levees that are not properly
operated and maintained.
The first steps in this program could be we suggest that
you instruct the Corps to complete the national levee
inventory. That is essential so that we know the size of the
problem and the people and property at risk, and then to
establish a National Levee Safety Committee that could design a
program and provide it to you as a suggestion for subsequent
legislation to set up the actual program itself.
We do not support use of the current dam safety model as
the approach to use. We do not believe it has the appropriate
teeth to ensure that dams have become safer in our Nation, you
have seen the data on that, nor are States building up their
dam safety programs. But we think there are approaches that can
be used, and we are here to do what we can to help you support
moving ahead in that respect. Thank you very much.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Larson. Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams. Thank you, Madam Chairman. While I represent
the flood control district of Riverside County, a rapidly
urbanizing county in southern California, located about 50
miles east of Los Angeles, I am here appearing before you today
also representing NAFSMA, the National Association of Flood and
Stormwater Management Agencies.
NAFSMA is a national organization which represents more
than 100 local and State flood control agencies across the
Nation, serving a total of more than 76 million citizens. As a
result, we have a strong interest in the issues the Committee
is addressing today. We thank you for the opportunity to
address this Committee.
Well before Hurricane Katrina, NAFSMA was concerned about
the impact of levee safety on both the Corps of Engineers'
flood management program and FEMA's Map Modernization Program.
We commend both FEMA and the Corps for the commitment to tackle
these difficult issues and for their efforts to work closely
together to define and coordinate their messages to the local
and State flood management agencies.
NAFSMA has strongly stressed the need for and supported the
creation of a federally-funded national levee inventory
program. Since this issue was first raised, the Corps and FEMA
have made a great deal of progress in identifying deficient
levees throughout the Country and have set up a process for
certifying levees. While NAFSMA applauds the interagency
efforts in this direction, we are concerned that the allotted
time for correcting problems and achieving certification is
insufficient and that there is a lack of resources available to
accomplish this effort.
While initially the mandated compliance period seemed
reasonable, early indications are they may not be. Different
interpretations of guidance documents are already occurring,
causing much confusion. Adequate funding resources are not
available at the Federal level to carry out these
certifications. And in some areas local governments and
regional entities are concerned about where to get the
necessary funds. And there is a mounting worry as to whether we
will be able to find private engineering firms willing to sign
the needed certification documents due to liability concerns.
It is clear that we need to move forward with a national
levee Inventory and certification program, but it needs to be
done in a thoughtful and pragmatic manner. The process needs to
ensure both public safety and provide realistic expectations
that can be met by the owners and operators of the levees.
To that end, NAFSMA strongly supports the establishment of
a National Levee Safety Commission. This commission will be
charged to report back to Congress on the need, potential
structure, and possible Federal, State, and local funding
resources that should be directed to this program. Federal
representatives, as well as appropriate representatives from
States and local and regional governments, as well as the
engineering community, need to be involved in this effort.
Another issue I would like to bring to your attention is
the need for streamlined permitting for maintenance activities
of all flood control projects, including levees. Although
maintenance issues such as addressing vegetation on levees and
eliminating burrows within levees would seem simple at first,
it is important to note it is often very difficult and time
consuming to secure the necessary regulatory permits to carry
out this work. These issues become even more difficult when the
vegetation provides habitat for an endangered species or the
burrowing animal happens to be endangered itself.
Many of our levees are in areas with numerous endangered
species. In Riverside County alone, for example, there are 91
species with a status of either endangered, threatened, or
proposed for listing. Our agencies have often been delayed in
carrying out routine maintenance activities needed to keep
their flood management system operating at optimal levels by
their inability to obtain necessary Federal permits in a timely
manner, if at all. Local and regional agencies have even been
faced with one Federal agency telling them that a flood control
facility must be cleared or any flood insurance claims will be
subrogated against them while at the same time another Federal
agency was preventing them from obtaining the necessary permits
to do the work. Clearly, there must be a means to coordinate
these conflicting concerns to meet the over-arching national
and interstate responsibility of ensuring protection.
For existing flood control projects, we need to develop a
mechanism to ensure the necessary regulatory permits will be
provided for operation and maintenance in a timely manner, and
that endangered habitat and species are protected and water
quality regulations are met. For new federally-partnered
projects, the needed regulatory permits need to be part of the
original design and the maintenance manual. And in cases where
emergencies exist or potentially could exist, streamlined
permitting processes must be made available to local agencies.
The last issue I would like to speak to today is the need
to continue adequate funding for FEMA's Map Modernization and
mitigation programs. Although I have focused much of my
testimony on the Corps' role in a national levee safety
program, it is critical to note that accurate Flood Insurance
Rate Maps are an essential part of national levee safety and
flood risk management activities. To ensure that these maps are
available to all levels of government as soon as possible,
NAFSMA strongly supports continued adequate funding of FEMA's
Map Modernization Program and its mitigation programs.
In closing, NAFSMA very much appreciates the opportunity to
present our thoughts on these critical national issues to the
Subcommittee for consideration. We stand ready to work with you
on these important issues and would welcome your questions.
Thank you.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Williams. Mr. Roth.
Mr. Roth. Madam Chair, my name is Larry Roth. I am the
Deputy Executive Director of the American Society of Civil
Engineers. I am a licensed professional engineer and a licensed
geotechnical engineer in the State of California. Before
joining ASCE staff, I had 30 years of experience in water
resources engineering, including dams, levees, and canals.
I am very pleased to appear here today to testify for ASCE
in strong support of H.R. 1098, the Dam Rehabilitation and
Repair Act of 2007, which would amend the National Dam Safety
Program Act to provide critically needed funding for repairs to
publicly owned dams across the United States.
ASCE also supports enactment of a national levee safety
program modeled on the National Dam Safety Program. We believe
that H.R. 1587, the National Levee Safety Program Act of 2007,
includes all the necessary components for a vital nationwide
levee safety program.
Like all man-made structures, dams deteriorate. Deferred
maintenance accelerates deterioration and causes dams to be
more susceptible to failure. As with other critical
infrastructure, a significant investment is essential to
maintain the benefits and assure safety.
In 2005, ASCE issued the latest in a series of assessments
of the nation's infrastructure. Our 2005 Report Card for
America's Infrastructure found that the number of unsafe dams
in the United States increased by a stunning 33 percent between
1998 and 2005. There are now more than 3,300 unsafe dams
nationwide. An alarming number.
The nation's dam safety officials estimate that it would
cost more than $10 billion over the next 12 years to upgrade
the physical condition of all critical non-Federal dams. The
problem of hazardous dams is enormous. As the Congressional
Research Service stated recently, unsafe dams represent a
serious risk to public safety. The CRS study said: ``While dam
failures are infrequent, age, construction deficiencies,
inadequate maintenance, and seismic or weather events
contribute to the likelihood of failure.'' To reduce the risk,
regular inspections are necessary to identify deficiencies and
then corrective action must be taken.
Although catastrophic failures are rare, there were over
1,000 dam safety incidents, including 129 failures, between
1999 and 2006. The number of high hazard dams, dams whose
failure would cause loss of human life, is increasing
dramatically, largely because of downstream development. By
2005, the number of high hazard-potential dams totaled more
than 11,000 across the Nation.
The National Dam Safety and Security Act of 2002 provides
funding that has improved dam safety programs. Unfortunately,
it does not provide financial assistance for needed repairs.
According to the results of a study by the Association of State
Dam Safety Officials, the total investment needed to bring U.S.
dams into safety compliance or to remove obsolete dams tops $30
billion.
That is why the bill sponsored by Representatives John
Salazar and Randy Kuhl, H.R. 1098, the Dam Rehabilitation and
Repair Act of 2007, is so badly needed. The bill would provide
a modest $200 million over five years for the repair,
rehabilitation, or removal of non-Federal, high hazard publicly
owned dams. ASCE strongly recommends that Federal legislation
like H.R. 1098 be enacted to provide a funding source for the
repair and rehabilitation of dams in the United States.
ASCE recently provided a detailed external review of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineer's performance evaluation of the New
Orleans hurricane protection system during and following
Hurricane Katrina. We have summarized our findings and a
recommendation in this report, The New Orleans Hurricane
Protection System: What Went Wrong and Why?, which will be
released to the public on June 1.
One of our key recommendations is that Congress should
enact legislation to establish a national levee safety program
that is modeled on the successful National Dam Safety Program.
ASCE strongly supports the enactment of Federal and State
legislation to protect the health and welfare of citizens from
the catastrophic effects of levee failure. A bill introduced by
Representative Jean Schmidt of Ohio would satisfy virtually all
of these important requirements.
Thank you, Madam Chairman. That concludes my statement. I
would be pleased to answer any questions.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Roth. Mr. Moyle.
Mr. Moyle. Good afternoon. My name is John Moyle. I am a
licensed professional civil engineer with the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection. I am responsible for
New Jersey's dam safety program and flood control program. I am
past president of the Association of State Dam Safety Officials
and a member of the National Dam Safety Review Board under
FEMA.
On behalf of the Association, I would like to thank
Chairwoman Norton and the Members of the Subcommittee for
having this hearing. The Association and I are very pleased to
have been afforded the opportunity to provide testimony
concerning the condition of the Nation's dams and the critical
role of the Federal Government in the safety of dams.
The Association is a national nonprofit organization of
more than 2,300 members including State, Federal, and local dam
safety professionals dedicated to improving dam safety through
research, education, and communication. The Association
represents the dam safety programs of the States and our goal
is to reduce the loss of lives by establishing strong dam
safety programs.
The State dam safety programs regulate 86 percent of the
83,000 dams in the United States. Table 1 of our written
testimony provides a breakdown per State. The States and these
programs look to Congress and the Federal Government for their
continued leadership and support toward strong dam safety
programs. Dramatic incidents and dam failures in the United
States have shown that impounding water is a hazardous
activity.
While the National Dam Safety Program has greatly improved
the safety of our Nation's dams, the safety of dams requires
more attention from national policymakers. Events over the past
few years illustrate the need. The years of 2005 and 2006 saw
the levee failures in New Orleans, the emergency evacuation of
the town of Taunton, Massachusetts, below the failing dam, the
failure of the Taum Sauk Dam in Missouri, the fatal collapse of
the Kaloko Dam in Hawaii where seven people lost their lives,
the public outcry from the looming threat posed by the Wolf
Creek Dam in Kentucky, and just three weeks ago in New Jersey
during the nor'easter and Presidential Declaration, we had a
State highway embankment fail which formed an earth dam for
Rainbow Lake. These events have again brought focus to the
vulnerability and potential consequences of deteriorating and
unsafe dams.
The National Dam Safety Program exists today and is
administered by FEMA. For ten years the program has provided
valuable assistance to State dam safety programs, funding
critical training for State engineers and providing technical
research. Additionally, the program directs the Corps of
Engineers to maintain a national inventory.
The modest increases authorized for the National Dam Safety
Program last year have not been budgeted as part of FEMA's
mitigation program. In fact, funding levels for the State
Assistance Grants have been creeping downward for the past five
years. These grants need to be fully funded. I ask you to take
a look at Table 2 where it shows the average State grant is
approximately $50,000 per year. Should an increase in this
budget occur, it will allow for the hiring of more dam safety
inspectors, provide better emergency action planning, and
encourage States to do more enforcement on unsafe structures. I
also suggest that you look at Table 3 where the States have
identified what additional measures could be implemented if
there was additional funding into the program.
Dam safety, however, requires more than what the National
Dam Safety Program provides. Inspections and education alone
will not substantially improve dam safety. Reconstruction
funding is needed for both public and privately owned dams.
H.R. 1098, the proposed national dam rehabilitation funding
program, is a great beginning to address publicly owned dams.
According to reports submitted by the 50 States, the number
of deficient dams has risen by 80 percent since 1998. Also of
concern is a dramatic nationwide increase in the number of high
hazard-potential dams since 1998. The number of high hazard
dams have increased by 28 percent. This increase is not due to
the construction of new dams, but the increased development
downstream of existing dams.
Dam repair costs throughout the United States is estimated
by the Association to be over $30 billion. Table 4 shows
potential funding assistance that each State could receive
under H.R. 1098 to repair unsafe public dams. Currently, New
Jersey has a low interest program to fund dam repairs and the
Federal program would leverage these costs so that we could
improve more critical dams in New Jersey.
Thank you again for your time and giving us this
opportunity to discuss this important topic. The Association
requests that the Subcommittee recognize the enormous value of
our Nation's dams and the increasing concerns for public
safety. We request your support for an increase in funding to
continue the National Dam Safety Program, and for passage of
H.R. 1098. We would also like to thank Congressman Salazar and
Kuhl for their commitment and support through the introduction
of H.R. 1098. The Association is grateful for the
reauthorization which extended and increased funding, but we
need to have a more aggressive management of this program and
proper funding to achieve the results the people downstream
below these dams expect. The Association also supports the
establishment of a national levee program. Within our written
testimony we outline seven principles for implementing an
effective program.
Thank you. If you have any questions, I would be happy to
answer.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Moyle.
Let me ask, actually all of you are qualified to answer
this question, but it is the American Society of Civil
Engineers that indicates that independent peer review should be
required for every levee or significant modification of a levee
system. Perhaps you heard me inquire about peer review, given
some emerging criticism of the levees in and around New Orleans
that is now developing. Have any of you advised, given peer
review, or know of peer review on any of the Gulf levees now
under construction? Mr. Roth?
Mr. Roth. No, ma'am. ASCE has not been involved in peer
review of levees that are currently under construction. Of
course, IPET, which Mr. Stockton referred to, the Interagency
Performance Evaluation Task Force by the Corps of Engineers to
identify the reasons for the behavior of the hurricane
protection system in New Orleans, ended up providing results
that are being incorporated into construction, and that IPET
study was peer reviewed by ASCE. But we have not been involved
directly in the peer review of construction documents for the
repairs. I might add, Ms. Norton, our policy on peer review
does not require peer review for every levee, just for levees
that pose a significant risk to human health and safety.
Ms. Norton. Well you would certainly categorize, or would
you, the levees being constructed around New Orleans and the
Gulf Coast as meeting that standard?
Mr. Roth. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. Are any of you aware of any peer review that is
taking place of the construction of any of those levees? It is
important for us to just understand what the profession
understands to be the case. The fact is that I think you could
discern from the responses of the Corps of Engineers
representative that the problem did not seem to be that they
would have chosen the particular reinforcement that is used,
but it is a question of funding.
Some of us are very worried, particularly in light of
global warming, the unpredictable nature of flooding generally
today, and are worried particularly about a city that is under
water, in any case below sea level, excuse me, and certainly
was under water. Costs are a significant factor but it boggles
the mind to imagine what we would all think of ourselves if
there were a major storm.
I am very aware of the Corps and what it has gone through--
the Corps is directly responsible for much of what was done in
the District of Columbia for a hundred years because there was
not any home rule here--and of the need to strike a balance.
One wonders what the balance should be in a city, a major
American city that provides oil to the United States of
America, a major American city which was the major city before
Katrina for providing revenue for the entire State.
One wonders how one should proceed, particularly given, let
us face it, all kinds of cost considerations that we ourselves
impose, particularly now that there is a new Congress
submitting ourselves to what we call pay-go, something we have
not had for the last dozen or so years. Very, very strict
discipline, as it says, hey, anything you want to do you have
to pay for. This is a most difficult process.
So I do not ask this except to find some objective way, now
I am not sure all of you are objective either, some of you have
a vested interest also, but maybe the National Academy of
Sciences. Ultimately you get people from the profession in any
case to tell you what the real deal is. But I do believe that
somehow or the other Congress has to come to grips with what we
are doing there and of what we are requiring of the court to
do.
There was testimony I think from you, Mr. Larson, about the
top-down notion. You were very clear that this just is not
working, that the system we have in place is not working. That
we give money to those that do not do as well. I do not know, I
would have to take a look at them. They also may be the people,
the States who are least able to do as well.
I have no idea whether they would have a good excuse or
whether they are becoming, as some of you imply in your
testimony, more dependent on the Federal Government. Hey, you
need not. Under pay-go, all I can tell you is that you need
not. We will be fortunate enough to do what we should do at the
levels that are even now expected of us, which are nowhere near
what they should be.
But there is State responsibility largely here. As I said
in my opening statement, there is one State that does not have
any system. Imagine that. I do not understand why Alabama does
not, but it does tell you that States can go from very
substantial levels of responsibility to none. But if there is a
dam failure, everybody will look to FEMA. My Subcommittee has
jurisdiction over FEMA.
So I really have two questions flowing from this. First,
with responsibility largely in the States, which I assure you
it will continue to be, this is a Federal system, we believe in
federalism, but we also have the obligation to protect the
taxpayers. Mr. Larson says, well, you ought to be paying more
attention to the floodplain, implying less attention perhaps to
the dam itself. I want to hear from him on that, number one.
Number two, in light of the fact that a dam giving away
leaves us with a version of Katrina, with huge, huge impact on
taxpayers, the question becomes, what is the response? How does
the Federal Government, given the State system in place, carry
out its responsibility to protect the taxpayers and to protect
the citizens from the impact of dam failure? Would, for
example, more rigorous Federal regulations help accomplish some
of this purpose regarding safety perhaps?
So if you would take that two-part question. Those are
essentially my questions and they are for any or all of you.
Mr. Larson. I will start, Congresswoman. I think you have
thrown out some real concerns that the Nation faces at how we
are going to deal with this issue. Remember what the Corps of
Engineers just testified to. In New Orleans, they now have a
level of protection that was pre-Katrina and they have now
determined that is about a 100-year level of protection. That
means you have a one in four chance of that levee overtopping
in a 30 year period.
Is that adequate protection for the City of New Orleans? I
surely would not think it was. I would not live there, I
guarantee you that. And I do not think that we should expect
that we are going to protect highly urbanized areas with those
levels of protection. But now there is a real problem. If that
is not adequate, we need a 500-year level in New Orleans. What
is the cost of that and how are we going to pay for it? Those
are critical issues.
There are two basic concepts that ASFPM supports. One is,
those people who live at risk should pay the cost of living at
risk. Now we tend to spread the costs a lot in this Nation
among those at risk. With more and more knowledge about where
risk exists, we can help people make those kinds of decisions.
But we are not doing that. We are letting people build where
they want to and then we are backing them up with Federal
disaster relief and so on. We have got to reach a better
balance on that.
Also, we have got to put the States' feet to the fire. They
are the ones who have the authority. The Feds cannot go out and
regulate dams and levees. They do not have land-use authority.
You cannot pass a law that says the Corps of Engineers should
go out and regulate these levees. They can have carrots and
sticks in their programs to say if you do not do this you will
not get this help and so on, but they cannot regulate. The
States can do that. But we must get the States to the table in
a shared program approach so that they accept the
responsibilities and then provide them incentives and
disincentives for doing that. And until we reach that point, we
will continue to lose. Before Katrina, the average annual flood
losses in this Nation were going up; they were four times
bigger in 2000 than they were in 1900, in real dollars.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Larson, we could say, for example, with
respect to funds that we give, that there is some contingency
in terms of regulations on safety.
Mr. Larson. That is right.
Ms. Norton. We certainly could say you are not going to get
these funds unless a certain degree of national safety perhaps
at a minimal level is met.
Mr. Larson. Right. And the farther you go beyond that, the
better cost-share you will have on Federal programs. So we can
provide incentives and say here is the base, as you indicated,
but we can even go beyond that if you do more than that.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams. Madam Chairman, I agree with most of what Mr.
Larson said. I would add to it that it is the reason for the
commission and our support of the commission. One size will not
fit all. And to try to ascertain what all the answers to your
questions are at this point, I think it is premature.
We have to identify what all the problems are. A case in
point, the levees in New Orleans are not the same as the levees
in California. The levees in California are not the same
throughout the State. In your area, we have the Bay Delta area,
in my area we have Palm Springs protected by levee. They are
both levees, they both have the basic same function, but they
are entirely different in the way they should be assessed and
the way they should be maintained.
Ms. Norton. Granted, Mr. Williams. But it is not rocket
science. Now again, New Orleans is below sea level. How many
cities are below sea level, particularly when the Nation is
dependent upon them for a vital resource like oil? You could
compare that, and I realize the difficulty, you are engineers,
you do very fine computations all the time, but I am not sure
why we do not have a data system that could tell us the
difference.
There could be other areas below sea level but they might
not have a vital resource, they might not be the center of the
State's revenue. I do not understand why this would be--I
understand why it is difficult for dummies like me, but for
fellows like you who are used to rating things by data and
mathematically, it does seem to me that would be possible.
Mr. Williams. I cannot disagree with anything you said,
ma'am.
Ms. Norton. Has anyone ever attempted to do such a
measurement, saying, okay, here are all the criteria, now we
are going to put in there the most significant areas of the
United States where dam failure would occur, and then to chart
then the criteria, I have named some of them, and say, okay,
this is what we say, we are professionals, you know, we are not
seeking funds from the Federal Government, this is where we
come out. Would that be useful to our Country at this point?
Mr. Williams. I believe it would be and I believe we are at
the beginning of developing that. Why it does not exist now, I
could not answer other than it is such a diverse Country. But I
think different areas have different levels of that inventory.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Moyle wanted to respond right then.
Mr. Moyle. I was going to respond to your question about
looking at hazards associated with dams. One of the tools we
use is we have emergency action plans and those plans develop
those inundation areas downstream. We are working with the
Department of Homeland Security to look at which are the most
critical dams as far as what are the greatest impacts or
consequences downstream. So it is a tool that we are beginning
to start----
Ms. Norton. What do you mean, critical dams?
Mr. Moyle. Those that have the greatest consequences to
population below the dam, other interdependencies down below
that dam, whether it is a water treatment plant, it is a
school, it is a hospital, you would take into consideration all
those other impacts downstream and those dams would be the ones
that need to be protected from a national security standpoint.
Ms. Norton. I am also on the Homeland Security Committee.
We had to pound the Homeland Security Department to do
precisely that for terrorism. So now they have all these fine
notions, they did not come out so well when they did the
funding last year, and New York and the District of Columbia
went through the ceiling, but they have these fine measurement
risk consequences about how we ought to fund the terrorism
grants. Now you see the way we were doing this, we were doing
that on a kind of per-capita basis.
The fact is that every single jurisdiction is subject to
some kind of natural disaster. We even had a flood here in the
District of Columbia which is not exactly a floodplain. But
when it came to a terrorist disaster, any layman could tell you
where Al Queda is likely to be looking. So, first of all, we
are a Federal Republic and so everybody wants a little piece of
the pie. But then after Katrina, shame on everybody if we have
anything approaching that again.
Mr. Roth, finally, did you want to give an answer? I will
go on to Mrs. Schmidt after.
Mr. Roth. I did, thank you. You pose some very difficult
and thought-provoking questions regarding the future of New
Orleans and its hurricane protection system. Ms. Norton, I
would just like to draw your attention to our report which will
actually be released to the public on June 1st. I would like to
personally offer you a copy. It does have many answers I
believe that will satisfy some of your concerns regarding New
Orleans.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Roth, do not think I did not notice that I
had provided you from the last question a lead-in to indicate,
what I must tell you I am very grateful for, your upcoming
report, I want an autographed copy, if you would, What Went
Wrong and Why, or words to that effect. But do you have
anything--you see what I am looking for. I am looking for
something comparable, what will go wrong and why if we do not
prepare for the next flood, in effect.
Mr. Roth. That is precisely our point. We try to make the
point extremely well in here that the reason we face the
situation that we faced in New Orleans following Katrina is
that as a society, State and local government, Federal
Government, we put safety, either unintentionally or
intentionally, on the back burner. We simply cannot do that.
Our levee systems, first and foremost, protect people. If we do
not pay attention to them, we do not inspect them, we do not
maintain them, they are going to fail, and when they fail they
are going to take precious lives with them.
Katrina was an incredible wake-up call. That was said many
times I think today or several times today. What was not said
was we cannot hit the snooze button. We have got to pay
attention to the lessons from Katrina and take action not only
in New Orleans, but in California, in the Mississippi Valley,
in Atlantic Coast where levees are protecting people.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Roth. I want to thank each of
you on this panel. You advise is very valued for us because you
are professionals.
I want to move to Mrs. Schmidt.
Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I have a couple of
questions. The first one is for Mr. Williams. Sir, one of the
critiques of my bill is level of funding is not adequate. How
much money should be authorized to undertake my effort?
Mr. Williams. Thank you, ma'am, or no, thank you.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Williams. I do not know and I do not think anybody
knows for sure. Our concern is both timeframe and money, that
if we rush into this levee certification and levee inventory
program too quickly, we will come out with a result that is not
entirely adequate and what we are all looking for. The flip
answer is, adequate funding to make the right report. I do not
know what that is.
Our concern is mainly time right now, but resources
certainly have to be there. That is why we recommend that the
commission have the ability to look at what resources are
available, not just in the Federal Government but in a cost-
share manner from the locals and from the State. It is going to
take all those resources together to really make this program
worthwhile I believe.
Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you. I have two questions, depending
upon the way Mr. Larson answers the first one, I may only have
one. Mr. Larson, in your testimony you suggest States need
financial incentives from the Federal Government to undertake
levee safety programs. Some could say this means that States
need financial incentives to provide for the health and welfare
of their citizens. Why do we need to provide Federal financing
incentives for States to do the right thing?
Mr. Larson. Well, if we have the will at the Federal
Government level to say you do not get any disaster relief from
the Federal Government because flooding and public safety is
not only the function, but the primary duty of State and local
government, then we would not need incentives.
But I doubt that is going to happen. Politically, that is a
very, very difficult thing to do, and you know that better than
I do. But we now have a system where we have reliance on
Federal backstops for disaster relief and the rest. So I do not
think you are going to turn that around by just simply saying
to the State and local government you ought to do this.
We tried that in a number of programs. In dam safety, for
example, we tried that, but as you heard Mr. Maurstad say, the
amount of money States are putting into their dam safety
programs has actually decreased in the last ten years. So
unless we turn that around I think with some sort of incentive
or disincentive, it can work both ways, we are not going to get
that shared responsibility that we are going to have to have
that Mr. Williams talks about, that we do need to have that
shared Federal/State/local approach to it. It cannot be
Federal. We are not going to solve this problem at the Federal
level.
Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you. In another part to your testimony
you suggest that the Federal Government, including the Corps of
Engineers, should not be performing the detailed engineering
assessments for non-federal levees. Who should be responsible
for these assessments, and why?
Mr. Larson. The levee owners. We believe that the levee
owners have--you have to remember that local communities
requested levees. This was their option on how they choose to
address flood risk in their community. And now we are providing
communities, and we always have, with options about how we can
assist you to do that. Some options communities are using now
is to relocate populations out of risk areas, to elevate
structures and do other things, but not to put structural
measures in.
Structural measures have a long-term obligation not only at
the local level where they have to operate and maintain those,
but as we now see, even when they do not do that, who do they
come back to? They come back to the Federal treasury to say,
gee, we did not have enough money to operate and maintain, help
us out.
So, it is our opinion that if you made that choice at the
local level to build a structural measure, such as a levee, and
you provided assurance that you were going to operate and
maintain that levee, then you should do that. And part of that
operation and maintenance is getting that levee certified and
of assessing the adequacy of the levee, and providing that
information to those of us at the Federal level who credit
those kinds of structures.
Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you. Does anyone wish to add to that?
Yes, sir?
Mr. Moyle. Larry mentioned the National Dam Safety Program,
which is an incentive program, and in that program you have to
be able to have the State authority to inspect, enforce, and
issue permits for dams, and that is the incentive. Currently,
the levee program, I believe there are only 20 States that even
have regulatory authority. So the incentive program may be to
get those States to think more proactively about having a
regulatory program oversight over levees.
Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you. Anybody else?
Mr. Williams. If I may add. I would agree with Mr. Larson
in most cases, but there are cases, well, actually, a lot of
cases where the levees were federally partnered in the
construction. In such cases, NAFSMA would advocate that the
Federal Government still be involved, on a cost-shared basis,
of course, in the certification. They are the original levee
constructors.
Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you. I do not have any other questions.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mrs. Schmidt.
My own Ranking Member of the GSA Subcommittee, the FEMA
Subcommittee is here. Mr. Graves, do you have any questions of
this panel?
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I apologize for
being late. I have actually been up close and personal to the
levee issue the last two days. I live in northwest Missouri
where we have gotten a lot of rain. And when I left this
morning, on our farm the water was six feet deep.
But we had major breaks. Over Sunday, I was sandbagging to
try to stop breaks in private levees, and we lost that fight,
and then yesterday, Monday, we were sandbagging the Missouri
levee down around St. Joe area. We are expecting the crest
today sometime around, well, right about now, as a matter of
fact. No loss of life, good news, just mostly property damage.
But it is an issue we are dealing with both on public levees
and private levees. And it is quite interesting that we have
this hearing today in just being able to deal with it.
I do not have any questions at this point, Madam Chairman.
I appreciate your having this hearing. I am going to read
through the testimony. I would like my original statement to be
submitted to the record, if that is possible. I very much
appreciate your concern and your insight into this issue.
Ms. Norton. Glad to receive your statement, Mr. Graves,
particularly as a case in point, perhaps of a different order
of magnitude, but I am not sure farmers in your area would
consider it so. It does tell us the continuing issue this
raises, Mr. Graves. Of course, as a farmer, you can imagine
what it must mean. I certainly hope it is not at a time when
crops have been spoiled and that that region of the farm was
not underwater.
Every time I think, gentlemen, about the catastrophes we
have seen, and you see it on television, perhaps it is because
I studied history in college, I get new appreciation for early
America, for 19th century America, for 20th century America for
that matter, when I see what happened in I believe Kansas with
a little town blown away. Just think about that. Before there
was a FEMA, before the Federal Government took any
responsibility for anything like this, which did not happen
until around the time of the New Deal, and FEMA was created,
when, in the 1970s.
I have in mind people leaving the East Coast and just going
to the next part of the Country and being glad that they were
expanding the frontier, then finding hurricanes of the kind
they never experienced in the East, floods that wiped away
whole, huge sets of Americans who came here seeking their
fortune, went West seeking their fortune.
I do not know if we really appreciate without a reading of
history, which too often centers on battles, on perhaps
biography, and less often on what Americans suffered to build
the great American economy and each and every great city.
Whether you are talking about New York City or a small town in
Kansas, if it occurred much before the 1970s, these areas were
on their own. The loss of life was huge and largely unreported.
What we are trying to do now is bring all of these issues
into a 21st century context, right as everything may be
changing from under us as notions of global warming throw
everything up in the air. Your professional understanding and
expertise is ever so much more valued today, and your testimony
is particularly important to the Committee.
Agencies come in, they are after all under the discipline
of being a part of an Administration, whether it is Democratic
or Republican. They are doing the best they can. You hear me
asking about peer review, because Congress needs to step back
and find some way to truly understand, consistent with cost,
what we have to do, and when we have to do it, and how much
time experts think we have to do it.
You have in coming today and offering candid testimony and
new ideas helped us immeasurably as we seek what for us will be
large answers to even larger questions. Again, thanks to each
and every one of you for your testimony.
I thank the Members for attending.
This joint Subcommittee hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5920.086