[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FLOOD MAP MODERNIZATION AND THE FUTURE
OF THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 12, 2005
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services
Serial No. 109-44
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON: 2006
26-042 PDF
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES
MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio, Chairman
JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts
RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
DEBORAH PRYCE, Ohio MAXINE WATERS, California
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois
PETER T. KING, New York NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon
SUE W. KELLY, New York, Vice Chair JULIA CARSON, Indiana
RON PAUL, Texas BRAD SHERMAN, California
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
JIM RYUN, Kansas BARBARA LEE, California
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee
Carolina RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
VITO FOSSELLA, New York STEVE ISRAEL, New York
GARY G. MILLER, California CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York
PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio JOE BACA, California
MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota JIM MATHESON, Utah
TOM FEENEY, Florida STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
JEB HENSARLING, Texas BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina AL GREEN, Texas
KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri
RICK RENZI, Arizona MELISSA L. BEAN, Illinois
JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin,
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
TOM PRICE, Georgia BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
MICHAEL G. FITZPATRICK,
Pennsylvania
GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina
Robert U. Foster, III, Staff Director
Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity
ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio, Chairman
GARY G. MILLER, California, Vice MAXINE WATERS, California
Chairman NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York
RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana JULIA CARSON, Indiana
PETER T. KING, New York BARBARA LEE, California
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
Carolina BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
RICK RENZI, Arizona EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri
STEVAN, PEARCE, New Mexico AL GREEN, Texas
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts
MICHAEL G. FITZPATRICK,
Pennsylvania
GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky
MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on:
July 12, 2005................................................ 1
Appendix:
July 12, 2005................................................ 49
WITNESSES
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
Bullock, Michael, President, Intermap Federal Services, Inc...... 24
Edelman, Scott K., President, Watershed Concepts................. 26
Jenkins, William O., Jr., Director, Homeland Security and
Justice, U.S. Government Accountability Office................. 22
Maurstad, David I., Acting Mitigation Division Director and
Federal Insurance Administrator, Emergency Preparedness and
Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.......... 3
Small, Cheryl A., President, National Flood Determination
Association.................................................... 27
Williams, James R., Co-Chairman, Mapping and Engineering
Standards Committee, Association of State Floodplain Managers.. 29
APPENDIX
Prepared statements:
Oxley, Hon. Michael G........................................ 50
Browne-Waite, Hon. Ginny..................................... 53
Ney, Hon. Robert W........................................... 54
Bullock, Michael............................................. 56
Edelman, Scott K............................................. 107
Jenkins, William O., Jr...................................... 124
Maurstad, David I............................................ 145
Small, Cheryl A.............................................. 154
Williams, James R............................................ 160
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Miller, Hon. Gary G.:
National Association of Realtors, prepared statement......... 175
Jenkins, William O., Jr:
Written response to question from Hon. Stevan Pearce......... 182
Maurstad, David I.:
Written response to question from Hon. Stevan Pearce......... 184
Written response to question from Hon.Robert W. Ney.......... 185
FLOOD MAP MODERNIZATION AND
THE FUTURE OF THE NATIONAL
FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
----------
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Housing and
Community Opportunity,
Committee on Financial Services,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
Room 2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Gary G. Miller
[vice chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Ney, Miller of California, Jones,
Brown-Waite, Pearce, Neugebauer, Fitzpatrick, Davis of
Kentucky, Waters, Miller of North Carolina, Scott, and Green
Mr. Miller of California. [Presiding.] This hearing of the
Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity will come to
order. Today's Subcommittee on Housing and Community
Opportunity meets to continue its review and oversight of the
National Flood Insurance Program. Specifically, today's hearing
will focus on FEMA's program of updating flood maps and how
this process affects the flood insurance industry and local
communities.
Flood maps identify areas of greatest risk of flooding and
provide the foundation for the National Flood Insurance
Program. The maps are used by the communities to establish
minimum building standards designed to reduce the effects of
flooding and also guide FEMA in setting insurance rates.
However, nearly 70 percent of the country's flood maps are more
than 10 years old, according to FEMA, and reflect outdated data
that could affect the ability to accurately identify flood
hazard areas. As a result, the agency is in the middle of
implementing a $1 billion, 5-year map modernization program to
update its flood maps. I am hopeful that today's hearing will
give us a better understanding of FEMA strategy and expected
benefit of more accurate and accessible flood maps.
Floods have been and continue to be one of the most
destructive and costly natural hazards in our Nation. In the
aftermath of Hurricane Dennis this past weekend, I fear many
communities in the South and Midwest will witness the
unrelenting power firsthand, as a tropical depression continues
to unload heavy flooding rains in the inlands.
The National Flood Insurance Program is a valuable tool in
addressing the losses incurred throughout the country due to
flood. It assures that businesses and families have access to
affordable flood insurance that would not be available in the
open market.
As part of the passage of the National Flood Insurance Act
of 1968, insurance companies generally did not offer coverage
for flood insurance disaster because of the high risk involved.
Today almost 20,000 communities participate in the National
Flood Insurance Program. More than 90 percent of the companies
sell and provide flood insurance policies. There are
approximately 4.4 million policies covering a total of $620
billion. Last year's Flood Insurance Reform Act achieved
significant reforms to the important Federal program.
And I look forward to hearing from all our witnesses today
as we discuss FEMA's implementation of its flood mapping
policies as well as determining whether new reforms and
initiatives are in order to accomplish this work as we
accomplish this year.
I now will yield to the Chairman.
Mr. Ney. Thank you. And I want to thank Congressman Miller
for chairing this. And I will be in and out. But I will be back
because of today's important testimony, and I think that
Chairman Miller has summarized this in a right and adequate
way, eloquently, what we are about here.
During the past year there have been three major floods in
the district I represent in Ohio. All three of these incidents
qualified for Federal flood relief and was granted by President
Bush in January of this year, but it resulted in historic
levels of damage and destruction in several local areas and
also in some problems with the dams, especially, for example,
Tuscarawas County. Three communities were forced to evacuate in
Tuscarawas County and displaced 7,000 people in the snap of a
finger.
I was able to, obviously, witness this terrible devastation
not only in Tuscarawas, but in Guernsey County and Ross and
other counties throughout the district.
I am going to actually hold a hearing, probably in
Tuscarawas County, a field hearing next month to continue the
subcommittee's oversight of the National Flood Insurance
Program. And it is a valuable tool.
And I think we will hear some interesting testimony today
about mapping. Mapping is important. It is important for the
future. It is important for the flooding areas, and also,
frankly, for where you can develop.
I just had a constituent come this week about a
development, and they are in total dispute about how correct is
the mapping or how incorrect is the mapping. And actually when
you look at one of the maps, it shows that they should be able
to do development, but it has kind of randomly been designated.
There can't be development on that site. And I think those are
issues that can be dealt with, frankly, and cleared up in a
large part through technology.
So I want to thank both panels today and thank Mr. Miller
for support of this issue. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Robert W. Ney can be found
on page 54 in the appendix.]
Mr. Miller of California. Mr. Pearce from New Mexico.
Mr. Pearce. Distinguished Chairman, I appreciate this
hearing. Early in 2003 when I first arrived at Congress, one of
the communities brought to my attention that they were not able
to get development because the floodplain maps that were drawn
had been expanded without consideration of many of the factors;
for instance, a diversion dam that had been put upstream. The
FEMA was very resistant to recalculation, and we are still in
an ongoing process. But we will be very interested in listening
to the testimony today, and I appreciate you having the
hearing.
Mr. Miller of California. Mr. Neugebauer, do you have an
opening statement? Ranking Member Waters?
Ms. Waters. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, I have been
trying to learn information about floods and flood control and
flood insurance. And today is a very important hearing because
I suppose we are going to find out about--and I hope we will
find out about FEMA's maps, whether or not they are modernized,
whether or not they are adequate to be able to distinguish
between those areas where people absolutely need insurance, and
maybe those areas where people don't need insurance. So I am
anxious to hear from our witnesses that will be here today.
And with that, I will yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Miller of California. Thank you.
Our panel today, we have David Maurstad. He is the Acting
Mitigation Director and Federal Insurance Administrator for
Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate at the
Department of Homeland Security. His area of oversight includes
the National Flood Insurance Program, the National Earthquake
Hazard Reduction Program, the National Dam Safety Program, and
the National Hurricane Program.
You are a busy man, aren't you?
Previously, Mr. Maurstad served as Regional Director of
FEMA's Region 8, where he coordinated FEMA's activities for six
western States, including the State of Nebraska, where he has
served as Lieutenant Governor. And we are looking forward to
your testimony, sir.
STATEMENT OF DAVID I. MAURSTAD, ACTING MITIGATION DIVISION
DIRECTOR AND FEDERAL INSURANCE ADMINISTRATOR, EMERGENCY
PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE DIRECTORATE, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Mr. Maurstad. Good morning, Mr. Miller, Chairman Ney, and
Ranking Member Waters, and subcommittee members. I am David
Maurstad, the Mitigation Division's acting director within the
Department of Homeland Security's Emergency Preparedness and
Response Directorate, which includes the Federal Emergency
Management Agency. I appreciate the opportunity to appear today
before the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity.
First, I would like to thank the subcommittee for its
support of FEMA's flood map modernization program, a program to
modernize the Nation's flood insurance rate maps over a 5-year
period. The resources Congress has provided are resulting in
products that increase flood risk awareness, stimulate dialogue
among various levels of government and industry, and help
communities mitigate against flood losses. As a result, we will
continue to make this Nation less vulnerable to flooding.
FEMA and its partners provide flood hazard maps and data to
support flood insurance and community floodplain management
activities for the NFIP. Flood map modernization uses state-of-
the-art technology, on-the-ground intelligence, and a strong
set of mapping guidelines, specifications, and standards to
deliver reliable data and maps in geographic information system
format.
Digital flood maps provide many benefits. They provide a
uniform structure for assessing our Nation's changing
vulnerability to flooding, allowing us to monitor flood
mitigation's effectiveness. The digital data, along with the
platform to store, maintain, and distribute the information
also can be used to support other activities such as
preparedness, response, recovery, and local planning. Lastly,
digital maps are easier to maintain and keep current.
Flood map modernization is well underway. Since 2003,
Congress has appropriated $550 million for the program. In
addition, under our Cooperating Technical Partner Initiative,
we expect by the end of fiscal year 2005, our 212 active State,
regional, and local community mapping partners will have added
over $100 million in data and other resources. The CTP program
has been very well received and continues to yield both short-
and long-term benefits.
We have also engaged industry to help us develop solutions.
That is, we have presented them with objectives and asked them
how best to meet those, rather than the more traditional
government approach of mandating a solution and asking them to
work within it. This is being accomplished by the issuance of
performance-based contracts both at the national and regional
level.
We also regularly meet with industry to share ideas,
stimulate growth, collect feedback, and collect feedback on
technical procedures and practices. Using these practices, and
through these partnerships, we have completed mapping projects
in nearly 1,000 of our most at-risk communities. And flood
mapping modernization projects are underway in over 2,100 other
communities. Our goal is to have the Nation's flood map
inventory modernized by 2010 with all maps in a GIS format and
available online.
Equally important, we will have a comprehensive and robust
risk identification and assessment system, allowing us to more
readily track, over time, the Nation's ability to reduce its
flood vulnerability. There is no one-size-fits-all solution to
identify the Nation's flood hazards. The risks and the people
they impact are diverse. For example, in the arid West,
streambeds can lay dry for years, yet these innocuous features
can release torrents of water without warning after a brief
thunderstorm. On the other hand, in the East where it rains
regularly and vegetation is thick, rivers that flow year round
tend to take days before reaching their peak. Along our coasts,
the hazards also vary widely. In the South Atlantic and Gulf,
hurricanes strike quickly compared to long, drawn-out extra
tropical storms that can pound the Northeast shores for days.
In the Pacific, long highways tend to elevate water levels
through processes that are entirely different than those of
hurricanes.
The Nation's variability in landscape and flooding
characteristics require State, tribal, and local governments to
use a variety of floodplain management approaches to make their
communities safer places to live, work, and do business.
As such, communities require and use different tools to
collect that data needed to properly analyze their flood risks.
Obviously, the Nation cannot resolve its natural hazards issues
with a single universally applied approach. This country's
geographic diversity, combined with its variety of natural
hazards threats, requires us to apply, mix, and match a series
of processes to effectively identify hazards, communicate
risks, and reduce vulnerability.
We understand the ramifications of producing flood maps
which do not accurately reflect the risk. We realize there are
concerns regarding use of ground elevation data and other
information that is potentially inaccurate. To offset the risk
of error, we have implemented a risk-based approach to ensure
quality, leverage industry best practices and lessons learned,
and foster opportunity for community involvement.
This approach has been applied and proven successful in
many areas around the Nation. For example, in our partnership
with the State of Nebraska, U.S. Geological Survey topographic
data are utilized in conjunction with field reconnaissance to
develop flood hazard maps and data. In North Carolina we
utilized detailed ground elevation information generated by the
State's own laser technology. This data, in conjunction with
automated hydraulic modeling techniques, helps to identify
flood risk in moderately developed areas.
In Lincoln County, Ohio, we have partnered with the county
to produce draft flood maps using aerial photographs,
topographic data, and flood hazard information developed using
local and State resources.
We have firmly committed to a clear quality standard for
modernized maps to make sure that poor quality hazard
information is not simply digitized from an old map. Developed
with the support of our key stakeholders, this standard
requires that, at the minimum, all the flood hazard boundaries
on modernized maps will be evaluated and adjusted as necessary.
Overall, this program's ability to meet the unique and diverse
risks faced by a variety of stakeholders relies on a sound
balance between efficiency and flexibility. We have done this
by performing much of the work associated with flood hazard
identification at the local level in a decentralized fashion
while managing the work centrally using technology, earned
value management techniques, and integrated performance teams.
Although we have a long way to go to modernize the Nation's
flood map inventory, our progress to date shows we have focused
initially on areas where there is the greatest flood risk, we
have hit the ground running, and that our solution strikes a
good balance between efficiencies through standardization and
flexibility by allowing industry and State and local
governments to tailor solutions to suit unique situations.
Again, I want to thank the subcommittee for its support of
flood map modernization. We are well underway, and we look
forward to making this Nation more disaster-resistant and
better equipped to deal with the ever-present danger of floods.
I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of David I. Maurstad can be found
on page 145 in the appendix.]
Mr. Miller of California. Thank you. Without objection,
your statement will be made a part of the record.
There are more than 92,000 flood maps currently available,
and I think over 65,000 of those are more than 10 years old. A
lot of them are inconsistent and inaccurate and nonstandardized
data available in those.
Are these the maps that FEMA plans to digitize, or are
there plans to replace this data?
Mr. Maurstad. Mr. Miller, I am sorry, I cannot hear you.
Mr. Miller of California. Can you hear me now?
Mr. Maurstad. A little better.
Mr. Miller of California. We will turn the volume up.
There are over 92,000 flood maps available, and over 65,000
of those are over 10 years old. They contain data that is
inconsistent, inaccurate, and nonstandardized.
Are these the maps FEMA plans to digitize, or are there
plans to replace those maps?
Mr. Maurstad. Not in every circumstance. What we are doing
in the flood map modernization process is working with and
through the regions with States as they have developed their
State business plans to determine what areas of the State need
additional work and what areas of the State where the previous
data is still adequate and that can be digitized.
So it is important to understand that we are working very
closely with the local partners in determining through the
scoping process what their needs are and then working with the
State in trying to fund those various efforts.
Mr. Miller of California. How would the process go for
State and local government to qualify for FEMA funds to go
through this process?
Mr. Maurstad. How would the process--
Mr. Miller of California. How would they go through the
process to qualify? Can you describe the process they go
through? If a local government or State wants to participate in
this, how do they go through the process with FEMA to qualify
for funds?
Mr. Maurstad. We have published the Multiyear Flood Hazard
Implementation Plan that details and outlines the methodology
by which we are going to fund various mapping efforts in the
individual States. We provided assistance for the States to
develop business plans. They submitted those business plans to
the 10 FEMA regions. Those regions looked at those plans and
have worked with the State to develop the process by which to
proceed.
We at the national level have taken those plans and given
the resources that are available, have provided the regions
funding for them to work with the State partners on a
prioritized basis--the highest risk areas being done first--for
the digitization process to occur. So it is a bottoms-up
process. But there is a very close working relationship between
the regions and the States in determining how those States will
be mapped.
Once those areas are identified within a State, the region
will work along with the State and the communities in looking
at--it is called the scoping process--what needs to be done to
meet the standards that have been published, to bring those
maps up to the GIS quality standards that we are looking for.
Mr. Miller of California. We have had a lot of flooding in
the last 2 years. Do you have any idea of what percentage of
people were impacted by floods and claims that were not
necessarily in flood hazard areas, and what percentage of the
people do you think have flood insurance that were not in flood
hazard areas? Do you have any idea what the numbers might be,
the percentages?
Mr. Maurstad. No, I don't. Of course, there is--the whole
mapping process is intended to try to delineate what one's risk
is for flooding. And there is going to be, of course, there is
a sliding scale for that. And there certainly are a number of
flooding events that could happen in those areas that are,
based on the maps, less vulnerable than those right alongside.
There are a lot of factors that go into determining the risk,
and so it is--everyone to a certain extent is at risk.
And what the mapping process is intended to do is delineate
what that risk is, use that information to not only make land-
use decisions at the local level, but provide the basis by
which flood insurance can be appropriately priced and provide
the basis for making sure the national flood insurance fund
remains strong.
Mr. Miller of California. Of the 92,000 maps we recently
have, over two-thirds are out of date. Now we are going to
update those. How do we prevent this from happening in the
future? Do you have any idea on that? Is there a program that
is going to be implemented to make sure they are updated on a
regular basis so we don't have the same situation occur again?
Mr. Maurstad. The current plan certainly looks at making
sure that all of the maps are updated, brought into the GIS
world. We are along the way determining that there are areas
where additional studies may need to be required. The plan is a
fluid plan, one that is going to need to continually be
assessed, which we do twice a year with our mapping partners.
And so right now we are focused on the process of getting those
maps up to date.
Certainly at the--our target is 2010.
As we approach the completion of this phase of our work, it
would certainly--and it is a personal goal of mine that we, in
fact, provide the mechanisms by which the maps can be
maintained out into the future.
Part of that will be more possible in this environment than
the old paper environment because this technology will allow
for these maps to be updated far more easily. Our hope is that
we will have willing partners at the local and regional level
that will assume responsibility for updating and maintaining
those maps. And that is certainly a part of the process that we
are working on in this multiyear effort.
Mr. Miller of California. Thank you.
Ms. Waters, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Waters. Thank you very much.
I have information that shows the average age of FEMA's
flood maps is 18 years. Is it true that in many cases, FEMA's
maps modernization program is digitizing old data?
Mr. Maurstad. Well, there are certainly some cases where
that may be the fact. And it may very well be appropriate. Just
because those maps are 18 years old, or the data is 18 or more
years old, does not mean that that data is inaccurate. The
topography may very well be the same; the population may very
well be the same. The factors that were in place when those
maps were developed 18 years ago for the paper medium may, in
fact, be the most accurate and the most needed information in
the GIS basis.
If during the process it is identified that that data on
the paper maps that is 18-plus years old is not accurate, then
we are committed to making sure that those maps reflect the
needed information so that State and--or so that local
governments can, and individuals can make decisions, risk-based
decisions, and so that it appropriately supports the National
Flood Insurance Program.
Ms. Waters. Well, several counties are complaining that due
to the age of FEMA's maps, they have been forced to comply with
regulations that at best do not serve or at worst harm their
constituents. For example, in Collier County, Florida, county
commissioners complain that the FEMA maps incorrectly show they
have areas in harm's way, forcing residents to needlessly
purchase flood insurance. Conversely, some Texas officials are
complaining that they have areas that are in harm's way, yet
FEMA's maps indicate no risk exists.
So my question is, and my allegation, perhaps, is not that
you simply may be digitizing old maps, but I want to really
understand what you do to ensure that that information is
updated. Whether there has been development that has changed
the topography or what, are we sure that we have all the
information? And if old maps are being digitized and there is
no problem, that is fine. But it is not fine if, in fact, there
have been changes and they are not reflected in the new maps.
That is what we are concerned about.
How can you assure us of that?
Mr. Maurstad. Certainly I understand that. I know
firsthand, as a former mayor, that there are always going to be
disagreements amongst individuals as to whether they should be
in the floodway and required to buy insurance or not.
My experience as a regional director merely solidified that
previous experience at the local level as I worked with
communities in FEMA Region 8 in working with their citizens in
making sure that there was confidence in the accuracy provided;
that was, of the data being provided for those maps.
Again, what we utilized were the resources and the
information at the local level. We seek that information. We
want the maps to be accurate. We want there to be community
buy-in for those maps. So we work very closely with the
communities in developing these maps. It is to our mutual
benefit that it be done.
So in this process, the scoping process, where we literally
sit down at the table and work with the community and the
individuals that are responsible for the local efforts and work
through these various issues point by point--and, again, I
would just say that we are committed to making sure that we use
the best data available and that the maps are accurate, and
that in those circumstances where there are difficulties, we
will do what we have done in the past, and that is try to work
as amicably as possible with the local communities.
Ms. Waters. That is extremely important. There is a lot of
controversy around this whole issue. I understand that there is
a lawsuit. And I am not going to ask you to comment on the
lawsuit, but I am curious about something. Is this flood
insurance intended to restore policyholders to pre-flood
conditions, or is there something else different? What is the
language in the policy?
Mr. Maurstad. As I indicated in my previous testimony
dealing with the flood insurance program, the sale of insurance
and flood insurance program, restoration of pre-flood condition
is, in my review, in legislation, it is not in the flood
insurance policy. It is not the intent that the flood insurance
policy would provide policyholders or restore them to what--
depending upon your definition of pre-flood condition--that is
not the intent of the program from my analysis. The intent of
the program, the intent of the insurance policy, was to assist
the policyholders in the recovery from the financial effects of
a flooding event.
Ms. Waters. Has anyone--do you have, and can you get us a
copy of the policy? This continues to be a real question. And I
want to know exactly what is in the policy.
And I then I would like to, if I may, Mr. Chairman, just
ask that you respond to a request that was made of you from Mr.
Steve Kanstoroom. In May, he along with Representatives Hart,
Davis, and Ruppersberger submitted document requests and
questions to FEMA on the record that pertain to oversight of
the National Flood Insurance Program. And since that time, they
have not received any response.
And 2 weeks ago, of course, the Washington Post reported
this $2 billion lawsuit was filed against FEMA and its
insurance partners. Now, the suit goes to many of the same
issues that are still--that are unanswered requests. I also
understand that similar suits will be filed in additional
States.
Can we expect that the answers to the questions from these
gentlemen be given and the documents that they are requesting
some time soon? Are you familiar with these requests?
Mr. Maurstad. Ma'am, we have responded or are in the
process of responding to every congressional inquiry and
question that has come to my office. The individual that you
mentioned is a party of a lawsuit. Our Office of General
Counsel is dealing with that lawsuit. But most importantly, we
have responded--
Ms. Waters. Sir, will you do me a favor? And if you think
you have responded to him or if you are yet to respond, would
you get back to this committee and let us know when you did
respond or when you are going to respond to these requests?
Mr. Maurstad. I will check with the Office of General
Counsel and we will certainly provide the information that we
are able to to this committee, no question.
Ms. Waters. All I want to know is, did you get them the
information? And if it is something that their lawyers need to
request formally, just let us know.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Miller of California. Thank you. Consent to insert the
written testimony in the record by the National Association of
Realtors, without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Pearce, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Pearce. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Maurstad, the idea that we have a plateau of funding 2
million, which damages don't exceed, we don't get help. Is that
right? The 2 million, is there a threshold of 2 million in your
agency's responses? If the damage does not exceed 2 million,
then it is left with the community?
Mr. Maurstad. I will to have get back to you on that, sir.
Mr. Pearce. Okay. So you are not aware of any threshold
that you all place for damages on events?
Mr. Maurstad. In response to a disaster?
Mr. Pearce. Yes.
Mr. Maurstad. Well, could there--yes, but I think that I
need to defer to the folks--
Mr. Pearce. Is there a threshold, I guess, and whether it
is 2 million or--
Mr. Maurstad. There is criteria which the President
utilizes in determining whether a disaster declaration--a
Presidential disaster declaration.
Mr. Pearce. If there is a threshold, is there a weighted
threshold? Because $2 million damage in a major city is
completely different from $2 million in a small community in my
district, and I wonder--and many times we do not reach the
threshold for assistance. I am wondering, is there a weighted
threshold?
Mr. Maurstad. Yes, there is. But I would prefer that I be
able to respond to that.
Mr. Pearce. I would appreciate that, if you get that for
me. If you would get that response, I would appreciate it.
What about the idea that in 1993, the agency or whatever
fund, that the NFIP was deemed to be insolvent and shortly
after that--you had a questioning look. Was that not true? In
1993, the Clinton administration did not start rewriting the
rules for FEMA or for expanding the floodplains?
Mr. Maurstad. I am not aware, sir. I can find that out.
Mr. Pearce. It appears that about 1994 the floodplains were
redrawn, redesignated, increasing them significantly because
there appeared to be an insolvency in the NFIP. And I guess my
question is how did the insolvency affect the floodplains? In
other words, floodplains generally are pretty static and not
correlated to financial activity, but they have some mobility;
but many of our communities began to notice about that time
that they couldn't get development because the floodplains had
been redrawn, increasing--putting certain places in that had
not previously been in. Do you have any opinions about that?
Mr. Maurstad. You know, that is not--that is not my
understanding. The mapping efforts, to my knowledge, have not
been correlated with the strength or lack thereof of the
national flood insurance fund. Certainly the national flood
insurance fund when I became the acting director a year ago was
strong. It remains strong.
Mr. Pearce. In several communities--
Mr. Maurstad. Excuse me. The mapping is done on a
scientific basis to determine what the risk is for that
particular area. It is not done for the purpose of generating
additional premium for the national flood insurance fund. It is
done to identify the risk so that individuals can make prudent
decisions based upon that information.
Mr. Pearce. There are no internal decisions? I am just
confirming what you are telling me. There are no internal
decisions to change the flood mapping? In the mid-nineties
there were no changed criteria?
Mr. Maurstad. Certainly none that I am aware of.
Mr. Pearce. I would like for you to inquire in your agency
and extend beyond what you are aware of, and if you can get
back with me on that, on that particular thing, I would
appreciate that.
One of the big elements here is you said you always want to
work with States and communities to determine the risks. The
community of Carlsbad spent quite a bit of its own money to
determine that hydrology was a very important factor, yet FEMA
continues to assert that hydrology is not a very important
factor. When you have a disagreement like that, who wins in the
dispute?
Mr. Maurstad. What we try to do in working through
circumstances like that is to be able to rectify the difference
in the experts' opinions. But in the end, if there is a
difference between what the program believes is the most
accurate data, it is our responsibility to act on that
information in the administration of the program.
Mr. Pearce. And in this case, the hydrology still seems to
be disregarded. And I will tell you that the hydrology has put
the town down in the floodplain with the highest point in
Texas--I mean in New Mexico--but the highest point in Texas
occurs about a mile across the border, and the pressure from
water that falls on that highest point builds up, always
putting tremendous pressure down at the bottom of the base of
those geographic or geologic formations, tremendous hydrologic,
hydrostatic pressure there. And I am not sure your agency has
been extremely responsive.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Maurstad. We will go back in and work with the region
and try to see if we can come to a mutually acceptable decision
in that circumstance.
Mr. Miller of California. Mr. Miller from North Carolina is
recognized for 5 minutes. You have no questions?
Mr. Neugebauer from Texas recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
having this important hearing.
One of the things that I have heard from some of the
communities in my district as we go through this remapping
process is that the initial grants were not enough money to
really complete the entire community. And that, for example, I
think in Abilene, I think was they could only study like three
or four runoff areas, and I think there were 26.
We have been working to help get those funds to complete
that. But one of the things that concerns me, I just wonder if
that is going on around the rest of the country. And it appears
to me a better strategy is if you are going to systematically
remap communities, that partially completed flood maps don't
really do you much good. You might as well have, you know, the
old maps.
What are you doing to look at, you know, completing and
making sure that what we leave a community here, what we leave
a region, that we do have new, valid, updated maps?
Mr. Maurstad. Again, the regional office is working with
the States to--of course, they are working with their
communities to determine the process of when--what is going to
happen where within that particular State based upon the
criteria that we set out in the guidelines. So, again, you have
to go back to that specific situation and see what the
circumstances are.
But most importantly, what we are doing now as this program
is really getting into gear is taking a look at what we have
learned from all these scoping meetings that have gone on
around the country and seeing if we can develop some type of an
analysis of what is being required when and what it costs so
that we can then use that data to determine whether or not
the--and how best to use the resources that Congress has
provided us.
So we now have some information that was not available a
couple of years ago to be able to assess how to continue to
move forward.
Mr. Neugebauer. I heard you talking a little bit about some
of the technology you are using. And I know aerial surveying is
a technology. And are we investing in that, and are we--is that
an option for us to use on a broader basis than we are using it
currently now?
Mr. Maurstad. We are looking at all technology. And the
direction has been to use the technology that is most
applicable to the circumstances. There are certainly areas of--
in fact, in Region 6 where the technology we talked about is
certainly applicable, it is certainly being used. It is being
tested there, and we are using that information on a pilot
basis to determine where it can be utilized. That technology
does not work very well where there is a lot of vegetation. So
there are some areas where it works very well and it is
acceptable, certainly acceptable, some areas where it is not.
The same can be said for other technology that is being used in
the other circumstances.
So our primary mapping contractor is working with all the
available technology and what works best in each particular
circumstance.
Mr. Neugebauer. We don't have the vegetation problem, as
you know, in--
Mr. Maurstad. No, you don't. That is why it works out.
Mr. Neugebauer. My second question is based on where you
are in the program today and based on--obviously you had some
cost estimates--what it was going to take to do this project.
Do we have enough money? And if we don't have enough money, you
know, do you have a feeling of what it really takes to complete
this process in a timely manner so that these communities can
have that data available to them, and people that are currently
paying for flood insurance that shouldn't be, and those that
aren't that should?
Mr. Maurstad. Yes. As my testimony indicated, we feel as
though we are going to be able to meet what Congress outlined
for us when the program started. Nonetheless, it is also
prudent of us, as I indicated before, to analyze and provide
actual hard data on what it costs to map certain areas and to
be able to determine how best we can use those resources. So we
are in the process of that analysis.
Mr. Neugebauer. And is there a need to do this
comprehensive remapping in every area? Are there areas of the
country that--
Mr. Maurstad. No. There doesn't need to be a new study done
on every area. And in fact, what was contemplated when map
modernization began was not that there would be new studies
done in every area. There are certainly some areas where the
current data is certainly acceptable and what needs to be done
is that data transferred from the paper--paper environment to
the digital environment. There are some areas that are at risk
and some areas that are certainly not at risk. And so it is
perfectly appropriate that those maps would be digitized.
But the process itself also--that base map is going to be a
better map than before. So there will be some changes in most
all maps. Whether that changes the risk will differ from
circumstance--again, circumstance to circumstance. It is very
difficult when we are talking about 90,000 mapping areas to
be--you know, make general statements, because virtually there
are--most areas are different from the other areas. We try to
put in place a process that is flexible enough to recognize all
of that, have standards that are flexible enough to recognize
that, and yet have quality maps throughout for the communities
to use and for the programs to use.
Mr. Miller of California. Gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Miller of California. Thank you.
Mr. Fitzpatrick from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Maurstad, I appreciate your commitment to flood map
modernization. This is a Federal program as much as any other
that impacts constituents, at least those who live within
flood-prone areas, in a very significant and personal way.
Until January of this year I served as a county
commissioner in a large county in southeastern Pennsylvania
that has sustained many very serious floods in the last 9
months, and I am always amazed during the response, not so much
the response, but in how many constituents didn't know they
were in the flood area, weren't notified. And the problems, the
calls that go to the emergency management office about the
flood mapping process are always after the fact.
And then about 2 weeks ago I received a call from a
constituent of mine, an elderly couple that lived in a home for
a long period of time. The home had never been flooded, water
never near the home. They are in the process of actually
applying for and receiving what is called a reverse mortgage so
that they can stay in their home during their senior years and
have some resources to fix up the home and as part of that
mortgage application process, found out that they are now in a
flood designated area, even though the home had never been
flooded. And it may be the condition that precludes them from
getting this reverse mortgage, stops them from staying in their
home during their senior years, the fact that they, according
to these flood maps, now a mortgage company will now require a
flood insurance policy for them, and they are not cheap. They
don't come inexpensively.
So I guess my question is, as you pursue modernization,
what can we do to help our constituents better understand that
process? I know it is not something they think about every day
when they get up. But is there a plan of public participation,
a plan of public information that will closely bring in the
local governments, the State emergency management
organizations, to get the word out there, specific contacts to
individuals who are being moved into a flood mapped area or out
of a flood? And that is important as well. People who have
flood insurance continue to pay and then find out they are not
in a floodplain area anymore and then get flooded.
So what is the plan of public participation and information
that will help our constituents better understand what you do?
Mr. Maurstad. Let me respond first in a broader context. We
have a public awareness campaign now--Flood Smart, that is--
targeted to communicating more, all across the country, on the
risks associated with floods, that floods can happen to any of
us, and that floods are not covered under your homeowner's
policy, and so you need to get a flood insurance policy to
protect yourself from that possibility.
So we continue to do that. It has actually been successful.
We have had 13 consecutive months of more policies than before.
So we think we are reaching more people with the message not
only that you need the protection, but raising overall
awareness of the flood hazard vulnerability that we are prone
to flood.
Secondly, and most importantly, in the circumstance it is
required that there be community adoption of these flood maps.
Now that process will certainly vary from community to
community and State to State.
But there is a link--and I will get it for you--from the
time that we issue preliminary maps until the time that those
maps become final; it is a 12- to 18-month process, primarily
because we require community notice, that there be community
participation--I am not sure if it happens every time, so I
want to have a caveat--where there is notice given to the
property owners that they are going to be brought into the
floodway.
So we need to work with and encourage our local officials
and communities to make this awareness greater, that the
public--potentially they go beyond the public notice in the
newspaper that there is going to be a hearing to adopt the
maps. So we are working with that.
In addition, part of the digitization process will be that
this information will be online and more accessible to your
constituents than the paper maps were that are housed in a
warehouse somewhere.
So our hope is through the libraries, if they are elderly
people--although most of the elderly people that I know now,
most of them are online too--will be able to access this
information, If you go on to the Flood Smart Web site, for
example, and put in your zip code and address and you can find
out what your flood risk is.
So we are committed to that communication component that
you talked about. And it was certainly important in the past;
it is even more important as we go through this map
modernization process. And we are going to have more of these
maps that are going to need to be adopted at this community
level. This communication piece and the acceptance of the
community is going to be critical as we move forward.
Mr. Miller of California. Gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Jones from North Carolina is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
And, Mr. Maurstad, I want to give you a situation that came
to a satisfactory conclusion. When we talk about this new
mapping system and how it is going to impact on the people, I
think in the long run it is going to be extremely helpful. I
have the Outer Banks of North Carolina in my district, mostly a
coastal area, with the exception of Wilmington, which is
Congressman McIntyre. We are very interested in insurance as
well as the new mapping system.
I got a call about a year ago from a constituent in Camden
County who said, Congressman, I can't put a shed to put my new
ride mower in my backyard. And I said, well, this sounds like
it should be a county problem. He said no. He said, no, it is
FEMA. And I said, FEMA?
And so then my staff and I looked into it. And obviously
they were doing some of the mapping, digitized mapping systems.
They were in the process. And this was what the problem was.
But the reason I bring that up, Mr. Chairman, is it came to
a very satisfactory conclusion. And I want to compliment FEMA
and Mr. Fabrizio, who I called, and he came down with my staff,
along with the local officials in the State of North Carolina,
and it was a satisfactory conclusion.
So I just wanted to bring it down to the people who pay the
taxes and to give you just a little example of how this
person--I think in the long run for that county, it is going to
be very beneficial.
I think you have spoken to this, but I wanted to ask you to
repeat. Once this modernization has taken place, we in eastern
North Carolina, and I am sure any other coastal area of
America, it seems like whether you live on the coast or you
live inland of the coast, the insurance is just getting to be
astronomical. And my good friend from New York was talking
about older citizens. And they are the ones that primarily live
in these inland counties close to the coastal areas.
Do you believe that the insurance industry itself, once
this new, more sophisticated mapping is available, do you think
that they will try to look at some method or some format to see
if there is any way, based on the new mapping systems, that
they can help bring the cost down for the consumer?
Mr. Maurstad. Well, I certainly am not in a position to
speak for the industry, but I would say that, you know, we
are--FEMA, the NFIP program, is committed to that direction in
the NFIP reauthorization, that flood insurance be affordable.
So when my staff, when the actuaries are developing the rates
that we are going to require to make sure that the fund is
strong, we certainly are very mindful that we need to make the
insurance as affordable as possible.
And part of that certainly is the balance as to the extent
of the coverage that can be provided with the cost associated
with increasing coverage, increasing the provisions and the
benefits under the policy. So we weigh that constantly also,
and that is why there are deductibles and that is why contents
are only covered on an actual cash value basis and why we don't
have additional living expense provided under the standard
flood insurance policy.
So we are very cognizant of that. Relative to the mapping,
of course, we are hopeful that the map modernization process in
those areas where additional work is being done, that that
information will be able to be utilized by the fund to more
accurately reflect the risks associated with the example of the
individual that you had before, what the cost of that insurance
ought to be in relationship to the risk, and that that risk be
able to be spread throughout the 4.6 million policyholders
fairly.
But also, and it is not to--we don't map so that we get
more people that have mandatory purchase. But we are hopeful
that as the risk is better identified and people recognize what
their risk is, they will take the same steps in addressing
their flood risk as they will in addressing their fire risk or
the risk that their roof will be hailed on in certain parts the
country, et cetera; and by doing so, will be able to expand the
number of policyholders, which will give us more people to
spread the overall risk associated with the program amongst
more individuals and be able to maintain affordability.
Mr. Jones. I thank the gentleman. Thank you.
Mr. Miller of California. [Presiding.] Mr. Davis from North
Carolina.
Mr. Davis, do you have any questions?
Mr. Davis of Kentucky. Kentucky.
Mr. Miller. Kentucky, I'm sorry.
Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman, we will claim him.
Mr. Davis of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, although we have had
very pleasant experiences in North Carolina, I am from the
Commonwealth area.
One question that I am interested in: your perspective on
integrating this overall with a homeland security management
process, as well as dealing with flood issues. There are direct
interoperability issues that I think are very relevant.
Do you see this as being a fully integrated network-centric
mapping system similar to what the Department of Defense uses
operationally to be able to provide instantaneous response
capability to folks who are going to be participating and
responding to disasters, as well as providing ease of update?
Mr. Maurstad. I think, while this is a flood map
modernization initiative, and that is the focus, certainly as
various local communities use this mapping opportunity, they
will be able to have this data and this information available
to them for a variety of reasons, whether that be local
emergency management planning, mitigation planning. But the
data that we are collecting is flood specific, so I am not--I
am certainly not a technology expert. To the extent that that
would be beneficial, just that data would be beneficial for
security reasons. I am not--
Mr. Davis of Kentucky. One of the reasons I prompt my
question, we have regular flooding--I represent an Ohio River
district, about 27 percent of the length of the river, but we
have a lot of the tributary flooding, a serious problem in
1997--participated in flood relief, a major disaster in one of
our counties. And accurate maps, particularly of meandering
streams, different issues like that, really became a bit of a
problem to get to responders and support elements who were
coming in. So I was just curious from that perspective.
I am a big proponent of digitization. I was just curious
about a wiser vision that you have for this.
Mr. Maurstad. I think certainly at the local level the maps
could be utilized in developing their local emergency plans,
their evacuation plans, their response plans, as you have
indicated, how you get from the ambulance from one part of the
county to another during a flooding event. I mean, these maps
all lend themselves to helping that decision-making process.
Mr. Davis of Kentucky. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Ney. Gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Brown-Waite.
Ms. Brown-Waite. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I am delighted that you are having this
hearing, and I want to say just a few kind words about the
great work that FEMA does.
Many of my constituents were affected by the many
hurricanes that hit Florida. One just this weekend was just
there, and although it hit the Panhandle, certainly parts of my
district had some high storm surges, I know. I talked to my
husband, because I wasn't home, and he kept telling me how the
water was rising, and believe me, I know that my constituents
appreciate the fact that FEMA is there in time of need.
I just have a couple of questions about how well you are
coordinating this mapping with local governments.
In Florida, as in other States, we have what is called a
water management district. And the water management district
has been engaging in GIS mapping for some time, using taxpayer
dollars that they collect through the water management
district.
I want to make sure that in areas where they have
legitimate updating of the maps, that we are not going to
reinvent the wheel. So that would be my first question.
Mr. Maurstad. Very much we are utilizing and leveraging
those resources at the local level. And, in fact, water
management districts in Florida are good examples of how we are
working closely with them to make sure that we are not
duplicating. In fact, this year I believe that we anticipated
having participation at the local level and with our partners
at $45 million and spent $60 million.
So certainly the funding plan that we have developed
incorporates the contributions made at the local level and, in
fact, builds upon them. We couldn't do what we are doing
without what the local efforts, regional efforts are.
Ms. Brown-Waite. With all the development that is taking
place in Florida, it is an ideal place for all the baby boomers
to retire to--no income tax, usually great weather, except for
a few months of hurricane problems. But overall, with the
development that is taking place in Florida, certainly the
water management districts and local governments that are
engaging in updating their maps could use some funding.
Are you helping out the water management districts?
Mr. Maurstad. Yes. We help them develop plans on how to go
about participating in the flood map modernization. And we, of
course, through the State of Florida, provide funds for those
areas within those management districts for the actual mapping
and the digitization to occur. So we certainly are doing that
in Florida.
Ms. Brown-Waite. I appreciate that.
The other question that I have is, I had lived in another
part of another county further inland, and it was questionable
whether or not I needed flood insurance.
Could you just estimate initially how many people you
think, as a result of the remapping, will need flood insurance
and how many of them who are currently paying for flood
insurance--excluding me, who moved into a V-zone, so I
certainly am paying flood insurance--how many people who are
paying for flood insurance now would be alleviated of that
cost?
So those who would be brought on, who would now require
flood insurance? And those who are paying for flood insurance,
who may be able to drop it?
Mr. Maurstad. No, I don't believe we have that information
at this point in time. And part of the reason why it is
important this map modernization continues is so that we can
more accurately determine exactly what the point of your
question is.
But I want to take this opportunity to also say we have got
a circumstance where you have the mandatory requirement--
mandatory purchase of flood insurance, and of course, this will
affect that, those individuals that would be brought into a
mandatory purchase zone and those that would be taken out of a
mandatory purchase zone. But just because you are not in a
special flood hazard risk area, I would not conclude that you
no longer need flood insurance, that your risk may not be as
great as what it was before, but I would contend that the need
is still there.
It is going to be less expensive, but I am not--my point is
this, that sometimes we stay focused solely on the mandatory
purchase requirement, and those are the people that need flood
insurance, those that are in special flood hazard zone areas.
And if you are not in that special flood hazard zone area, you
don't need flood insurance. I am trying to pop that balloon
because you still need flood insurance, even though you may not
be in the highest rated area and you may not be under the
mandatory requirement to purchase.
Ms. Brown-Waite. One more question, Mr. Chairman, if I may.
I know my time has expired. I will just go ahead and ask it.
Are you going to then notify the lending institutions for
areas that now, as a result of the remapping, will require
flood insurance? Because that is a great concern of many home
owners, that I am not in a flood area now, but I may be, and is
my bank going to be notified, and am I going to have to
purchase that?
In other words, although they have a mortgage agreement
with a lending institution, could this then be a requirement
addendum to that loan?
Mr. Maurstad. Well, the 1994 Reform Act of the NFIP
tightened up the mandatory purchase requirement so that the
lenders were paying more attention to this requirement in the
lending community. So I would say that that is not as a result
of the Flood Map Modernization effort, but that is just a fact
of what the law requires them to do before map modernization
and now.
But I would say that we work closely with lending
institutions. I met with those individuals about 2 months ago
to talk about common interests and work on common solutions to
difficulties that both of us have. So we have a relationship
with them. We don't operate in a vacuum, and it certainly is
important for us to continue to have strong cooperation from
the lending community in this mandatory purchase requirement
for the benefit of the people that live in those high-risk
areas.
Ms. Brown-Waite. Thank you.
Chairman Ney. [Presiding.] I thank the gentlelady. And I
apologize for not being here for most of the time due to other
commitments.
I had a question about--and this is something I personally
witnessed--something we would contact, obviously, FEMA on.
There are some inconsistencies.
For example, recently there was a flood area designated--it
is actually down in Belmont County, Ohio, an area I am very
familiar with--I was born in the city of Bellaire. Some water
came up around a road, and now 22 acres have been designated as
flood prone, never to have flooding, probably can't ever have
flooding. And then the alternative is a 90-day appeals process
where you have to disprove that as citizens. Of course, the
constituents call us. I met on this last Thursday.
There are a lot of those inconsistencies out there where it
is not a matter where we argue back, how did you do this; it is
a matter of why don't you disprove what we had deemed. And I
know you have had to run up on these, probably, congressional
inquiries, maybe your office. How do you answer that type of
thing?
Is there a better process versus you have made a
determination? Why don't you prove why you determined that
versus its coming back on the constituents or local governments
to say, wait a minute, we have to hire all these engineers to
say why maybe it was indiscriminately done?
Mr. Maurstad. Well, I will have to get back to you as to
when the last time was that this process was evaluated. But I
would say that there are a variety of ways where that can
occur--through a letter of map revision, conditional letter of
map revision. We try to recognize the difficulties that you
have outlined and yet still not have a process by which
everyone that does not want to be in a flood hazard area has
the ability to opt out, so to speak. So it is part of the
regulatory nature of the situation. We certainly would work
with the committee and encourage you to get information from
the residents on how we can make this process better.
I would allude to a comment that I made earlier, that you
would not have heard, that our hope is through the flood map
modernization process that we are able to find partners out
there at the local level that are able to administer and revise
these flood maps in this digital environment that would not
have been possible in the old paper environment.
So we are hopeful that some of these maintenance issues,
maintenance circumstances, could be--that that can be carried
out by the local governments as an important aspect of this
modernization process.
Chairman Ney. The other thing that has been raised, to be
adequate about this, there are going to be companies that are
out there that say, yes, it is been done correctly, the
mapping; and other entities, other companies--and you could
probably find two on each side, three on each side--that are
going to say the process that is undertaken now is just taking
the old way of doing it and digitizing the old way.
And I am sure you have heard that. Do you have a comment on
that?
Mr. Maurstad. My comment would be that in some
circumstances that would be appropriate; if the data that was
used two decades ago was still accurate, was still pertinent,
then it would be what we should do. In those circumstances
where things have changed, then we need to update that data and
not just merely digitize an outdated map that doesn't have the
current information.
So we are committed to making sure that as we go through
the modernization process, we have quality end products.
Chairman Ney. One other question I had that--I should know
this, and I apologize for not knowing it in advance--but North
Carolina, I am told, has digitized flood maps. We see Mr.
Jones' family farm that has been there since the 1800s. And in
Ohio we have got a lot of the old satellite photos.
I assume North Carolina paid some dollars, or did the Feds
update North Carolina's system.
Mr. Maurstad. North Carolina has certainly been very
aggressive in this environment. They certainly have made
investments at the State and local level that we, again, are
utilizing and leveraging as we move forward. So they have been
a very model partner with the Federal Government in the
modernization process.
Chairman Ney. So Ohio and other States that are not up to
par, as North Carolina is, then they would have to make some
local investment in it?
And can we find out--if you can give us information, how
much North Carolina invested or how much Ohio--I mean, there
are other States where we have interest. Obviously, I have
interest in Ohio, but I would like to just know, do you get on
a Federal kind of list that says Ohio is ready now to invest,
or how do other States do that? Is there a priority list that
the States will have to make a certain amount, percentage of
commitment, do you know?
Mr. Maurstad. Well, we certainly are working with the
States. We have the Cooperating Technical Partner program; we
have over 200 Cooperative Technical Partners that we are
working with that are making contributions of various levels on
their own.
We will provide you that information on a State-by-State
basis.
But, you know, we certainly--to those States and areas that
are moving forward faster, we are certainly not getting in
their way, we are wanting to assist them as they move at the
rate that they want to move at.
Chairman Ney. Just in closing, I think the aim that I have
in persons representing a district is for the good of the
Nation, some consistency across the United States. How are we
going to get to the best mapping and updated mapping? And also,
what incentives are going to be out there, you know, for the
States to come in, partnering with the Fed?
I think consistency would very good.
Mr. Maurstad. It certainly is a part of our standards and
guidelines. And I would say that in the case of North Carolina,
what they are doing is, they are going beyond what the
requirements are for the National Flood Insurance Program, so
they are able to utilize what they are doing for other purposes
and purposes that more specifically meet their needs.
So it is not that others aren't to that level; it is that
they are going beyond what the requirements are that are put
forth in the general guidelines of the Federal Map
Modernization process.
Chairman Ney. So we would be able then as individual
members to receive a breakdown of our States and what Ohio, for
example, has put in or Georgia--whatever States are requested,
how much they have put into the system, how much the Feds have
put in, and what level we are at of modernization?
Mr. Maurstad. Some of it is a match at the local level, in
kind; it is not necessarily all hard dollars. Sometimes it is
utilizing the information that North Carolina or that Florida
has already generated. They provide us with that data, then we
are able to put it in the format that we need so that we have
this uniformity across the Nation.
We will certainly look to see what we can provide for you.
Chairman Ney. I appreciate your time on this important
issue. Thank you so much for your time.
I would note that some members may have additional
questions for the panel, which they may want to submit in
writing. Without objection, the hearing record will remain open
for 30 days for members to submit written questions to the
witnesses, and we will place their responses in the record.
And we will begin now with Panel II.
Ms. Brown-Waite. Mr. Chairman, while they are taking their
seats, I would like to ask unanimous consent to submit an
opening statement. I was on the floor actually speaking on
another flood insurance bill.
Chairman Ney. I want to thank the gentlelady. Without
objection.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Ginny Brown-Waite can be
found on page 53 in the appendix.]
Chairman Ney. I want to thank the second panel for being
here today.
William Jenkins served as Director of Homeland Security and
Justice issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office. His area
of responsibility includes emergency preparedness and response,
elections of the Federal judiciary, sentencing and corrections,
and bankruptcy.
Michael Bullock is the President of Intermap Federal
Services, Inc., a wholly owned U.S. Subsidiary of Intermap
Technologies Corporation. Intermap is located in
Englewood,Colorado. Prior to joining Intermap in 1996, Mr.
Bullock was a senior associate with Booz, Allen & Hamilton,
Inc., a management and technology consulting firm.
I will now yield to Mr. Jones to introduce the next
witness.
Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And on behalf
of my colleague, Congressman Howard Coble, I would like to
welcome and introduce Scott Edelman. He is the president of
Watershed Concepts, located in Greensboro, North Carolina. He
is an authority on hydrologic and hydraulic engineering and
computer programming.
Mr. Edelman currently serves as the principal in charge for
the North Carolina Statewide Floodplain Mapping Project.
Welcome.
Chairman Ney. I want to thank the gentleman.
The next witness is Cheryl Small, who is president of the
National Flood Determination Association, a national nonprofit
organization comprised of flood determination companies. Ms.
Small is vice president of Specialty Markets, First American
Flood Data Services, located in Highlands Ranch, Colorado.
Jim Williams is testifying today as the cochairman of the
Mapping and Engineering Standards Committee, the Association of
State Floodplain Managers. Mr. Williams is a hydraulic engineer
with the Nebraska Department of Natural Resources in Lincoln,
Nebraska.
I want to thank all the panelists for being here today and
sharing your time. We will begin with Mr. Jenkins.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM O. JENKINS, JR., DIRECTOR, HOMELAND
SECURITY AND JUSTICE, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,
I appreciate the opportunity to participate in today's hearing
on Flood Map Modernization. Floods are the Nation's most
frequent and destructive natural disaster.
Up-to-date flood maps are a key means of identifying the
boundaries of the areas at greatest risk of flooding. When we
reviewed FEMA's Flood Map Modernization program last year, FEMA
estimated that about 70 percent of the Nation's approximately
92,000 flood maps were more than 10 years old. Maps must be
periodically updated because such things as erosion and
development alter draining patterns and, thus, the boundaries
of the areas at greatest risk of flooding.
FEMA develops flood maps to identify areas at risk of
flooding, determine rates for national flood insurance
policies, and provide information that can be used for
floodplain management and mitigation.
FEMA expects that producing more accurate accessible flood
maps will produce three major benefits. The first is that
communities can use more accurate digital maps to reduce risk
through effectively regulating development in areas of high
risk. Middleburg, North Carolina, for example, has used revised
maps to adapt and enforce building standards that it estimates
will save over $300 million in future flood damage.
Secondly, accurate digital maps available on the Internet
will facilitate identifying property owners who are statutorily
required to or would benefit from purchasing flood insurance.
Third, FEMA expects that accurate and precise digital data
will help national, State, and local officials accurately
locate infrastructure and transportation systems to help
mitigate and manage risk for multiple hazards. Houston has used
the digital data from its maps to develop a model for
projecting the path of a petroleum spill at a Houston oil
refinery. North Carolina is using the digital data to develop a
real-time flood inundation model that can be used to identify
bridges and roads flooded and likely to flood during a storm
and are, thus, unsuitable for evacuation.
FEMA faces three principal challenges in its flood
modernization program. First is developing new, accurate maps
across communities with different levels of flood risk while
working with its State, local, and regional partners to
maximize the effective use of Federal, State, and local
resources.
Flood maps are no better than the accuracy of the data and
analysis on which they are based, but not every area requires
exactly the same level of data collection and analysis. Areas
of lowest flood risk will require less intensive data
collection and analysis than those at highest risk. We
recommended that FEMA define the specificity and quality of
data needed for communities with different levels of risk to
ensure that similar data collection and analysis were done for
communities in similar risk categories. In its 2004 multi-year
risk hazard identification plan, FEMA has outlined some of the
factors that it is going to consider in doing this.
With regard to resource sharing, FEMA's goal is that
nationally, overall, its State and local partners will
contribute 20 percent of the resources FEMA does. Actual
experience to date across FEMA's ten regions has ranged from
less than 10 percent to more than 40 percent. North Carolina,
to date, for example, has contributed about $41 million, or
about 65 percent of the cost of the flood mapping effort.
FEMA faces a challenge in leveraging its resources in
partnership with communities who have few resources and little
experience with flood mapping. FEMA's November 2004 plan does
not directly address this challenge and how it plans to deal
with it.
Secondly, developing partnerships with participating
communities, lenders, and other stakeholders that will enhance
the use of the new maps for mitigation or the purchase of flood
insurance is a continuing challenge. This is important because
FEMA has no direct authority to enforce community building code
and mitigation regulations, and FEMA must rely upon Federal
regulated lenders to ensure that property owners who are
required to purchase flood insurance do so.
The third FEMA challenge is effectively overseeing and
managing its performance-based flood modernization contract. As
we recommended last year, FEMA has established performance
goals for the map modernization project. They include the
population that has digital GIS data, the percentage of the
population that has adopted maps that meet FEMA's quality
standards, the previously mentioned State and local resource
contribution targets, and appropriated funds sent to its
cooperative technical partners.
At the time of our review, FEMA faced a shortage of staff
with the skills needed to effectively oversee its performance-
based contract for map modernization, although it was making
efforts to hire such staff. Staff with the appropriate skills
are key to effective management and oversight of such a large,
complex contract.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, FEMA has made progress in
creating a structuring process for effective map modernization,
but faces continuing challenges in successfully implementing
this complex program.
That concludes my statement. I would be pleased to respond
to any question you or other members of the subcommittee may
have.
Chairman Ney. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of William O. Jenkins can be found
on page 124 in the appendix.]
Chairman Ney. Mr. Bullock.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL BULLOCK, PRESIDENT, INTERMAP FEDERAL
SERVICES, INC., AND VICE PRESIDENT, INTERMAP TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
Mr. Bullock. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,
it is a privilege for me to testify on this particular topic. I
have prepared written testimony that I ask be submitted for the
record.
Chairman Ney. Without objection.
Mr. Bullock. A national strategy is needed for topographic
mapping to support the flood maps that are being produced under
the FEMA Map Modernization program.
In year 2000, Britain faced serious flood mapping problems.
There was severe flooding that caused over $1.5 billion worth
of damage. The people there complained that the flood maps were
not accurate and not only that, but they said that the risk
that they were paying in terms of their premiums did not
reflect the actual risk of flood.
I suspect that many of these themes ring true to you here
today.
Now let's fast forward to 2004. Again, there was severe
flooding late last year, but the new maps that were created in
Britain accurately predicted the flood extent almost to the
individual property--
Chairman Ney. I am sorry, the new maps created in Britain
by--
Mr. Bullock. I will get to that in a second, sir.
How did they get there? How did they get to mapping an
entire country in a few short years very accurately and very
precisely?
The way that that was done is that the largest flood
insurer in the country, Norwich Union Insurance, recognized
they needed better topography for the country in order to
support more accurate flood maps. They entered into a
partnership with ourselves where we used the latest technology
to map all of England, Wales, and Scotland--and this we did in
18 months, which is an unprecedented achievement. We used a new
technology based on airborne radar that does direct
measurements of the Earth's topography; it does it very
effectively and very quickly. And when they produced these
flood maps, they found that the data is king, that you can't
produce accurate flood maps without accurate and current
topography.
Now in the poster that you see off to the right, that is a
depiction of the data that we created for England, Wales, and
Scotland. It is complete; it is accurate; it is current.
Now today, the U.S. is also updating its flood maps into
the Map Mod program, and it is an excellent program that will
benefit our country for many years. However, there are concerns
that all of us should have in regards to this program.
For some areas, there are concerns that we are digitizing
and modernizing old data. And in those areas, particularly in
the rural parts of the country, the policy of the Map Mod
program is to update the flood maps using the best available
topographic data. Well, for much of the country the best of the
topographic data--
Chairman Ney. Sorry, just so we follow on track--and we
won't take this off your time--the first map you had up there
was Great Britain with the modern mapping. What is this map?
Because we don't have the screens in the committee here. What
is this map of?
Mr. Bullock. This map that you are seeing depicts FEMA
Region 6.
Chairman Ney. This is not a mapping; this is just a map?
Mr. Bullock. The color coding is depicting the USGS data
that is available for FEMA Region 6. Each color is a different
era in terms of when it was produced, typically between 1940
and 1980.
And that chart speaks for itself. It is a random quilt work
of various vintages and various accuracies.
Chairman Ney. This is the map that would be used today,
then?
Mr. Bullock. For many areas under Map Mod, in the rural
areas of the country, yes, the best topographic data is the
USGS data.
Chairman Ney. I just want for the members to be on track.
Mr. Bullock. To use this data with various vintages, with
various inaccuracies, it brings to mind the phrase, "garbage
in, garbage out."
Mr. Chairman, we can and we must do better. The Map Mod
program has a critical and dramatic need for updated topography
for the country to support better and more accurate flood maps.
The next poster which is being shown is of a pilot project
that we performed with FEMA Region 6 in the Texas area. And in
that pilot project, it was very successful in terms of
evaluating new airborne radar data in terms of creating new
topography to support flood map generation. In comparison with
the existing USGS data, it found the USGS data to be off by as
much as 5 feet vertically and 170 feet horizontally; and when
it comes to updating flood maps, those are huge errors.
Right now we are engaged--our company is engaged in mapping
the United States just like we did in Britain. We are going to
map the entire continental U.S.; we are going to do it in 4
years. We have already completed Mississippi, Florida, and in a
few months we will have all of California completed. In the
next 3 to 4 years we will have the whole continental U.S.
mapped, the topography mapped, more accurately than has ever
been achieved, just like we did in Great Britain.
Now our data alone is not a complete solution for FEMA. We
recognize that. But for the sparsely vegetated areas of the
country, roughly 60 percent of the country, it is a very
effective solution. And then, using airborne LIDAR and other
technologies for the vegetated areas, we can, in fact, have a
solution that has accurate topography for the entire country.
The Map Mod program is in a critical phase right now, where
many hundreds of counties are going to have their flood maps
updated. We need to ensure that we are not simply digitizing
and modernizing old data. And when we are updating the flood
maps, we need to ensure we are using the most accurate
topography that our technology or anybody's technology can
provide.
And so, to sum up, a national strategy is required for
collecting this topography to support the most accurate flood
maps that are possible. Thank you.
Chairman Ney. I thank the gentleman.
[The prepared statement of Michael Bullock can be found on
page 56 in the appendix.]
Chairman Ney. Mr. Edelman.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT K. EDELMAN, PRESIDENT, WATERSHED CONCEPTS, A
DIVISION OF HAYES, SEAY, MATTERN & MATTERN, INC.
Mr. Edelman. Good morning, Chairman Ney, Ranking Member
Waters, and members of the subcommittee.
I am Scott Edelman, president of Watershed Concepts, a
division of Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern, Inc. I appreciate
this opportunity to appear before this Subcommittee on Housing
and Community Opportunity.
Watershed Concepts has been involved with creating flood
maps for FEMA since 1984. During this time, I have witnessed
many changes within FEMA and the flood insurance program. I
believe the current approach FEMA is taking to produce maps is
highly effective. Drawing on this experience, I am honored to
represent Watershed Concepts and to provide testimony on the
topic of this hearing.
Specifically, I have been asked to provide my opinion to
four questions contained in the July 1, 2005, letter from
Chairman Ney to me. I have supplied detailed answers to the
committee before giving this testimony, and I am summarizing my
responses as follows.
The first question deals with how important is it for FEMA
to keep the maps up to date and what are the negative
consequences of delaying map modernization? I believe it is
critical to keep the maps up to date and detrimental to the
country if the maps are not kept current. The maps provide
protection for 4.5 million policyholders and provide
approximately $650 billion in coverage, with annual flood
damages of approximately 1.1 billion.
If the maps are not updated, then the annual cost is likely
to increase for two reasons. First, FEMA has not studied every
stream in the Nation; FEMA has only studied about one-third of
the streams. Many of the unstudied areas are on Federal lands
and are unlikely to be developed. However, because of
population growth and shifts in the Nation's population from
one region to another, development will occur in areas that
were not previously anticipated for development.
Second, as the watershed develops, more parking lots,
building and road construction occurs. This creates additional
storm water runoff that under natural conditions would have
been absorbed by the soil. We have performed studies that show
watershed development can increase water surface elevations
along flooding sources by more than 10 feet. I believe that
these are the two reasons why it is critical to keep the maps
current.
The second question dealt with who decides which maps would
be modernized and is the process sufficient. I observed that
FEMA headquarters sets national policy with map modernization
being implemented at the ten FEMA regions. Each region obtains
considerable input from the States and local communities, but
FEMA decides when the study will be performed and the scope of
the study. If the community wants to take on additional
responsibilities once FEMA has made the basic decisions, it
does allow for delegation of portions of the program to the
partner. I believe this is an effective means to manage the
program.
The third question dealt with the use of USGS maps as the
best available topographic information. FEMA has strict
guidelines and specifications for performing studies. These
guidelines state that USGS quadrangle maps cannot be used for
detailed study areas. These are medium- to high-risk flood-
prone areas.
We do, however, consider USGS quadrangle maps for areas of
low-risk flooding. These are typically rural America where
growth is very small or negative and the population densities
are small. We have performed pilot studies in these areas with
emerging technologies to determine if a better product can be
created within the limits of the set budget. These emerging
technologies do offer the hope of creating a better flood map,
but issues such as data licensing and evaluation of the actual
benefit in low-risk areas may need to be done.
The fourth and final question dealt with FEMA's overall map
modernization strategy. I have observed FEMA performing a
comprehensive nationwide approach, upgrading standards, and
evaluating new methodologies and technologies that may benefit
the program. I believe that modernization is being effectively
managed.
I want to again thank the subcommittee for this opportunity
to address the members concerning this important topic. I am
honored to be able to provide testimony as the subcommittee
considers the most efficient methods to prevent or reduce
flooding losses. I would be happy to answer any questions that
you have, and with the permission of the committee, I would
like for the detailed responses to my questions to be entered
in the record.
Chairman Ney. Without objection. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Scott K. Edelman can be found on
page 107 in the appendix.]
Chairman Ney. Ms. Small.
STATEMENT OF CHERYL SMALL, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL FLOOD
DETERMINATION ASSOCIATION
Ms. Small. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Waters, and members
of the committee, thank you for your time to speak.
I am representing the National Flood Determination
Association, and that is a professional association of
companies which provides flood zone determinations to lenders
for compliance with the mandatory purchase requirements of the
NFIP. The association represents some two-thirds of the
industry and is probably the most frequent user of the flood
maps, with approximately 33 million determinations completed
for lenders in the year 2003.
The NFDA is gratified that the Administration has
recognized the real need to update and modernize the flood
maps. I would like to convey to this committee NFDA's full and
complete support for the Map Modernization initiative. Seventy
percent of the flood maps are 5 years and older, with 57
percent at least 20 years old. And several thousand flood-prone
communities remain without flood hazard maps. About 20,000 maps
require updates since they have outdated or inadequate flood
hazard data.
In the near term, many of the new maps will be just a
digitized version of the current updated flood map. In those
cases, the maps will not incorporate Letter of Map Amendment
updates. If the Letter of Map Amendment update revalidation
process is delayed, then home owners may have to seek insurance
coverage when, in fact, their property has been exempted from
the mandatory purchase requirement.
In 2004, 40,000 Letters of Map Amendments were issued. In
recent years, processing these consumed about 80 percent of the
funds from mapping fees generated--for mapping generated by
fees. When a revised map is issued, enormous cost is incurred
by all parties as it initiates the life of loan tracking
processes and procedures developed by lenders and flood
companies to ensure compliance with flood regulations and
secondary market requirements. This process involves
notification to lenders by flood determination companies and
then lenders contacting borrowers and home owners regarding
insurance-related matters. In 2003, our industry was tracking
97 million loans for map changes.
Flood determination companies are in a somewhat unique
position of understanding the issues involved with the
development and deployment of the maps. We have regular
communication with home owners and lenders who are directly
affected by the release of new maps into the communities. In
2003, our member companies fielded in excess of 1.3 million
calls from home owners and lenders discussing compliance and
mapping-related matters.
In 2003, we organized the technical mapping meetings with
FEMA, NFDA, and FEMA's mapping partners. This forum was created
as a way for all parties to discuss and resolve technical
mapping issues, receive updates on the progress of map
modernization, and voice any concerns about the direction of
the program.
FEMA and their mapping partners have gained a better
understanding of how the determination industry uses the flood
maps and how a seemingly minor change on their part can have
significant impacts to lenders and borrowers, as was played out
with the North Carolina paneling schema. At this point, it is
not clear whether our input has been taken into account, and if
it has not been, then there could be serious problems for our
industry lenders and their borrowers and their home owners.
We understand that meetings have taken place concerning
some important items for our industry, but we have not received
information on the outcomes. If the determination industry is
not kept in the loop on these matters, the result would be a
slowdown in the closing of real estate transactions.
NFDA is concerned that all involved appear to be focused on
fulfilling the program metrics rather than considering an
adjustment of the time and money needed to produce accurate
digital maps based upon updated topographic base data and
updated flood studies. Map modernization is more complex,
extensive, and costly than originally estimated. Updates
require more time and investment, and this raises a concern
that insufficient analysis is being undertaken in order to
complete actual amounts more quickly. Until the program was
under way, certain factors affecting costs and time estimates
were not realized.
We would not want the new maps to be simply digital maps
produced from existing flood information. To do justice to the
national investment and good flood-risk maps, there may need to
be some adjustments to the quantitative standards by which the
program is evaluated, and it may not be possible to complete
the job in the projected 5 years.
NFDA applauds FEMA's commitment to produce easier-to-use
and easy-to-update digital maps. We expect a significant number
of maps to be released under the Map Modernization initiative
in September. And once we begin to work with the new data, we
will have more facts on which to base our opinions on whether
map modernization is achieving its goals.
We would appreciate an opportunity to address this
committee in the future about the issues that may reveal
themselves over the course of the next few months. NFDA
recommends that FEMA establish an stakeholder advisory group
and model it after the successful Technical Mapping Advisory
Council established by the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994.
That concludes our testimony.
Chairman Ney. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Cheryl Small can be found on
page 154 in the appendix.]
Chairman Ney. Last witness, Mr. Williams.
STATEMENT OF JAMES R. WILLIAMS, COCHAIRMAN, MAPPING AND
ENGINEERING STANDARDS COMMITTEE, ASSOCIATION OF STATE
FLOODPLAIN MANAGERS, INC.
Mr. Williams. Thank you, Chairman Ney, Ranking Member
Waters, members of the subcommittee.
My name is Jim Williams. I am the project manager for
Nebraska's floodplain mapping program.
Just to give you an idea of where we are coming from, we
have mapped more than 10,000 miles, stream-miles, in the State
of Nebraska, and we have mapped it at the lowest cost in the
Nation. And I am here testifying on behalf of the Association
of State Floodplain Managers.
I am going to address all four of the bullet points, the
questions that were in our invitation letter.
The first question was, how important is it to update the
flood insurance rate maps? The sad truth is, it is not
important to anybody until our next flood. People have very
short-term memories when it comes to disasters; however, after
the next flood people are going to want to know yet again how
did it happen, why wasn't I warned, who is going to pay for my
losses. And we all know who they are going to be writing and
calling when that happens.
So the NFIP protects citizens and their property from
losses due to flooding. Map Mod is in the process of making
maps so people can be aware of what their risk is.
The second question was in reference to who makes decisions
about what projects go forward during any one fiscal year. I
have got kind of a two-part answer to that. Overall, it is the
FEMA regional engineers and the various regional offices that
make those decisions. During early years of Map Mod, we believe
some serious mistakes were made. The emphasis was based on
hitting populations in counties with high populations, and so
populous counties with acceptable paper maps received new Map
Mod funding, while new, completed county-wide studies could not
move forward; they sat on the shelf waiting for publication
money.
In the State of Nebraska, we had over a dozen completed
studies that were delayed 1 to 2 to 3 years. We couldn't hit
the print button because we were throwing big dollars at
Lincoln and Omaha, which already had useful paper maps.
However, I do want to emphasize, we believe FEMA is getting
back on track on this. They are making decisions in more of a
partnering mode. Regional personnel are working with State and
local authorities to properly prioritize what projects move
forward.
The third question was, what value is there in comparing
flood zones to 40-year-old USGS topo maps? Well, I believe that
this guidance, which is in section 7 of FEMA's plan,
Multihazard Implementation Plan, was written to address two
things. First of all, you can quickly judge the quality of a
map by superimposing it on one of these old topo maps. If it
doesn't fit the old topo map, you have no business digitizing
that old map. If it is bad enough, throw it out; do a new
study.
Secondly, many study contractors insisted they could
delineate Approximate Zone A flood zones on digital elevation
models. Well, the problem is that the DEMs are derived from the
USGS topo maps; therefore, the quality is degraded. DEMs do not
represent the best available topo. Based on my experience, the
topo maps are adequate for modeling and delineation in rural
areas. They should be double-checked in towns. They are not
accurate enough for detailed studies. And the topo requirements
are very clearly spelled in out in FEMA's guidelines and
specifications.
The fourth and the last item was a request for an overall
assessment of FEMA's Map Mod strategy. Overall, I am going to
give FEMA a thumbs-up on this issue.
I could talk to you all day long about some of the good
things that are happening with Flood Map Modernization, but I
am close to out of time, so I am going to mention the one main
thing I want to leave with you: There isn't enough money.
We now know that $1 billion is not going to do the job; it
is going to take maybe three times that amount, based on State
business plans. You might be asking, are we looking for gold-
plated maps? No. We are looking for just a simple, usable map
that passes what we call the red-face test. How did we get the
numbers so wrong? There are lots of reasons, but quite frankly,
we didn't know how bad the maps were. We had to go into Map Mod
1 to 2 years to start seeing some of these things come out. And
we now know that it is going to take probably $3 billion to do
the job that our citizens need to have done.
Thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of James R. Williams can be found
on page 160 in the appendix.]
Chairman Ney. Thank you.
I want to ask you a question based on something you said
about--from my understanding what you are saying is, we don't
need gold-plate mapping everywhere. Also, in the rural areas,
who would determine and separate out--let me give you an
example.
There are some areas where nothing is developed, nothing
has changed, so therefore one would say, well, we don't need
the gold-plate mapping in that area because there is not enough
money. But what do you do in some of the rural areas--I will
give you an example where we have had long--are you familiar
with underground mining? And in underground mining, they don't
have to get rid of you to permit. They go under your house, and
as you know, sometimes it disrupts an aquifer, it disrupts
flows, and you could have different patterns which might affect
a creek, and you might have flash flooding where you never had
it before. But technically, to the eye, you don't have any type
of development in that area, but you could have a situation
which could create possibly some changes that might lead to
flooding or redirection of creeks or something like that. As
you know, that could happen with that.
Now how do you separate that type of area out, that it
doesn't need maps, from an area that does need maps? How would
do you that in rural areas? I mean, I understand in the desert
you don't need probably million dollar mapping, because what is
going to change there, particularly, but--
Mr. Williams. The short answer is, we don't know. Let me
give you a little bit more on that.
My subcommittee with the State Floodplain Managers is
actively addressing this, and we hope to work in partnership
with FEMA. We know that we don't need to map large portions of
national parks and other Federal properties, bombing ranges.
It is my opinion that every town needs a map. Some people
within FEMA are not yet convinced that every town needs a map.
Their point is if you are not in the National Flood Insurance
Program, you don't deserve a map.
Well, we have got a chicken-and-an-egg problem here. Many
communities in Nebraska haven't joined the program because they
don't have a map; they don't know they have risk. So my opinion
is, every incorporated community, and perhaps some zone outside
of that community, needs, at a minimum, an Approximate Zone A
map.
My next point is that areas that are growing need a
detailed study. Overall, there is huge cost savings when
developers know exactly what the risk is in those areas. But
there is that gray area that is in between communities and
growing areas versus the Federal lands, and that is something
we have got to hammer out together. We haven't answered that
question.
Chairman Ney. That is a good, honest answer. You don't have
the answer yet, because I can think of other places in the
district where we have bedroom communities--now Columbus, Ohio,
that did not have huge development, and now they have constant
development because people are living there and working in--for
example, in Columbus, Ohio, so that is creating more runoff,
water runoff, things that we haven't dealt with before.
I guess what you are saying is, we don't know yet how to
separate out; this doesn't ever need mapping for the short term
and this does. We still just don't know how to do that.
Mr. Williams. That is correct.
There is another aspect I would like to introduce to this.
I think that every community that gets a floodplain map,
obviously that panel is going to get published. There are going
to perhaps be large portions of that panel not close to the
community. How are we going to map those? If it is Zone D,
unstudied, the insurance is going to be pretty expensive there.
Are we going to map it as shaded Zone X?
My point is that it is a very complicated question, and it
has huge fiscal impact.
Chairman Ney. Mr. Jenkins, the question I have, are most
people, do you think, generally--are aware, unaware, whether
they have to get flood insurance? Is there a consistent
mechanism where people know, yes, that they are aware that they
have to have flood insurance or not, or should have it or not?
Mr. Jenkins. I think they--the answer to that is, no, in
terms of consistency. In prior work that we have done, there
does seem to be a problem.
As you know, mortgages shift--mortgage servicers shift from
the original person you get the mortgage from; somebody else
takes it over. And there seems to be problems there with
consistency in terms of them knowing that this person needs
flood insurance. So there seems to be some problem in whether
or not people really do know.
There are some examples in the current flood mapping
process where they have taken quite a bit of trouble to try to
notify people when a map has been proposed to send notification
to every person that would either come into the floodplain and
would have to be required to purchase flood insurance or would
move out of the floodplain and would not be required to buy
insurance.
So that is an important part of the flood mapping process,
that at the time that the map is proposed and sent out that a
company notify everybody that would be affected by a change in
the boundaries.
Chairman Ney. Thank you.
The gentlelady from California.
Ms. Waters. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bullock, am I to understand that you are representing
here today that you have the state-of-the-art technology by
which to do mapping in a way that would give us the information
that we need in order to determine whether or not we need to
change the maps that are not used--the old, not digitized, just
old data? Is that what you are telling us?
Mr. Bullock. That is correct. And again, we are not a
solution for the entire country, but this is what we learned
again in Britain. The existing Government topographic data was
not good enough to have consistent, accurate flood maps for the
entire country. And so that is when our technology was
employed; and in 18 months we mapped all of England, Wales, and
Scotland to a very consistent and complete topography that was
then later used to generate new flood maps for those three
entire countries.
And as a result, 600,000 properties were now available and
qualified for flood insurance. Premiums for many of those
property owners have decreased or gone away entirely. And so
Britain is now the most accurately flood-mapped nation on the
face of the Earth. And there is an opportunity to employ those
same practices and technologies here for much of the country to
improve the topography--again, topography that data is king in
terms of the accuracy of the resulting flood maps.
Ms. Waters. So are you contracting with FEMA now for
anything?
Mr. Bullock. No. FEMA Region 6 did sponsor a small pilot
study in Texas which--I showed you the results in my
testimony--which was very successful. As of right now, we don't
have any contracts with FEMA, although Region 6 has expressed
interest in not using the USGS data as a result of that pilot
study and in using our data in certain counties. But right now
we are not under contract.
Ms. Waters. I see. I guess--I don't know if this is an
appropriate question or not to Mr. Jenkins.
Are you familiar with Intermap Federal Services, Inc., of
Englewood, Colorado?
Mr. Jenkins. No, not really. I did have some information
that they sent me about what they do and what their product is
and so forth, but we are not particularly familiar. And in the
work we did, we didn't really assess different technologies and
the merits of different technologies for mapping.
What we did focus on is consistency and approach and making
sure that they have some way of identifying and assessing that
the maps are accurate and that they are accurate for the
purpose of which they are intended, which is identifying
accurate flood boundaries.
Ms. Waters. Well, the question that appears to surface here
today is whether or not we are going to digitize old
information. What do you think about that?
Mr. Jenkins. Well, I think there is an issue that hasn't
been raised about digitizing old maps, existing paper maps.
Assuming, as Mr. Maurstad said, that one has determined
that that data is still sufficiently reliable in terms of
identifying floodplains, there is the potential that the map
itself has errors in it, that is, that the data from the survey
was transferred onto the map, errors were made doing that. So,
at the very least, if you decide that that map is sufficient
and you have done an analysis to decide that the map is
sufficient, you need to at least make sure that you are
digitizing correct data, that you are not digitizing errors
that were inadvertently placed on the map to begin with.
Ms. Waters. Are you convinced--while you said you did not
look at the technology, you haven't evaluated the technology
that is being utilized to determine whether or not they can get
the correct information to make the corrections. Is that a fair
statement?
Mr. Jenkins. That is right. We did not really look at the
technology. We did visit a number of locations that were doing
Map Modernization, that used extensive LIDAR in both North
Carolina and Houston. Most of that LIDAR was paid for locally,
not by FEMA. So we looked at the kinds of technologies that
they were using, but we didn't assess whether or not they were
the right technologies.
Ms. Waters. I see.
May I just ask Ms. Small and Mr. Williams, do you know
anything about this technology and whether or not we are using
the appropriate technology to get the information to make sure
that we are not digitizing old maps?
Mr. Williams. I do believe that we should look closer at
it. We would like to evaluate some of the data from the pilot
study. I would like to try out my own software and tools on
that data.
There are large portions of Nebraska for which this
technology appears that it would be useful. It is--as Mr.
Bullock said, it is not appropriate everywhere, and I
understand this. Understand that in Nebraska we are in a unique
situation in that we have the USGS contours already
electronic--"in the can," so to speak. There are large portions
of the country where the cost of moving from paper to the
computer is equivalent to the cost of getting brand new data
from this new technology, and in those areas it should be
looked at more closely.
Ms. Waters. Ms. Small.
Ms. Small. I am not familiar with the technology from
Intermap, but we do--as an organization that uses the maps 33
million times in 1 year, we do realize the importance of having
the latest, updated topographical-based data because it
certainly allows us to make accurate determinations that are
rendered of whether a home owner is required to have flood
insurance in response to the mandatory purchase requirement.
Ms. Waters. Mr. Chairman, I don't think there is anyone
here who could answer for me whether or not the cost of new
technology that may be much more accurate than what we are
using now is prohibitive or whether or not the amount of
dollars that is allocated toward the remapping would be
sufficient to pay for this technology, but I think it is
something we need to find out about.
Chairman Ney. Homeland Security--or can anybody answer
that?
Ms. Waters. Mr. Bullock.
Mr. Bullock. The current practice in rural parts of the
country for developing new topography is done county by county
in cooperation with local communities, and it is a good thing
to cooperate with the local communities. But to map a country
county by county would be like carpeting your home 1 square
foot at a time, buying that carpet from different stores and
then piecing it together.
There are economies of scale when you employ new technology
to map entire States, entire countries, do it simultaneously
instead of over decades; and that is what we did in the U.K.
And that is what I talk about, when we need a national strategy
to collect this topographic data to support the Map Mod
program.
We need to do that; we need to start it now because when
you consider the schedule and the course of the Map Mod
program, it is unlikely they are going to avail themselves of
this type of technology on a wide scale practice before the
program is done, and we will end up with a lot of new flood
maps based on old and inaccurate data.
Ms. Waters. How many companies are there that do what you
do? Do you have any idea?
Mr. Bullock. Currently, we are the only company that uses
this technology specifically for flood mapping. But again, we
can't do the whole country for flood mapping accuracy. We have
a solution that we believe fits for about 60 percent of the
country, the agriculture and sparsely vegetated, but that is a
good start. And then, using other companies that have LIDAR and
other technologies, we can, in fact, develop a national
topographic database just like was done in the U.K. and again
have the most accurate flood maps on the Earth.
Ms. Waters. Well, you answered my question, because that is
precisely where I was going, whether or not you in cooperation
with other companies could put together that kind of a strategy
that could be looked at for dealing with what I think is a very
complicated problem that we really don't have a handle on.
I have not been satisfied, just listening today, that we
will not be simply digitizing our maps. I think--the testimony
we have heard leads me to believe that that is precisely what
we are going to do unless we come up with a different, more
comprehensive strategy that perhaps everybody here is
suggesting in one way or the other, and I am certainly
supportive of that, yes.
Mr. Williams. Ms. Waters, if I may, I have to emphasize
that it is not FEMA's task or duty to come up with topographic
data. It is not cheap, and it is not particularly easy,
especially on a piecemeal basis.
But trying to do flood maps without good topographic data
is like trying to clean the room without the lights on; it is
like trying to drive without headlights. It is the fundamental
basis of what we are about here, and however we get to it, we
need to have a good strategy for accurate topo delineations in
towns and in rural areas. And there are various costing levels
that are appropriate.
And I don't know the answer of how to fund that, but you
have hit on the key item here, yes.
Ms. Waters. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Ney. Thank you.
The gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Pearce.
Mr. Pearce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I was close to Sonora, Texas, a couple years ago, and the
water was running about 11 foot deep, and it was over the
overpass there along the main highway.
In my own hometown a couple years ago we typically hit 9
inches of rain a year. We got that all in about 45 minutes, and
it washed the pavement out of many of the streets in town.
So when we want to disregard the flat desert, it is not.
Mr. Bullock, what was the cost of providing the maps to
Britain.
Mr. Bullock. We did that in a partnership with Norwich
Union Insurance where they provided about half--
Mr. Pearce. I just wondered the total cost if I wanted to
get a comparative basis.
Mr. Bullock. The total cost was approximately $7 million,
and the area that was mapped is roughly 1/40th the size of the
continental U.S.
Mr. Pearce. So for $280 million, do you think you could do
that?
Mr. Bullock. That includes the topographic mapping as well
as all of the flood mapping, creation of the new flood maps.
Now they use a different technique than what FEMA contractors
would use, but that is roughly what the level of investment
was.
Mr. Pearce. Do you think for 280 million you might be able
to do the U.S.?
Mr. Bullock. I would just speak to the topographic portion
of that, since I don't do the creation of the flood map--
Mr. Pearce. That is all right. The FEMA made a comment that
you are willing to sell maps, but are not willing to allow the
public use of these maps. What is that all about?
Mr. Bullock. Well, the reason why we are able to do it so
inexpensively is we license the data. We are going out and
mapping the United States right now using our own investment,
and then we spread the cost of that data across multiple users
and multiple agencies.
Mr. Pearce. And every time they access it they pay a fee or
something?
Mr. Bullock. No. Once they buy a license they have that in
perpetuity. They can use it--
Mr. Pearce. What would a small town pay for a license, say
a town of 12,000 in New Mexico?
Mr. Bullock. Well, typically it is only $10 a square
kilometer. A small town might be 500 square kilometers, so it
might be $5,000. Very affordable.
Mr. Pearce. Mr. Jenkins, as we discussed the whole process
of FEMA, does FEMA ever pay claims? People rebuild and within a
year or two they pay the same claims on the same spot?
Mr. Jenkins. Yes, they do. They do.
Mr. Pearce. How does that work? I thought FEMA in previous
testimony, their idea was to get protection and tell us where
not to build. How does it--
Mr. Jenkins. Where not to build. We did testify, and I have
some information I can share with you for the record about
repetitive loss properties. But that is the issue. There are
properties where--repetitive loss properties are primarily
located in Texas and Louisiana. They are more in those two
States than any other places. They are places that have filed,
you know, more than one loss. In some cases, the loss is
greater than the value of the property; that is, the payouts
are greater than the total value of the property.
And of course that was one of the things the Flood
Insurance Reform Act of 2004 was designed to try to address was
repetitive losses. But they are a big problem, and they are a
major portion of the total payout in flood insurance.
Mr. Pearce. Does FEMA have a process to identify if they
get multiple claims?
Mr. Jenkins. Yes. It a process for that.
Mr. Pearce. And does the process then begin to limit that?
How--in other words, I watch--I don't live on the coast, but I
watch all the TV with houses being washed away from the
coastline, and yet it appears when I go to the coast those
things are rebuilt.
Mr. Jenkins. There is a point at which you are not eligible
for disaster assistance because of that and other things as a
way to encourage you to either elevate the property or move out
of the floodplain.
Mr. Pearce. What is that point, that point of
discouragement?
Mr. Jenkins. I don't exactly remember. I have it in my
office--
Mr. Pearce. If you would submit that it would be
interesting to see that because it to me seems a lot of times
we simply do the same things over and over again, and I would
appreciate that.
Mr. Jenkins. I will send you that information.
Mr. Pearce. I see my time is about to elapse, Mr. Chairman.
Thanks.
Chairman Ney. Mr. Fitzpatrick.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you, Chairman Ney. I appreciate the
testimony of everybody on the panel. I know that those of us
who represent districts who are victimized by habitual flooding
find your information very helpful. It also sounds like
everybody agrees we need better coordination with our local
partners, with our State governments and local governments. I
know as a county commissioner for Bucks County, Pennsylvania,
for 10 years, every week county governments and local
governments are signing contracts to not only update their
flood maps, but they are signing contracts for high resolution
aerial photography. They are buying new hardware, upgrading
their software, GIS systems. And in my view, we need new
incentives and better incentives with local governments.
I was wondering if anybody on the panel has any suggestions
for new incentives that the Federal Government could use that
would draw in that new data that is being generated every
single day and recognizing as we create a new incentive and
part of the incentives may be to, you know, to encourage local
governments to use not only Homeland Security dollars, Federal
dollars, and State dollars, but start using some of their own
local resources, which many governments are willing to do, use
their own local resources and maybe move those governments to
the top of the list for quicker flood map modernization. And if
you do that, again, you have to recognize--and I heard a little
bit today about standardization. I am looking at that map down
here, and that is everything but standardization. But the fact
is that there are 3,000 counties in the United States, and all
those counties have their own contracts and they are getting
different kinds of data.
So on the one hand, we all appreciate the benefits of
standardization. We have to recognize there are local
governments and county governments out there getting their own
data and different kinds of resolution of data, and so what
kind of incentives can we give local governments to spend some
of their own dollars so that with the $1 billion we talked
about--and, Mr. Williams, I think you indicated that is not
enough--encourage the local governments to help out, and what
does that do to standardization and flood mapping around the
country?
To any of the members of the panel.
Mr. Edelman. Maybe I can go first. FEMA is embarking upon a
digital system, and they are putting all their information into
a managed information platform, mapping information platform,
MIP, mapping information platform. This allows data to be built
upon. So that, for instance, in your Bucks County, if they came
up with better topo information after FEMA has done their study
they will be able to incorporate that information easier and
update the flooding information more efficiently and faster as
time goes on.
So there has been a lot of talk about how we are going to
move forward. What I believe FEMA is doing is FEMA is getting
us to that base layer of instead of getting us out of the paper
world and into the digital world such that once you are in
digital world updates become a lot more efficient and a lot
more effective and a lot more timely as new information becomes
available. There are plenty of counties across the United
States that get new topo information once every 2 or 3 years,
and it would be really nice to be able to update the maps in
these growing areas to do that.
So a lot of emphasis is going on on how the partnership can
work with local communities to take this data in to provide the
updates.
Mr. Bullock. If I might respond. Again, I think it is
important to cooperate with the local communities, but to rely
on them to provide the topographic data on a county by county
basis, I believe that is a flawed approach.
If that was the approach we had taken in the United
Kingdom, we would still be talking about the program instead of
already having the best flood maps that exist.
I believe that a lot of the initial reliance on the local
communities was due to budget concerns and trying to help them
fund the collection of this data, but with new technology that
exists today that is no longer as much as of a problem because
we can, in fact, collect data for the entire country in just a
couple of years. And it would be consistent, complete. Instead
of having a patchwork that you see on that poster there, you
have a consistent database. And then you share that with the
local community so they have the access to that high accuracy
data as well.
Thank you.
Mr. Jenkins. I think one thing in our work that we noticed
is that it really does help; it is not so much giving the
community an incentive but it is an understanding of how the
digitized data can benefit them and the things that they can
use it for.
One of the things that they can use it for is emergency
planning. Houston has been using their data to be able to
deal--for quick response model and do a quick response under
different conditions; that is, you know, high or low tide, et
cetera, for hazardous waste spills in Houston's ship channel,
and to be able to then develop evacuation plans on the basis of
that; that is, that it is going to be here in an hour and we
need to get these people out because it has this lethal plume
and the topographical data then can be used for plume analysis,
for things like chlorine emissions, a tanker car that has
liquid chlorine in it and gets breached.
So there are a number of things that it can be used for
that are beyond flood mapping. That is more difficult for them
to use it when it is not digitized because the location of the
particular facilities is much less precise. You can use it, as
North Carolina is, to try to identify evacuation routes in
areas that are likely to be flooded so people are not going to
be able to get through and get away from the coastal areas.
They are developing a realtime Web based flood inundation
system that can be used and that can be accessed by radio and
television stations: Don't go to this bridge; don't go to that
road; it is going to be flooded; you can't get out that way.
So the more they understand the multiplicity of uses the
data has for them, the more likely they are going to be able to
see value in it.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Mr. Chairman, I see my time has expired.
Chairman Ney. I have a question, and after that if either
gentlemen would have other questions, please feel free.
I just want to see if I am on the right track of the
thinking here. Basically, Mr. Bullock, you are agreeing--or Mr.
Williams agreed with you--that there are certain or--I am
sorry. You are agreeing with Mr. Williams. I assume there are
certain portions of the country that just cannot be mapped. Is
that correct?
Mr. Bullock. No.
Chairman Ney. I mean cannot be mapped as accurately as
other portions. Because you see 16 percent.
Mr. Bullock. Yes, and that is for our particular
technology. And there are other technologies again that need to
be part of the solution such as airborne lasers, and so forth,
but--
Chairman Ney. I am sorry, maybe Mr. Williams said there
wasn't enough money to map correctly--I mean, to map
everything. Is that correct?
Mr. Williams. There is two types of mapping I think that we
are discussing here. For topographic mapping, some other
technologies other than radar may be more appropriate, such as
laser methods or advanced photogrammetric methods. The other
mapping would be the floodplain mapping itself. And my point is
perhaps we do not need to do floodplain mapping in Federal
areas. We should concentrate on towns and elsewhere.
Chairman Ney. So, Mr. Bullock, I am assuming you cannot
probably accurately map forests in certain regions. Is that
correct?
Mr. Bullock. That is correct.
Chairman Ney. Go back to the question about natural
forests. Should we even map them in the first place with the
most up-to-date technology?
Mr. Bullock. And that is fair. That is a fair statement.
But I would add that, for example, in Ohio, we looked at--it is
our understanding that there is no plans for your particular
district, Mr. Chairman, for collecting extensive new
topographic data, whereas technology such as ours could map it
very quickly, very completely, to produce better and more
accurate flood maps for that entire congressional district. And
under the current progress of the plan I don't see that
changing unless this committee takes some action to change how
we collect our topographic data on a nationwide basis.
Chairman Ney. Following up on that, let me ask Mr. Jenkins
a question appropriate for you.
Based on what Mr. Bullock just said, is it FEMA's
responsibility to, you know, update areas like my district or
the State of Ohio or other States? Is it their responsibility.
Mr. Jenkins. It is definitely FEMA's responsibility under
the Flood Mapping Modernization Program to determine what the--
they have put every county into a risk category, and to
determine for those risk categories what the appropriate level
of analysis is for those different categories, what is the type
of data that is needed, what is the specificity of data that is
needed, what is the quality of data that is needed in order to
produce a flood map of, quote, acceptable quality, and it is
also FEMA's responsibility to define what "acceptable" is. So
in that sense it is their responsibility.
Chairman Ney. Just for my own clarification, Mr. Edelman,
do you use a different, your company use a different technology
than Intermap?
Mr. Edelman. We are an engineering firm that utilizes the
products of Intermap and other companies, and we are the
company that actually did the pilot for FEMA utilizing
Intermap's data in Texas.
Chairman Ney. You utilized Intermap data?
Mr. Edelman. Yes, we did.
Chairman Ney. So the two companies worked together to
produce a product?
Mr. Edelman. Yes, we have. It is my opinion that the data
that Intermap is providing would be useful for the program,
anywhere from west of the Mississippi and east of the Rocky
Mountains, about the same area that Mr. Bullock had mentioned.
However, in all these areas we are talking about we have to
come back that FEMA will not use USGS quads in any areas that
are medium or high risk. In those areas we are currently
working on perhaps maybe 60 or 70 active countywide studies. We
are not using any USGS quads in any medium or high risk area.
Chairman Ney. I am sorry. What does that mean?
Mr. Edelman. Okay. FEMA has ranked--there are about 3,100
counties across the Nation. Okay? And there are different areas
within counties that you can get a risk classification on. The
higher risk is the number of people who live in the floodplain,
the density, number of policies, number of flood damages,
things of that nature.
The USGS topo maps are only considered for the very lowest
of low risk categories, okay. These are counties that have
declining populations or almost no population at all, and that
is where the USGS quads have traditionally been used before.
Now would I prefer to use better, newer data? Of course I
would. Okay, however, you have to balance that with the benefit
of the cost of the newer and better data, and is it better to
spend it there or someplace else.
Chairman Ney. I want to defer to my colleagues, but I want
to come back to that cost question in a second. Mr. Pearce.
Mr. Pearce. Thank you.
If we were to pursue that line of thought, Mr. Edelman, we
are in the process of spending a billion dollars; we have
already spent maybe 550 million of it. Do we have to even do
that cost-benefit ratio that you are talking about that USGS
uses if we simply redid it more or less with more thorough
technology?
Mr. Edelman. Okay. The first counties that FEMA has
performed are their highest risk counties. Typically, these are
the high population counties. They are the ones that were
ranked first. As they are working through the 5-year program,
the lower risk counties are the ones that are being done later
in the program.
An evaluation would really need to be looked at to
determine is the cost valid--
Mr. Pearce. Well, my point is that we have got 450 million
in unexpended funds. Mr. Bullock says he can do it for 280
million for 60 percent of the country. My point is why are we
going to proceed ahead if the data is somewhat unusable?
Mr. Edelman. Okay. Now I had the privilege of meeting one
of the engineers who performed the study for Great Britain. The
engineering methods that they used there are not acceptable and
do not meet FEMA's minimum guides and specifications.
Mr. Pearce. USGS stuff meets--they are using USGS data.
Mr. Edelman. Typically the cost of the topo data is just
one small piece of an entire study. The topo data may run
anywhere from 10 to 20 percent of the cost of the entire study.
So just because you get new topo doesn't mean the cost ends
there, and the procedures that were used in Great Britain are
completely different than what the minimum standards FEMA has
set for the industry in the United States.
Mr. Pearce. Does FEMA reach its minimum standards in the
United States?
Mr. Edelman. Yes.
Mr. Pearce. Why do the charts that Mr. Bullock showed there
show a fairly large deviation on the USGS maps? Why?
Mr. Edelman. What the USGS--what that is showing is that
the age of the USGS topographic maps, just because data is old
doesn't necessarily mean it is inaccurate. There were very--
there were a lot of different contractors--
Mr. Pearce. I will go ahead and reclaim my time.
Mr. Bullock, why don't you address the other side and save
time for Mr. Jenkins? I would like for him to kind of weigh in
on this.
Mr. Bullock. I agree with Scott that the techniques used in
the U.K. are different from what is typically used here, but
the fundamental fact is they have a complete flood map for the
entire country instead of just focusing on high risk, medium,
or so forth, on a county by county. Floods do not obey county
boundaries. You have to map by watersheds and stream, river
courses, and so forth. And so they found a tremendous value in
having a complete topographic map of the entire country that
was collected near simultaneously, that is accurate,
consistent, and calibrated, which we do not have here.
Mr. Pearce. Mr. Jenkins, do you want to weigh in on this?
And before you get right to the point, is this an accurate--
does this--this map kind of conveys a sense of disarray and
chaos. Is that an accurate reflection?
Mr. Jenkins. Well, it represents topographical data. It is
not a representation of the accuracy or the age of flood maps.
Some of the flood maps are newer than this data. So it is the
topographical data, represents the age of the USGS
topographical data, which is, as has been said, is one input
into a flood map. It is not the only input. You will need, you
know, hydrological data and so forth.
One of the things that has been said here that is true is
one of the reasons FEMA approaches things by counties is
because that is where the governance structure is. The
governance structure is not by watershed. It crosses
watersheds. So in terms of being able to get--they also have to
get buy-in from localities and so forth. The way you get buy-in
is you have to go through what the governance structure is.
It is true that there are places where counties have gone
together to try to pool their resources and work with FEMA to
map entire watersheds, but that is simply not the norm. It is
not the average way in which they approach things, but it is
certainly an option in the way in which they can approach
things. The topographical data is one element, and it is
certainly an important element. It is one of the--and the
flatter the terrain, the more important it is that that be
accurate because the smaller gradations affect the way that the
water runs.
So it is sort of a complex process in terms of how you put
it together. But it is also true that, as I said in my oral
statement, that you want the most accurate maps that you can
get that are necessary to identify the floodplains for people,
and the topographical data, good topographical data, is a key
component of that.
Mr. Pearce. Mr. Chairman, I see my time has elapsed. As we
are dealing with the problem that governance is the problem in
mapping, I am not sure that Mr. Jenkins is suggesting--I am not
sure I would suggest it, but it sounds like a PATRIOT act for
floodplains is needed.
Chairman Ney. Mr. Fitzpatrick.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Mr. Jenkins, I want to follow up on a
question Mr. Pearce was pursuing earlier about repetitive loss
properties. You testified today that FEMA doesn't have the
ability to control local building codes and local land
development decisions.
Mr. Jenkins. No, it does have the ability to do that, and
that is the principal way in which it does that, and the other
way is to buy out the property itself.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. We talked a little bit about incentives to
local governments. How about disincentives to building within
the floodplain? Once flood insurance, FEMA comes in and maps a
particular community, and that community then--and I have seen
this happen in Pennsylvania communities--will go in--when I was
county commissioner--buy out properties, elevate other
properties while the local government was approving building
permits for the empty lot next door. While we are buying one
property and removing it, you know, a modular structure is
being placed in the flood fringe or in the floodplain next
door. And we contacted FEMA about that. Within FEMA, what--my
understanding is FEMA can go in and basically tell a local
government, we are going to take you out of the National Flood
Insurance Program if you continue that. What is the experience
of FEMA in actually pursuing that in policing their floodplains
and actually coming down hard on local governments that
violate.
Mr. Jenkins. Well, you are absolutely correct. They can
basically say, if you are not enforcing your codes, you know,
the codes that you have to adapt once the floodplains are
identified, you can be taken out of the program. But we haven't
actually looked at the experience of how often they do that or
what happens, you know, if a community is not enforcing or is
inconsistently enforcing those regulations. So I don't really
have a good sense of what the experience has actually been.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Are you aware of FEMA receiving complaints
about local governments? This program costs us a lot of money.
Mr. Jenkins. Very often they receive complaints simply by
citizens saying, I can't believe they are letting Joe do this.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Exactly. But presently FEMA does not have
a sort of strategy of coming down hard on local governments?
Since this is costing us money, we don't have enough money to
adequately map what we have in part because we are spending so
much in bailing out properties that are just flooded on a
repetitive basis.
Mr. Jenkins. To tell you the truth, because we haven't
really looked at this systematically, I really don't have a
good sense of exactly how they approach this, what their
strategy is, what the enforcement policy is. You get something
like three strikes and you are out kind of approach, and we
just haven't done enough work on that for me to give you a good
answer.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you.
Chairman Ney. Thank you. Question: I want to get back to
costs. Well, I want to get back, first of all, to the minimum
standards and Great Britain. Now, if Intermap, and Mr. Edelman,
you said also your company, Watershed Concepts, has worked with
Intermap before on some mapping.
If you or in conjunction with other companies have
basically like the most up-to-date data, and if you showed what
you showed us, the map of Great Britain, and that is state of
the art, is that correct? Mr. Bullock.
Mr. Bullock. Yes.
Chairman Ney. So Great Britain's standards are less than
ours? We are requiring more state of the art? Or can you
comment on the minimum standards required by the United States?
Mr. Bullock. Well, I would say on a nationwide basis they
have the most accurate topography and the most accurate flood
maps on a nationwide basis.
Chairman Ney. Great Britain?
Mr. Bullock. Yes. Here in the United States when we do
detail studies, that accuracy can very well surpass what they
have on a national, a nationwide. But they saw the value of
just studying certain communities and doing lesser studies for
the rest of the country was not the right approach for them.
And that is the approach they have taken.
And I would like to add one more point. Mr. Williams made a
very important comment earlier when he said that to take the
USGS data, whether it be 40 years old or 25 years old, it still
requires efforts in terms of digitizing or correcting blunders
or whatever in terms of engineering work. And in many cases
that cost can be higher than the cost of using new technology
to collect new data that is already in a digital form.
Chairman Ney. I want to get back to--Mr. Pearce has asked I
think some very good questions. I want to get back to the
question he had asked earlier about the proprietary rights. You
had answered that question. I want to ask a question of GAO--
actually not, Mr. Bullock. The question Mr. Pearce had asked
was about the proprietary rights, and I understand from Mr.
Bullock that his company people could, you know, click in and
buy forever or until it is updated again for X amount of
dollars. And I think the comparison was like 12,000 community,
for about 5,000 or something. And asking GAO, has anybody
looked at that? Because right away when the question was asked,
it was like, okay, well, yours is not available, although FEMA
would say use your mapping, but it is only available to
communities if they pay a certain amount of money for the
proprietary rights, I guess, or copyright is the right word.
Having said that, rather than communities developing their own
whole plans of spending all this money or county spending
money, has anybody--this is a question for GAO--has anybody
looked at what this company or companies can do, and maybe it
is cheaper at the end of the day if we would utilize that and
people get the copyrighted material through incentives or if we
save a lot of money through the United States Government
through incentives? Has anybody looked at that, how they
copyright it, and utilizing it, and would it be maybe cheaper
at the end of the day, or maybe it wouldn't or maybe it would
be a wash. Has anybody looked at that versus recreating the
wheel in all these counties?
Mr. Jenkins. Not that I know of. I don't know that anybody
has looked at that specifically and the actual costs. The
information that Intermap provided to us is that they would
provide FEMA a national subscription for $15 million, which is
about $4.90 a square mile.
Chairman Ney. Could a community buy the maps and then FEMA
utilize them? Would that be possible, a community would do
that?
Mr. Jenkins. It might. Acually it depends on how, you know,
the Intermap prices it. But as they point out in the material
they provided to us, it is usually less expensive to provide
it--to purchase it for large areas. And so it may be less
expensive for FEMA to purchase it and then--if this information
is correct than for localities to purchase it for small pieces.
Chairman Ney. Obviously, that would be a lot of numbers
scratched out here, et cetera. I am trying to get a concept has
anybody looked at the cost, and you are answering no. But Mr.
Williams, do you have any comment on all of this? Or anybody
else, frankly, on the panel. But start with Mr. Williams. If we
would look at that type of concept of communities, you know,
would it be worth it to look at the costs of communities
clicking in and purchasing the upgraded or state of the art
material?
Mr. Williams. I think I have one major comment in regard to
the licensing issue. We have looked at it closely in our
department. We don't have a problem with the license. It is the
way software is sold. It is the way songs and movies are now
being sold. So a particular license, as long as everybody
understands what the license is about and how it limits it, we
would be perfectly happy with it. In fact, we like Intermap's
licensing agreement because it allows anybody in our department
to use it for any purpose, even though it would be originally
purchased for floodplain mapping.
Having said that, and to expound upon what I earlier said
to Ms. Waters, I think a nationwide topographic program would
be important, and it would be the most efficient way to handle
this. However, there are areas where LIDAR, or advanced
photogrammetric techniques, are perhaps more useful than the
IFSAR technology. There are vast areas of this country where
the IFSAR technology is important. And we need to look at both
limitations on the technology, vegetation, for instance, as
well as the necessary accuracy. For example, in Nebraska we
need to achieve very high accuracy in our very flat areas next
to the Platte River. So those are all things that come into
this. But a nationwide strategy would be very useful.
Chairman Ney. Anyone else?
Mr. Bullock. Mr. Chairman, if I might just add, in regard
to the issue of data licensing, the National Academy of
Sciences generated a report last year in regard to licensing of
geospatial data, and we would be happy to forward a copy to the
committee to look at that. But in summary, they found that data
licensing can be beneficial, reducing costs to the users. It
doesn't work for everybody, but it can be a very beneficial
approach to getting accurate geospatial data out there at a
lower cost.
Chairman Ney. My time has expired, and Mr. Pearce has
another question. I will be glad to entertain it. Take a
generic question to ask of anybody on the panel. I think we
have got a lot of valuable information here. From what I am
hearing it is not all apples and apples and oranges and
oranges. There are certain technologies used for certain
things, and I think I hear basically everybody agree to that,
and other technologies are appropriate.
Where should the next step be for this committee getting
this information? Does anybody have an idea what the next step
would be in interacting with FEMA or with the groups and the
people that are concerned about this issue? Anybody have any
ideas on that?
Mr. Edelman. What I have witnessed FEMA doing in the past
is when they are about to go into a study, they meet with the
local officials. They meet with the local people. Before they
decide how they are going to do anything, they sit down and
they have a detailed scoping meeting. At that point in time,
that community tells them what their needs are. Those needs are
prioritized, and based on that the scope of work done is
tailored towards that individual community to work going
through there. So that is the time to buy the information, when
you need it.
For instance, we have some counties in the United States
that had a population of 2,000 people in 1980. It has dropped
to 1,500 people in 1990. Okay? The cost of doing the study in
that particular county would probably exceed FEMA just buying
flood insurance policies for everybody who remained within that
county. Okay? So there is a balance that you have to have
between utilizing the best data. And as an engineer, I would
always want to use the best data available, but you have to
balance that with where would the information be used or the
dollars or the resources be put to the best use to have the
biggest impact on the Nation.
Whereas, a lot of talk has been talked about Great Britain
here, the technology that is used by Great Britain. I would
probably submit that FEMA's program is superior to Great
Britain's because in all the medium and high risk zone areas,
the information that was developed in Great Britain would not
meet standard. The elevations would have a higher degree of
uncertainty than they do in the United States.
Mr. Bullock. I would like to offer that I believe that a
national strategy is needed for collecting a new and accurate
topographic base layer for the entire country, just as was done
in Great Britain, which would benefit FEMA and other Federal
agencies.
As a company, we are going out, and we are doing it. We are
doing it right now. We are flying in Texas today, and in the
next 4 or 5 years we will have a topographic database for the
entire country.
Chairman Ney. Let me ask you something about that. Are you
doing that on your own, or is this another branch of the
Government?
Mr. Bullock. We are doing it based on our investor funds
just like we did in Great Britain. We will create this
database, and then we license the data to multiple users. So
far we have three U.S. Federal Government agencies that have
indicated they are going to use this data, and it is somewhat
ironic that we don't have FEMA on board for this where they
could directly benefit more than just about any of the other
Federal agencies.
Chairman Ney. So what you are saying is within 4 years you
are going to be sitting here and you will say here it is. If
you want to click in and pay the fee you can have it. And if
the United States Government--well, FEMA I should say--if FEMA
has not caught up to pace, it is irrelevant; it will be here?
Mr. Bullock. It will be here. And if FEMA goes in the
present course, doing it county by county, then there is a very
good risk that they won't be able to utilize this data to the
extent that they could.
We are going to have the entire State of California done in
about 2 months, mapped to one meter vertical accuracy, and I
would believe that for much of that State that is going to be
superior to the USGS data that is available and may be used for
some of these flood map programs.
Chairman Ney. Gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. Pearce. Mr. Bullock, do you have any comment when Mr.
Edelman says that your standards would not be suitable for the
high and medium risk areas?
Mr. Bullock. Well, he is the expert. I focus on the data.
He does the engineering, and he is correct that there is a
difference in terms of the engineering approach that was used
in Britain and what is being used here in the U.S. Remember, in
Britain this was done by Norwich Union. It was not a Government
program, and so they did what they felt was the appropriate
level of engineering to meet the application. And it was still
far superior than the Government provided flood maps that
existed in Britain. But the same techniques that Mr. Edelman
uses here under FEMA of course can be adopted and used on this
data just like they did in the pilot project in Region 6, and I
think he would say that that produces very good results.
So it is not a failing in the data. It is just a difference
in technical approaches that was used in Britain versus in the
U.S.
Mr. Pearce. Mr. Jenkins, you had talked about the costs of
some of the mapping and some of the relative costs. Do you know
if the FEMA process ever counts the opportunities lost? For
instance, there is about $20 million worth of development back
in the community of Carlsbad that I was talking about that was
delayed for 10 or 15 years. And when Mr. Edelman suggests that
we need to prioritize and get to those low population areas
last, is there any way to assess the cost to communities when
are drawn incorrectly and the cost to not be able to develop?
And by the way, I have lived my whole life in that area.
One bank of the river was developed and the other one wasn't.
And when they got the map somewhat redrawn last year or the
year before, the development was just blowing down the one
side; it has never been developed.
Mr. Jenkins. I would say that in what we looked at, we
certainly didn't look the sort of opportunity costs lost. They
looked at cost of--at the time they started the process, what
did they think they would be gathering and what it would cost
to do that. So they weren't really looking at, if you will,
what you are talking about, which is the cost of delays and
delays to the community. So not to my knowledge was that taken
into account.
Mr. Pearce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Ney. Yes, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams. I wanted to go back and address your question
of what to do about this topographic situation. I think that it
is important to recognize at this point that the $1 billion for
Map Mod is not going to be enough, that we need the 3 billion.
If we are just going to spend 1 billion, of which we have
another 450 million left, then we might as well blindly carry
on as we have been carrying on. But if we know we have got
another 5 to 10 years at similar funding levels so we can do
the whole thing right, that is the point at which we need to
create a national strategy.
I would suggest that we direct FEMA to come up with a cost
and strategy, and I think their way of doing it would be to put
together a committee with their national service provider,
State and local officials, probably team up with other Federal
agencies such as the USGS. We would need a topographic
inventory. We need to know what data is out there, what exists,
come up with a needs assessment and a strategy to deal with
this perhaps as soon as the 2006 funding.
Mr. Pearce. Mr. Williams, with your permission, you said we
need to do this right. If you were to evaluate from your
perspective the $550 million worth of investment so far in
whatever 1,000 or 2,000 areas that were remapped, on a scale of
0 to 100, what is the accuracy and the completeness of the data
in those remapped areas, of those digitized areas where we were
taking data?
Mr. Williams. I would give it about a 75 percent effort to
date.
Mr. Pearce. So those are areas that are pretty well
completed. You are saying with more money we can make it, but
we assume we have reached the highest level of capacity that we
can and you are encouraging us to spend another $2 billion on
top of 1, and we are reaching 75 percent accuracy?
I am not sure I want to reinvest. Thank you.
Mr. Williams. I would like to emphasize that FEMA's
guidelines and specifications create accurate maps. My big
fear, as was stated earlier, is that not all the reaches that
should be studied are being studied, and that is the problem.
Mr. Pearce. You are sure it is the process. Whether or not
their standards are set high enough is not the complete
question. Whether or not they thoroughly and adequately address
all of the areas--and it is still a question of process and
still a question if you invest 1 billion and you get 75 percent
performance, you still have some loss. And if you get 3
billion, you have proportionately more loss. So I don't know.
That 75 percent seems a very low rating score for me.
Thanks.
Mr. Williams. I would like to emphasize that I think Map
Mod is a fantastic program, and it has done an awful lot of
good.
Chairman Ney. I want to thank you very much. I think this
has been an extremely informative panel on a very important
issue in the country, and we want to take it from here somehow,
maybe looking at price costs, working with GAO, or working with
the people that are interested in this issue.
So I want to thank you and thank the members for your time.
The Chair notes that some members may have additional
questions for this panel which they may want to submit in
writing. Without objection, the hearing record will remain open
for 30 days for members to submit written questions to these
witnesses and to place their response in the record.
The hearing is adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
July 12, 2005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]