[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 4650, THE NATIONAL LEVEE SAFETY PROGRAM ACT
=======================================================================
(109-65)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 6, 2006
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
28-280 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Vice- JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
Chair NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Columbia
JOHN L. MICA, Florida JERROLD NADLER, New York
PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan CORRINE BROWN, Florida
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan BOB FILNER, California
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
SUE W. KELLY, New York JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD,
RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana California
ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
JERRY MORAN, Kansas ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California
GARY G. MILLER, California BILL PASCRELL, Jr., New Jersey
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South Carolina BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania JIM MATHESON, Utah
SAM GRAVES, Missouri MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota RICK LARSEN, Washington
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania JULIA CARSON, Indiana
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
JON C. PORTER, Nevada MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
TED POE, Texas ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania
DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado
CONNIE MACK, Florida JOHN BARROW, Georgia
JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New York
LUIS G. FORTUNO, Puerto Rico
LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia
CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr., Louisiana
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
(ii)
?
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee, Chairman
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
SUE W. KELLY, New York BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
GARY G. MILLER, California ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania
HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South Carolina EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas BILL PASCRELL, Jr., New Jersey
JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
TED POE, Texas ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
CONNIE MACK, Florida Columbia
LUIS G. FORTUNO, Puerto Rico JOHN BARROW, Georgia
CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr., JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
Louisiana, Vice-Chair (Ex Officio)
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
DON YOUNG, Alaska
(Ex Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
TESTIMONY
Page
Nicholson, Peter, Ph.D, P.E., M.ASCE, Associate Professor of
Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Hawaii...... 8
Pogue, Pamela Mayer, Chair, Association of State Floodplain
Managers, Inc.................................................. 8
Rabbon, Peter, President, National Association of Flood and
Stormwater Management Agencies................................. 8
Riley, Major General Don T., Director of Civil Works, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers............................................. 8
PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri................................. 32
Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois............................. 34
Johnson, Hon. Eddie Bernice, of Texas............................ 36
Oberstar, Hon. Jamels L., of Minnesota........................... 44
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Nicholson, Peter................................................ 38
Pogue, Pamela Mayer............................................. 46
Rabbon, Peter................................................... 56
Riley, Major General Don T...................................... 66
ADDITION TO THE RECORD
Association of State Dam Safety Officials, statement............. 69
H.R. 4650, THE NATIONAL LEVEE SAFETY PROGRAM ACT
----------
Thursday, April 6, 2006,
House of Representatives, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee
on Water Resources and Environment, Washington,
D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room
2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John J. Duncan, Jr.
[chairman of the committee] presiding.
Mr. Duncan. I am going to go ahead and call this hearing to
order. This is a hearing on H.R. 4650, The National Levee
Safety Program Act of 2005.
I would like to welcome everyone to the hearing today. I
was very pleased that prior to the end of the first session of
the 109th Congress, Subcommittee Ranking Member Eddie Bernice
Johnson, Chairman Don Young, Ranking Member Jim Oberstar and I
introduced H.R. 4650, The National Levee Safety Program Act. We
have seen in the Gulf Region what can happen when hurricane and
flood protection infrastructure is inadequate or fails to
perform. Yet more Americans are moving to coastal areas where
the risk of hurricanes and floods is greatest. In the south
Atlanta region, the coastal population grew 51 percent from
1980 to 2000, and is expected to increase another 13 percent by
2008. Along the Gulf of Mexico, the population has also grown
dramatically, and is projected to grow an additional 12 percent
just by 2008.
We do not know where the next hurricane or flood will hit,
but we do know that many of our major cities, including parts
of Washington, D.C., have a greater probability of flooding
than did New Orleans. For example, the City of Sacramento,
California, has almost twice as many people as New Orleans, yet
it has less flood protection than any other major city in
America. Cities like Houston, St. Louis and Miami also are at
risk. We cannot treat citiesdifferently unless we have a policy
reason that we can explain and justify to our constituents.
As we have learned from recent levee failures, our
infrastructure is aging. What we know about the existence and
condition of these other levees we often learn when one fails
or is overwhelmed by a flood event. For instance, the State of
California recently declared a state of emergency in the
central valley in anticipation of the failure of 24 levees.
According to the State of California, it would cost $5 billion
to make critical delta levees, not all delta levees, but simply
the critical ones, stronger in the face of flood and seismic
events in the central valley.
In the past, this Committee has taken steps to ensure that
the Nation's flood damage reduction infrastructure is properly
inventoried, inspected and assessed. In 1986, the Congress
authorized the National Dam Safety Program Act to conduct an
inventory and assessment of all dams nationwide. This has been
a successful program and we have modeled the National Levee
Safety Program Act after that law.
The national inventory of dams shows that 45 percent of all
Federal dams are at least 50 years old and that 80 percent of
them are at least 30 years old. We know less about the status
and capabilities of our levees. There has never been a national
inventory of levees. Little is known about the current
condition of both Federal and non-Federal levees, including
whether these levees were designed to meet current conditions
or whether they have been properly maintained by the non-
Federal interests.
Over the decades, levees have been built by different
entities at different times and to different standards. They
have been linked together to provide a protective system, but
with such a mixture of conditions the true level of protection
may be in doubt. Over time, development has taken place behind
some of these levees so that much more may be at risk in terms
of lives and economic resources.
There is so much that we do not know about the levees in
America that we cannot be sure how safe our cities and towns
really are. We need more information. That is why we have
introduced the National Levee Safety Program Act, to get an
inventory of levees in the United States and work with the
States to encourage them to develop their own levee safety
programs.
We have worked closely with members on both sides of the
aisle and the various groups to advance the goal of improving
the infrastructure in the most cost effective manner. We have
received favorable feedback from diverse parties. The National
Levee Safety Program Act embraces innovative solutions for the
inventory and subsequent assessments of these structures.
H.R. 4650 includes provisions for the Army Corps of
Engineers to conduct an inventory, inspections and assessments
of all levees nationwide. The legislation establishes an
interagency committee on levee safety to create standards for
Federal levees and creates a National Levee Safety Review Board
made up of Federal, State, local and private citizens to
monitor levee safety and implementation of State levee safety
programs.
The bill also provides incentives for States and localities
to participate in the program.
In order to make the best investment of taxpayer dollars,
we need to do an inventory and inspection and assessment of
levees across the United States. We need to know what they are
protecting and what is the level of risk associated with these
levees. This should help us prioritize future spending on flood
protection. I hope that our witnesses today will help us
understand the current condition of our hurricane and flood
protection infrastructure and what it should look like in the
future.
I hope to hear some suggestions on how this good
legislation can be made better. I look forward to an
educational and enlightening hearing.
Let me now turn to my good friend, the Ranking Member, Mr.
Johnson, for any opening statement she wishes to make.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding
the hearing today on an issue that is of tremendous to our
communities: the condition of our Nation's flood control
infrastructure.
In the aftermath of the 2005 hurricane season, the American
public has again focused on the importance of adequately
designed, constructed and maintained flood control
infrastructure and protecting lives and livelihoods. The image
of flooding streets, homes and businesses, as well as the
thousands of displaced families, have again brought home the
message that we cannot take our Nation's infrastructure for
granted. The consequence of failure is far too great.
In the weeks and months that followed Hurricanes Katrina
and Rita, numerous communities throughout the Country started
asking questions about their own disaster response plan,
including their potential vulnerability to flooding.
Unfortunately, one lesson learned from this exercise was that
no single entity could quantify the Nation's risk of flooding,
in part because no single entity has ever conducted a
nationwide assessment of the adequacy of our flood control
infrastructure.
In fact, no single entity even knows where all the flood
control infrastructure is located, let alone its condition. In
response to this need, Chairman Duncan and I introduced H.R.
4650, The National Levee Safety Program Act. This legislation
represents the first step in a larger effort to locate and
assess the conditions of the Nation's flood control
infrastructure and to develop uniform guidelines for levee
safety. However, this legislative proposal takes only the
smallest steps in addressing the larger issues of assessment,
adequacy or proper maintenance of flood control infrastructure.
Mr. Chairman, last year, the American Society of Civil
Engineers released its fifth report card on the condition of
the Nation's infrastructure. On average, they gave the Nation a
D grade, and estimated that more than $1 trillion would be
needed to address the backlog of maintenance and required
infrastructure upgrades.
Unfortunately, this report card did not or was not able to
include an assessment of the Nation's flood control
infrastructure, other than dams. Yet in spite of the obvious
need for increased spending on infrastructure, the
Administration and the Republican-led Congress have proposed
cutting funding for both the--not you--both Corps' construction
and operation and maintenance activities, further perpetuating
the backlog of necessary work on flood control protections.
Although I am pleased to work with the Chairman on this
legislation to identify and hopefully one day assess and
improve the conditions of the Nation's flood control
infrastructure, I remain concerned whether we will take the
next steps in ensuring adequate protections for our citizens'
lives and livelihoods. Once we know where the problems are,
will we have the fortitude to ensure that potential gaps in the
Nation's flood control infrastructure are addressed?
Again, I thank the Chairman for holding this hearing, and I
look forward to hearing our witnesses' testimony. Thank you.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much, Ms. Johnson.
Mr. Gilchrest.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just a brief couple of comments. I want to thank you and
Ms. Johnson for the legislation. I have another hearing going
on and I may have to step out. I am not sure if I will be here
in time for questions, and I can probably call General Riley
and some of the other witnesses a little bit later on this. But
I would like to get these questions on the record.
I know there is a vast array of levees around the Country,
not to mention those in the Gulf of Mexico or Sacramento or
places like that. The focus is on Louisiana, and I hope I can
stay to get the answers a little bit later, but how many miles
of levees in Louisiana need to be rebuilt? How many are going
to be rebuilt? How many are going to be moved from one side of
the road to the other side of the road? Is there an evaluation
as to which ones should be moved? Because I understand in
Plaquemines Parish, there is going to be quite a long stretch
that is actually going to be moved, which is along the
Mississippi River, the west side of the Mississippi River, to
the other side of the road, because of the failing nature of
that particular levee.
And should we consider moving people away from areas
permanently where levees are failing or don't meet a reasonable
cost benefit analysis? This is a big job, and we are here to
help. We are from the Government. Well, actually, we are here
from Congress, and we are here to help.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Gilchrest.
Ms. Tauscher.
Ms. Tauscher. Is my friend from Maryland suggesting that
the Congress is not the Government?
[Laughter.]
Ms. Tauscher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a brief
statement and I really appreciate the time to be able to engage
these fine witnesses, especially our witness from California.
I will submit my whole statement for the record and I will
try to be brief. But I think what is clear is the magnitude and
the content of today's hearings cannot be underestimated, both
for our Nation and for my California district in particular.
While the Federal, State and local governments have
invested a great deal of capital in building a wide array of
barriers and flood barriers, we know that we have done too
little to ensure that those systems have been maintained to an
appropriate standards. The protection of human life and the
viability of our Nation's economy requires our immediate
attention and action.
I congratulate the Chairman and Ranking Member for
introducing The National Levee Safety Program Act. I believe
the Chairman's ambitious yet necessary plan to inventory and
assess our Nation's levee systems is a way we can begin to get
our arms around the scope of the problems we are facing. Using
the best science available, we should conduct a detailed review
of design, maintenance and natural conditions that play a role
in whether a levee will succeed or fail.
Mr. Chairman, in my own district in California, which
contains a large portion of the San Francisco Bay Delta, we
know what it is like to live behind, to maintain and to rely on
levees. The Bay Delta, a vast network of earthen levees,
supplies drinking and agricultural water to over 22 million
Californians, and millions of acres of farm land. And more and
more of these levees are protecting the lives and property of
thousands of Californians living in my district.
Should there be a massive levee failure in the Delta, not
only would there be a great risk of loss and life and property,
but California's major water supply would essentially be shut
off. On a smaller scale, we have begun to take similar action
to that laid out in the Chairman's bill. As part of the Cal-Fed
legislation adopted in the 108th Congress, the Army Corps of
Engineers is carrying out both the Cal-Fed Levee Integrity
program and the Delta Risk Management Strategy.
These two programs are geared to identify and repair the
Bay Delta's most vulnerable levees while laying out a strategy
fore the long term future of the levees in the Delta.
Unfortunately, the President's budget didn't include funding
for either of these programs, a mistake which I hope this
Congress will correct.
Mr. Chairman, I point out the work going on in the Bay
Delta because I believe it is a good example of why your
legislation is so important. We first need adequate knowledge
of the problem we are facing before we can adopt any remedy.
And Mr. Chairman, I would also like to speak to one issue which
I hope you will work with me on as your legislation moves
forward.
As the Chairman knows, there are thousands of miles of
levees that the Army Corps of Engineers had no part of
constructing. For example, in the Bay Delta, it is my
understanding that there are only two levees there that were
built or maintained by the Corps. This is out of hundreds of
levees in the Delta.
While I know the Chairman's bill will contain language to
help ensure that all levees are inspected and catalogued, I
would like to work with the Chairman to explore language which
would more explicitly include these non-Corps levees.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your indulgence this morning.
I look forward to working with you to advance this legislation
and to today's testimony, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much, Ms. Tauscher.
Mr. Pascrell.
Mr. Pascrell. Thank you, Chairman Duncan, Ranking Member
Johnson. It is a tremendous shame that it took Katrina, a
disaster, for the Federal Government to focus on the importance
of this flood protection infrastructure, such as levees. While
we cannot control mother nature, proper flood control measures
could have reduced the number of deaths and limited the
economic devastation around the Gulf.
I feel so strongly about the mission of the Committee as we
continue to call attention to the larger issue of the need for
infrastructure investments nationwide. The Nation witnessed the
catastrophic consequence that is possible when these levees
fail or are breached by massive flooding. We must not let
Katrina's hard-learned lesson pass us by.
But it is important to recognize that many other cities
around the Country face the same if not greater risk of
flooding. In fact, it was painfully clear to the people of
Northern California just this past week. Fortunately, there
were no injuries or loss of life.
In New Jersey, levees protect both urban and rural areas.
However, the location and conditions of many of the levees are
unknown. Nobody knows where they are, to the Federal or State
government. We do not know how many people depend on levees to
protect their homes and businesses from flooding. I daresay
that those people don't know, either, how significant the levee
may be.
We have a very serious problem throughout this Nation and
various States about flood mapping. Much of that mapping is
antiquated, no longer is timely, needs to be reviewed. I know
that this is basically controlled by each State. What is the
Federal Government's responsibility in making sure that the
flood maps reflect the exact situations now?
While there are now strict engineering standards required
when a Federal levee is designed and built, there are certainly
thousands of miles of other levees built by States, towns and
farmers and landowners. Some of these are well built, well
maintained levees. Others are not.
One might ask, how many miles of levees are not even
accounted for? Do we have an estimate of that?
Time, too, has taken its toll. Natural and man-made changes
have altered the landscape and the effectiveness of existing
levees. Levees originally designed to protect farm land may now
be protecting homes or businesses. It is unfortunate that we
only learn about the condition of these and other levees when
they fail or the system is overwhelmed. I am therefore pleased
that we are here today to discuss H.R. 4650, which will
establish a Federal program to work in partnership with the
States to help remedy the situation. The inventory, the
inspection, the assessments of our Nation's levees will allow
the Corps of Engineers and States to work together to identify
unsafe structures.
Is the Army Corps up to doing this, Mr. Chairman? And do
they have the resources and will we provide the money for them
to do it? Or are we simply whistling in the wind?
Than you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much, Mr. Pascrell.
Mr. Shuster.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
having this hearing today and highlighting the importance of us
taking a close look at the levee system in this Country,
especially for you introducing The National Levee Safety
Program Act.
There are about 15,000 miles of levees in this Country, and
while most of them, the majority of them I would say, were well
constructed and well maintained, we don't know how many of them
or what percentage for sure are not maintained the way they
should be, or maybe it was poor construction when they were put
in. I think we can't be in the dark over knowing that.
I know in Pennsylvania, one of my communities, Meyersdale,
Pennsylvania, in 2004, Ivan washed the levee away. If we would
have known the condition before the hurricane hit, we might
have been able to save thousands and thousands of dollars of
property damage. But it is extremely important that we know
that and I think it's important to know if the Corps is up to
the challenge.
And again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for introducing your
legislation. We should be shedding light on this matter, so
thank you.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Shuster.
Mr. Taylor.
Mr. Taylor. I'm actually going to have to leave. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Duncan. Okay. Mr. Boustany.
Mr. Boustany. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I too appreciate your bringing this legislation forward and
holding this very important hearing. Certainly in the wake of
what happened on the Gulf Coast, in the previous hurricane
season, this is a very timely subject and very worthy of
investigation. So I look forward to hearing the testimony.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much.
Mrs. Schwartz?
Mrs. Schwartz. Nothing at this time, Mr. Chairman, thank
you.
Mr. Duncan. Mr. Miller?
Mr. Miller. Thank you. I am very interested in the
testimony today.
I am not sure what authority the Army Corps has over State
and private levees, so I would like to hear that addressed. And
there are some questions arising from what should be required,
possible failures near levees, and I am not sure how we
determine that unless we know they are prone to failure. And
requiring flood insurance and such in those areas that we are
not sure that are really at risk is of tremendous concern to me
in California. So I look forward to the testimony today.
Thank you.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much.
We have a very distinguished panel here today. Representing
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is Major General Don T. Riley,
who has been with us before, the Director of Civil Works.
Representing the National Association of Flood and Stormwater
Management Agencies, Mr. Peter Rabbon, who is the President of
that group. He comes to us from Sacramento.
Representing the Association of State Floodplain Managers,
Inc. is Ms. Pamela Mayer Pogue, who is the Chair of that group.
She is from Cranston, Rhode Island. And finally, representing
the American Society of Civil Engineers is Dr. Peter Nicholson,
who is Associate Professor of Civil and Environmental
Engineering. It doesn't say where he is professor, but maybe he
can tell us that. He is from Honolulu, Hawaii.
So we have witnesses that have come from very long
distances. We are very grateful for each of you being here. We
always proceed in the order the witnesses are listed in the
call of the hearing. So General Riley, you may begin your
statement.
TESTIMONY OF MAJOR GENERAL DON T. RILEY, DIRECTOR OF CIVIL
WORKS, UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS; PETER RABBON,
PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FLOOD AND STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT AGENCIES; PAMELA MAYER POGUE, CHAIR, ASSOCIATION OF
STATE FLOODPLAIN MANAGERS, INC.; PETER NICHOLSON, PH.D, P.E.,
M.ASCE, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL
ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII
General Riley. I am pleased to be here today and have the
opportunity to speak to you about the National Levee Inventory
and Technical Assessment Program. My testimony today will
provide a brief background and update to the Committee on the
progress made to date by the Corps of Engineers in the
development of a national levee inventory.
Although nearly 9,000 miles of levees have been constructed
by the Corps of Engineers, this accounts for only a portion of
the total number of structures protecting communities.
Presently, there is no data base or single source of
information concerning these structures.
Emergency supplemental funds appropriated in December 2005
included $30 million for the Corps of Engineers to initiate a
national inventory of flood and storm damage reduction
projects, including an assessment of the condition of levee
projects.
In addition, the President's budget for fiscal year 2007
includes $20 million to continue this effort. To be effective,
we are coordinating this effort with the FEMA Map Modernization
Program, and we envision that data from the inventory will
provide technical information to be used as a basis for
periodic recertification of levees as required by FEMA for
flood mapping purposes.
The inventory will be a geospatial data base that will
allow data to be incorporated into the flood maps prepared by
FEMA. The Corps will also continue to coordinate with the
Association of State Floodplain Managers and the National
Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agency on this
inventory.
We are presently developing a criteria for assessments and
we will develop these procedures and methods for conducting the
assessments in a uniform and consistent manner. The assessments
will rank projects using risk to human life and benefits of
protecting population centers and the national inventory will
provide an overall condition of levees and indicate areas of
higher risk.
We are committed to putting a program in place that will
enable us to better evaluate the risks to public safety in
areas located behind the levees and help decision makers set
priorities for future investments. This work will also ensure
that the public can make more informed decisions on building
homes, locating business and purchasing flood insurance, based
on the actual risk of flood and storm damages where they live.
This concludes my statement. Again, I appreciate the
opportunity to testify and I will be pleased to answer any
questions you might have. Thank you.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much.
Mr. Rabbon.
Mr. Rabbon. Good morning. Pete Rabbon, with the Department
of Water Resources, State of California, and as President of
NAFSMA, I am pleased to present this testimony on their behalf.
NAFSMA is an organization of over 100 local and State
organizations that provide services to over 76 million citizens
of the Nation, in cooperation with the Corps, FEMA and EPA. We
are supportive of The National Levee Safety Program Act and
today we offer suggestions to the Act for your consideration.
First, we recommend you focus on a national levee
inventory. You must identify all the Federal, State, local and
private levees. We need to know the universe of levees. As an
example, California has embarked on such a program. We have
located almost 12,000 miles of levees in California statewide,
of only which approximately 2,000 are Federal levees. We
suggest the inventory program be administered at the Federal
level, but developed with local and State input such as to
maximize the use and maintenance of such a data base.
Secondly, assessments. The bill does speak of inspections
and inspections are key for operations and maintenance and
identifying gross problems with a levee. However, a strong
assessment program is critical to determine the true condition
of the levee. As an example, California estimates it will cost
approximately $100 million to do technical assessments on the
2,000 miles of Federal levees.
Thirdly, we suggest you consider linking other Federal
agencies and programs to maximize the benefit of H.R. 4650. For
example, FEMA's remapping program, which we heard mentioned,
would benefit greatly from having the levee information that
could be developed by the Corps of Engineers through such an
inventory program.
Additionally, H.R. 4650 recommends an inspection program.
The Corps already has an inspection program of completed works
for existing Federal levees.
Fourth, establishment of the levee safety program and the
National Levee Safety Review Board should consider having local
and regional representation. This is for two reasons. First,
the non-Federal partner with the Corps of Engineers on levee
projects is almost always a local or regional entity, such that
they are the party responsible for operations and maintenance
of the levee.
Secondly, if this is to be a broad program, the land use
decisions are made by local and regional entities. So there are
two reasons why we strongly recommend local and regional
involvement.
Fifth, funding. Adequate funding is critical. Using
California as an example again, we have embarked on a five year
program for developing a levee data base. The program is
expected to cost $2.5 million total, and this is strictly for
California. It will develop a geospatial data base. It will
allow us to locate all the levees. We will be able to populate
the data base with available data and have a gross ranking, and
gross is key on this, of the criticalness of the various
levees.
That program in itself is $2.5 million. It does not include
maintenance of the data base or completely filling that data
base.
I would like to add two items that are indirectly related
to The National Levee Safety Program Act, but I think critical
for your consideration. First is the Corps' policy and
guidelines, that you look closer at that, because those are
guidelines to look at economic benefits of protecting property
and infrastructure. Today, after the devastation we have seen,
we suggest you look at a fundamental concept of adding
protecting lives and providing public safety when determining
what projects to fund through the Corps of Engineers programs.
Then finally, we suggest you consider broadening the goal
of The National Levee Safety Program Act and consider creating
a flood management technical advisory committee. And the
mission of that committee would be to bring together the
various Federal agencies to facilitate and coordinate Federal
policies, so that a package of compatible and implementable
Federal guidelines exists for future flood prevention, response
and recovery activities.
Thank you for your time.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much, Mr. Rabbon.
Ms. Pogue.
Ms. Pogue. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Johnson and members of the Subcommittee.
I am Pam Pogue, Chair of the Association of State
Floodplain Managers. My real job, if you will, is I am the
State floodplain manager from Rhode Island.
We appreciate the initiative of this Committee under the
strong leadership of Chairman Duncan to address our Nation's
urgent need for more data and better information about where
our levees are and their physical condition. ASFPM supports
H.R. 4650 in general, but would also like to provide you with
suggestions on how we feel the bill might be strengthened.
The catastrophic hurricane disasters of this past year
vividly remind the Nation that we are vulnerable to the effects
of natural hazards, especially flooding, and that we must have
programs, policies and institutions that can adequately handle
these events, efficiently use taxpayers' money and build a more
sustainable future for our citizens. Nothing less than our
Nation's prosperity and viability are at stake.
The Association of State Floodplain Managers has over 9,000
members and 22 State chapters. We represent the State and local
officials and other professionals engaged in all aspects of
flood loss reduction, floodplain management and hazard
mitigation. This includes mapping, engineering, planning,
community development, hydrology, forecasting, emergency
response, flood protection projects and insurance.
Many of our members work in communities impacted by
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and work with organizations
assisting those communities to rebuild. All Association members
are concerned with working to reduce our Nation's flood related
losses and in rebuilding a safer Gulf Coast.
Our State and local officials are the Federal Government's
partners in implementing programs and working to achieve the
effectiveness of flood loss reduction. Make no mistake about
it: the potential for levee failure with catastrophic
consequences and human suffering is not just a New Orleans
problem. Levees in California are a disaster waiting to happen,
complicated with earthquake risk, for example.
Every State has levees. We just don't know where they are,
the physical conditions of these structures or the number of
people and structures and critical facilities at risk behind
these levees. All of this points to the need for a
comprehensive levee safety program for the Nation and for
national inventory of levees.
As I mentioned previously, ASFPM is in support of H.R. 4650
in general. We have a few suggestions. First of all, as many of
the panel members have already mentioned, focusing first on an
inventory of levees is critical, with a cursory assessment of
risk for each. It is critical that data be collected in order
to make any determination of the magnitude of this problem.
This data will be a vital foundation for the design of a levee
safety program.
Secondly, the long term levee program will have to focus on
States because they are the only entities with authority to
regulate design, construction, operation and maintenance of
levees. The Federal Government can encourage but cannot
mandate.
Third, incentives to States must be built into a levee
safety program. Perhaps levee safety expenditures can be banked
against the non-Federal share of future disaster costs in that
State.
Fourth, levee data must be geospatial and readily
accessible for ongoing inventory and risk assessment and in a
manner compatible with other Federal data bases, such as FEMA's
Mapping and Modernization Program, the U.S. Geological Survey
and the NOAA's weather data program.
Safety standards for levee construction must be developed.
This should establish criteria and definitions for high,
moderate and low risk levees to allow setting for priorities.
We need to know, where is the real risk with these various
levees.
Sixty, detailed engineering analysis and design of
engineering remedies is the function of levee owners and
sponsors, not the Federal Government. There is ample expertise
in the private sector for non-Federal levees. Federal and State
policy groups should be charged with recommending standards for
various levees in the Nation. The Association recommends
standards for urbanized areas and critical facilities using at
least a .2 percent or 500 year flood event and in coastal
areas, a category five storm surge.
Finally, levees should not be built to protect that is
undeveloped. As a Nation, we have a long history of taking our
rural infrastructure and upgrading the infrastructure to meet
the demands of growing and expanding populations. The dirt farm
road becomes the paved farm road, then the market road, which
then becomes State highways as the population expands to meet
those needs. No such similar upgrade, however, in
infrastructure can be found with many of our Nation's levees.
In essence, we are pretending that a dirt farm road can serve
the same function as an interstate highway.
In transportation, this failure to plan, improve and
maintain public roadways leads to a traffic jam. In levee
management, this failure to plan, upgrade and maintain leads to
catastrophic damages, loss of life and loss of property,
potentially destruction of a local economy.
Lack of available data on levees and the inability to
accurately know where the people are at risk behind them are
two very serious problems. With specific regard to H.R. 4650,
we think the bill should focus on the Corps of Engineers'
production of an inventory of all levees in the Nation, or at
least those that pose a subset highest risk to humans.
Secondly, provide an assessment of the general condition of
those levees, and third, provide the data base that can lead to
a national levee safety program between States and levee
owners.
ASFPM believes that a properly designed State levee safety
program is appropriate. The program presented in this bill is
patterned after the State dam safety programs and the Federal
dam safety program, which have some inherent weaknesses. These
programs have become in essence a permit function and have led
to a stovepiping effect, which in the case of levee safety
could effectively separate levee safety from management within
the floodplain. A State levee safety program is integral to the
State's floodplain management program.
We feel the funding is inadequate at $10 million a year. In
terms of engineering studies, we see this part of the bill as
potentially a real problem. We don't think the Federal
Government should be in the business of performing engineering
inspections and designing engineering remedies. There is plenty
of private sector expertise. Levee owners should be told to
hire an engineer for inspection and design. The Corps should
collect data and do cursory inspection to report on the
heights, general condition and maintenance and to inform owners
in the State of their findings. This should only be done for
levees in the high and medium risk categories.
We do not believe that the Corps has the authority to order
repairs for levees. States can do so if they have a law to that
effect and pass them, as some have.
Mr. Chairman, even before the 2004 and 2005 hurricane
seasons, flood losses in the Nation exceeded $6 billion a year.
I an the Association of State Floodplain Managers greatly
appreciate the chance to provide our thoughts on these issues.
We are committed to working with you and your Committee in
order to reduce the flood losses in this Nation.
Thank you.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much, Ms. Pogue.
Dr. Nicholson, I understand you are from the University of
Hawaii. You are welcome here. You may begin your testimony.
Mr. Nicholson. Thank you.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Johnson, members
of the Subcommittee. My name is Peter Nicholson, as you have
heard. I am pleased to appear today to testify on behalf of the
American Society of Civil Engineers as you consider H.R. 4650,
The National Levee Safety Program Act. I am a member of ASCE
and I chair ASCE Geo-Institute's Committee on Embankments, Dams
and Slopes.
In 2005, last fall, I assembled an independent team of
experts and traveled to New Orleans to collect data and make
observations necessary to carry out the assessment of the
performance of the flood control levees in New Orleans after
Katrina.
As engineers, our paramount concern is for the safety,
health and welfare of the public. We have learned a great deal
from the tragedy of New Orleans, and in order to help prevent
future loss of life and property in Louisiana and elsewhere in
the Country. We support the Federal, State and local agency
efforts to ensure that all infrastructure systems are one,
robust, strong enough and reliable enough to do the job for
which they are designed; to contain redundant systems to
prevent total system failure; and to ensure that these systems
are resilient enough to allow them to be quickly repaired when
the inevitable failures do occur.
Based on these basic engineering principles and our
findings in New Orleans, we believe that Congress should enact
H.R. 4650 with some modifications. ASCE has some policy
recommendations for H.R. 4650 and specific amendments to
recommend to the Subcommittee. For the levee inventory, which
we have been hearing is of paramount importance, the bill
authorizes the Corps to maintain an inventory of levees at its
discretion. The inventory should be compulsory. The Corps needs
to account for every Federal, State, local and privately owned
levee in the Country. Without one, we run the risk of missing
potentially life-threatening conditions with levees that are
not accounted for.
The national inventory of dams, the data base maintained by
the Corps, covers all dams in the United States, including
State and local dams and privately-owned dams as well. The
levee system requires a correspondingly complete survey.
Regarding levee inspections, the bill would require the
Corps to carry out one-time inspection of every federally-
funded levee. We believe the bill should be amended to require
periodic levee inspections as well as the identification and
inspection of larger independent flood and storm protection
system within which the Federal levees function.
The bill also requires States to carry out levee
inspections at least once every five years for levees posing
the greatest danger to human life, in order to receive
assistance to support the levee programs. We believe this
provision is too limited. Every levee, whether owned by
Federal, State or local agencies, or by private entities, that
would pose a significant threat to human life and property in
case of failure should be inventoried and inspected.
This category would consist of levees deemed to pose a high
hazard in the event of a failure, a category comparable to the
requirements for high hazard dams under The National Dam Safety
Act.
Regarding peer reviews, ASCE strongly supports the use of
independent project peer reviews for every new civil
engineering works project or significant modification to
existing systems whenever any one of four key principles is
implicated. Sound engineering principles require independent
peer reviews by outside experts when one levee's performance is
critical to public health, safety and welfare, when levee
reliability on emergency conditions is critical, when using
innovative materials or techniques to build levees, or when the
levee design is lacking in redundancy or short construction
schedule.
We also believe that America's civil works infrastructure
remains vulnerable to man-made attacks. H.R. 4650 should be
amended to require a court to carry out vulnerability risk
assessment to determine which of America's major levees may be
susceptible to destruction by terrorists.
Regarding appropriations, the bill authorizes $60 million,
$10 million a year for six years. The overall appropriation
level we believe should be doubled to $120 million. We
recommend an additional authorization of $20 million in the
first three years to conduct the national levee inventory
required under Section 4.
ASCE believes the bill should be amended to authorize
annual appropriations for the creation and maintenance of levee
safety programs within the Corps of Engineers. Specifically, $7
million annually for State assistance to implement levee safety
programs, $1 million annually for the maintenance of national
levee inventory, $1 million annually for the bill's research
program on levee safety training programs.
That is the end of my testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much, Dr. Nicholson. Very fine,
very informative testimony by all the witnesses.
I am going to go first, in my members, go first to Mr.
Gilchrest for any questions that he has.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would ask basically the same questions that I went
through earlier. But I would add, we don't have the same kind
of problems in Maryland as I am sure they do in Sacramento. I
haven't seen the levees in Sacramento. I have seen extensive
levee systems in Louisiana that I know are under great scrutiny
at this time and also being repaired and analyzed and so on.
I am not sure if you can answer these questions at this
point. But Mr. Chairman, I would like in some way to have a
follow-up so these questions can be given to the Committee. I
guess I would say the first question is, how many miles of
levees in Louisiana or in and around Sacramento, California,
need to be rebuilt? Is that an appropriate question? Is there
an answer that someone can come up with that?
General Riley. Mr. Gilchrest, if I could take the first
stab at it. In the greater New Orleans area, down in
Plaquemines Parish as well, and across the river, there is
about 350 miles of levee system there. During Katrina, 169
miles of those levees were damaged. We are repairing all 169 of
those miles and those projects will be complete this June.
You did ask also a question about any that might be moved.
The only thing that will come close to that is, we do have one
proposal we're considering, there are non-Federal levees in
Plaquemines Parish, about 35 miles, that might be appropriate
to incorporate into the Federal system. Those levees, though,
are really simply soil that was piled up from the wetlands. So
we wouldn't build on top of those. We would move off to the
side and really re-engineer a new levee, if the Administration
chooses to propose that.
Mr. Gilchrest. So those are levees along the Mississippi?
General Riley. No, sir, the Mississippi River levee itself
would not be moved. These ones in Plaquemines are on the back
side off the river on the wetlands side of the Parish.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see. You can't build on them, so they
would have to be moved?
General Riley. Moved to the land side of that levee rather
than the wetlands side. We would want to avoid as much as
possible any environmental impacts. So we would want to build
new levee toward the land side of those existing levees.
Mr. Gilchrest. So that is about 35 miles. Is that a
contiguous 35 miles?
General Riley. Yes, sir, it is, on the west bank of
Plaquemines Parish.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see.
General Riley. That is presently under consideration by the
Administration.
Mr. Gilchrest. Were they damaged during the two previous
hurricanes, those 35 miles?
General Riley. Yes. Those are again relatively small, non-
Federal levees.
Mr. Gilchrest. Do you have an estimate of the cost for
those, that 35 miles?
General Riley. No, sir, in fact we were looking over all
those figures last night. All those figures are under review
right now.
Mr. Gilchrest. You have made a recommendation to move about
35 miles of those levees. If that recommendation is approved,
how long would it take to actually start construction?
General Riley. Well, sir, given certainly authority and
funding, we could start relatively quickly because of the
contracts we already have in place in the area.
Mr. Gilchrest. So in your estimation, in the Louisiana
area, only about 35 miles of levees in that levee complex would
actually have to be moved?
General Riley. Yes, sir, that that's really, in my sense,
engineering sense, not really a true move of the levees. We
will just simply build them to the land side.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see. Any estimate of the cost of the 169
miles that were damaged, to be repaired?
General Riley. Sir, I don't have those figures with me. I
would like to take that question for the record, if I could.
Mr. Gilchrest. Is there any area, whether it is in
Sacramento, Louisiana, any area around the Country, of
significance, similar to what was done in the upper Mississippi
flood of the early 1990s, where they actually, the Corps and
other agencies, actually moved communities from one place to
another? is there any consideration or recommendation in
Louisiana or maybe Sacramento that the Corps would recommend or
consider moving a community as opposed to trying to rebuild a
failing levee system?
General Riley. Sir, at this point, I think the
Administration is looking to the State to take the lead on any
zoning laws which is appropriately within the State's authority
to do and make any recommendations.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Taylor.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I do want to commend the Chairman's interest in this. I am
a little confused as to what it might accomplish other than
what already exists.
So for instance, General Riley, in the case of the levees
in New Orleans that failed, when were they last inspected?
General Riley. Sir, the levees that failed, and certainly
the interior ones, interior drainage canals, those were turned
over to the local communities. Once the Federal Government
constructs a levee, we turn it over to local sponsorship, for
ownership and operations and maintenance. Within the past year,
prior to the storm, they were inspected by the local owners
with Corps participation.
Mr. Taylor. Okay, just for the heck of it, what does a
levee inspection entail?
General Riley. Sir, what the levee inspection entails is a
visual inspection of the levee to ensure that the local owners
are maintaining that in accordance with the operations and
maintenance manuals.
Mr. Taylor. Okay, so again, for a novice, you are talking
about shrub removal so that the roots don't penetrate the
levee. Do you run periodic soil borings to see what is going
on?
General Riley. No, sir. That would be up to the local owner
and operator to do that.
Mr. Taylor. Okay, now, I went to school in New Orleans. So
on your lake side, you have turned it over to the city.
General Riley. Yes.
Mr. Taylor. And the river side is the Corps'
responsibility. This contrast, on the river side, how often do
you run soil borings?
General Riley. Sir, those riverside levees are also run by
levee boards up through Louisiana. We look for visual
inspection, visually inspected and any suspect areas then would
be, we would conduct subsurface investigations. If we had
noticed any sloughing or any kind of evidence of any other
impending failure, then we would conduct a further
investigation.
Mr. Taylor. What if anything would have tipped you off or
the New Orleans Levee Board off to the potential problems with
the 17th Street Canal? What would have tipped you off? What
would it have taken to have known in advance that something was
going to happen?
General Riley. It would have taken a soil boring. Because
what our forensics investigators have found, and certainly Dr.
Nicholson has reviewed some of that work, as the failure
mechanism was due to initial deflection of the wall and then a
weak layer of clay down below the sheet pile. So to find those
two conditions, it would have taken soil borings in order to
determine that.
Mr. Taylor. Okay. Now, I am kind of familiar with this,
because I am going through soil borings to rebuild my home.
They tell me in the case of my home, one soil boring in the
middle of this 100 feet is going to be enough. But for a really
accurate test, in a place like Louisiana, how often would you,
how close together would those borings have to be for you to
have a level of comfort that would, beneath the surface, that
needs to be there?
General Riley. I don't know if can answer that
specifically, because it would be different for different
conditions. But additionally what you would have to do, like
under the Dam Safety Program, any assessment of a levee would
require looking at tall the plans, looking at previous
inspection works, doing certainly a surface survey and
indicators, and looking at recalculating sort of the hydraulics
of the floodplain.
So any time there is new development, or a new storm, the
hydrology of the area changes. So it would require all those
components, not just borings. So borings 100 feet apart in many
areas would be more than sufficient.
Mr. Taylor. I guess what I am getting at, General, is, and
again, I commend my colleague from Tennessee for wanting to
help. It is not just a Louisiana problem or an upper
Mississippi River problem. It is, as he mentioned, a national
problem.
What I am concerned about and what I hope we can address
is, is there really a way to legislative a national program to
adequately inspect thousands of miles of levees?
General Riley. Sir, if I could compare to the Dam Safety
Act, Dam Safety Program, which was legislated in 2002, that has
many of the necessary components: inspection, inventory and
interagency committee, dam safety review board. The program,
which lays out procedures for inspection assessment, the data
base, research and training program, all those components are
very, very good components to have in a program.
And when you have all that, then you can very
systematically, and of course if it was funded properly, very
systematically look at the highest risk areas. So that is what
we do in our Dam Safety Program. We have 620 dams in the Corps;
there are 80,000 in the Nation. We look at our portfolio of
dams and then look at what are those that are at the highest
risk and then begin the more in-depth inspections and
assessments on those and repairs as necessary.
Mr. Taylor. Will the Chairman oblige me for one last
question?
Mr. Duncan. Sure.
Mr. Taylor. In the case of the 17th Street Canal, you have
been at this a long time, and you all are the pros. Is there
anything that from a visual inspection would have tipped you
off, you in particular, since you have been doing this for a
long time, that something was amiss below the surface? Or would
only a soil boring have told you that something was wrong?
General Riley. What we don't know, and Dr. Nicholson might
speak to it as well, is, we know the mechanism of failure, we
don't know what initiated deflection, whether it was a tree
that was blown over and caused a seepage path, whether it was a
swimming pool that was dug behind the levee which reduced some
of the pressure, whether it was Formosan termites, which there
is evidence of, or nutria, that there was evidence of.
So any of those four things could have been visual
indicators of a problem which may have led to the initiation of
deflection. We don't know that answer yet. But those are four
examples that could possibly have indicated a problem.
Mr. Taylor. Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Taylor.
I won't take the time to give a lengthy or complete answer,
but as General Riley said, all the experts say that the
National Dam Safety Program after which this bill is patterned
has led to great improvements in dam safety all over the
Country. We hope that this will do the same for our levees.
The staff tells me that they have found on inspection
trips, for instance, in New Orleans, they found trees growing
on some levees, which creates problems. They even found one
case in which a swimming pool had been built into a levee. We
do know that throughout the Country, there are many places
where these State and local levees have not been inspected or
improved for apparently many years. So we are just trying to--
we know we can't create a perfect situation, but we are trying
to help, to the extent that we can.
Mr. Boustany.
Mr. Boustany. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Clearly we have had, down in Louisiana, a lot of problems
with regard to how the Corps interacts with a lot of different
local levee boards, and Louisiana just took steps to
consolidate, which I applaud. I think it was good. I would have
liked to have seen one levee board, but we have two.
Could you comment, General Riley, on the difficulties you
have had or the Corps has had in having to deal with so many
cost share sponsors in a given locale, such as New Orleans?
General Riley. I think the challenge, sir, would be typical
with any project that has a local sponsor. In this case, you
have a system with multiple local sponsors. Each one of those
sponsors has different funding sources themselves and different
ability to fund a piece of their segment of the system. So the
great challenges is, how do you take components and avoid a
piecemeal approach, but take a more systematic approach.
So the cost sharing challenge has caused us to a greater
challenge, I guess is a better way to say it, and taking a
systems watershed approach to any hurricane protection or flood
system like that. So that's probably the greatest challenge.
Mr. Boustany. Thank you.
Mr. Rabbon, you were talking about the efforts in
California. How are you funding this?
Mr. Rabbon. There are various efforts that we are
undertaking. The most recent one is the repair of 24 critical
erosion sites that is being funded through an emergency
program. The Governor declared an emergency and it did open up
special funds.
Other activities that we are moving forward on are
primarily in cooperation with the Corps of Engineers through
existing Federal programs. Then the levee inventory program
that I spoke of is partly funded by the State of California
general fund. And then we do have a grant from FEMA.
Mr. Boustany. There is no dedicated tax revenue stream that
goes onto this, then? It goes through the appropriations
process at the State level?
Mr. Rabbon. Correct.
Mr. Boustany. Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Pogue, you had made a comment that levees should not be
built in undeveloped land. Do you include farm land as
undeveloped land, or how would you deal with very vital farm
country?
Ms. Pogue. Not necessarily, sir, but I think what happens
is we have seen with many of the levees throughout the Country
is, as they say, if you build it, they will come. You have a
levee that was initially designed, and we are talking about
safety standards here, and we are talking about public safety
and regulatory standards and so forth. If you build a levee to
a certain standard, you can't then on the other side of that
levee, if it is built to a lower standard, put in a very dense
subdivision or critical facilities or those sorts of things.
So I think what you need to be careful with and what that
statement is referring to is when you build a levee or you
design a levee you really have to look at, which we get back
to, State oversight and local oversight with land use and
zoning, what is going to be on the other side of that levee.
Mr. Boustany. What about vital transportation routes? For
instance, in Louisiana, and of course, starting in Texas and
going all the way to Florida, we have the intercoastal
waterway, which is a vital transportation route. I know going
through my district, the banks of that are not considered
levee, it is considered spoilbank. So it is up to private
property owners to maintain it. I can tell you, having visually
seen what those banks look like prior to the hurricanes, and of
course afterwards, it caused significant problems.
Could you comment on vital transportation routes and levees
and do you think that this is a Federal function, State
function, some combination? How would you deal with it?
Ms. Pogue. Funny you should ask. I grew up on the
intercoastal waterway in Florida, and we had to spend an entire
summer putting in tiebacks and digging down to the water table.
So I am very, very familiar with what it is like living on the
intercoastal waterway. I think again, as we put in our written
testimony, it does have to be something that comes from the
States, in those instances where there are non-Federal levees.
I work with our dam safety program in Rhode Island, and I
think we have probably one of the worst dam safety programs in
the Country. Unfortunately, we have 582 dams. And you get back
to, as you are saying, roadways and so forth, I think it has to
be put back to the States. I am saying that as a State
regulator, unfortunately, but there perhaps needs to be
incentives. One of the things we mentioned in our testimony was
possibly even putting in mitigation, putting in these right
things and putting that towards the non-Federal share in the
event of a public disaster.
Mr. Boustany. One final question for the panel. Do you
consider flooding a Federal problem or is it a State or local
problem?
Ms. Pogue. If I can jump in real quick, I think it is
absolutely a State, local problem in addition to a Federal
problem. One of the things that we said about the levee safety
program not necessarily modeling after the Dam Safety Act is
what we have seen with that, is that there is no integration
between floodplain management and dam safety. I don't have a
single inundation map for any of the 582 dams in Rhode Island.
So my comment for the local and State, absolute necessity
that they get involved, they become part of this. Because it is
going to be inherently upon them.
Mr. Boustany. What about the rest of the panel? Any
opinion?
Mr. Rabbon. I suggest it is a shared problem, local, State
and Federal, and even within the Federal Government there is a
broad range of agencies, the Corps and FEMA, that we need to
bring together or similarly, we need to bring those types of
agencies together at the State and local level also.
Mr. Boustany. Thank you.
General Riley?
General Riley. Sir, I think we all speak with one mind on
this. It clearly is a shared problem. There is a Federal
interest, of course, in interstate flooding. But clearly, we
look to the States to take much of the lead in flooding
problems.
Mr. Boustany. Dr. Nicholson, do you have a comment?
Mr. Nicholson. I would agree with my colleagues here. I
agree it is a shared problem. I think it is important that one
entity, perhaps a Federal entity, oversees something like this.
But it has to be on the States and local agencies to actually
run the program.
Mr. Boustany. I thank you all.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much, Dr. Boustany.
Ms. Tauscher.
Ms. Tauscher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Riley and perhaps Mr. Rabbon, I think that in our
circumstance in the Bay Delta, as you know, we have a large
watershed, we have a lot of wetlands, we have a big bay, we
have a bunch of rivers. What we have are hundreds of miles of
levees. Only two are Federal levees, which I am now gaining the
importance of that.
And many of them are private levees. This is agricultural
land, and many of them have been built over the last 100 years,
some of them tended to occasionally, some of them tended to and
breached, some of them completely ignored. I guess I need
clarification on how exactly we are going to fit into all this,
because specifically, in our case, there couldn't be in my mind
more critical infrastructure. I think it crosses across these
many different definitions of what is important. Twenty-two
million Californians get their drinking water from there. There
are hundreds of thousands of people whose lives depend on the
safety and security of these levees, because they are in the
way. Agricultural property, not only the value of it, but we
are the breadbasket of the world.
So there is a lot of this. So how do I get assurance that,
number one, we are going to be classified as critical
infrastructure, and make sure that we are covered in the bill
that Chairman Duncan is working on, but also how do we get out
from this definitional problem of not being, of being treated
like a second class citizen because we are not Federal levees?
General Riley. Ma'am, if I could just address that in
comparison to the Dam Safety Program, with all those different
aspects of the National Dam Safety Program, it would catch
something like that in a levee safety program. Because the
value of the data base, the geospatial data base and the
inventory, then assessments targeted on the highest risk areas,
whether they are Federal or non-Federal. Of course, we would
look to the States to take the lead on assessments of non-
Federal.
But through that program, and the interagency committee and
the safety board, then lay out policies, procedures and
guidelines and priorities of where to focus the limited amount
of funds that I am sure would be available.
Ms. Tauscher. Mr. Rabbon?
Mr. Rabbon. If I might add, you are talking of
approximately 730 miles of non-Federal levees in the delta area
for your area of interest. So that is a major problem. The
State has been providing some minimal funding to help support
the maintenance of those non-Federal levees. But as the General
had said, the way this legislation is written, these levees
will be a part of the program. The downside is because they are
non-Federal, they will probably not be eligible for Federal
programs where they can receive funding.
At this point, I might toss out a very rough number the
State has put together to make the delta levees, just the
critical delta levees, reasonably flood resistant and
reasonably seismic resistant. That number is $5 billion.
Ms. Tauscher. Money well spent in my opinion.
But let's just say this. I think we have identified a
rhetorical problem, that is non-trivial to say the least. And I
am very anxious to work with the Chairman on this. Because in
our specific case, you have a confluence of issues that are
very hot button issues. You have private property and property
rights. You have basic, completely unregulated levee
construction, levee maintenance, to the effect that it exists.
But at the same time, I think no one can dismiss the fact
that this is highly critical infrastructure, not only to health
and safety, water quality, the agricultural business, and then
you have the seismic issue, which on top of just the low
maintenance and bad construction and private property domain
that these levees exist in, in California obviously every once
in a while the earth shakes and bad things can happen.
So I am very anxious, Mr. Chairman, to work with you,
because obviously we want to get captured. But once again, we
have to be very mindful of private property rights and the fact
that that is an issue that we have to deal with as we look to
find a way to regulate and maintain and protect. Thank you very
much.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much, Ms. Tauscher.
Mr. Miller.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When you are going
about doing a geotechnical review and you do borings on native
soil, it gives you a lot of insight as to what you are looking
at, because you know what the structure of the soil is at
different levels. But once you move soil and it is moved by
man, it takes on a much more less substantial tone, it tends to
be more prone to wear from water, to erosion and such.
So how do you go about doing an assessment for risk on
levees, General, that you are unaware exactly of how they were
put together originally?
General Riley. Yes, sir, if we are unaware, if we don't
have any of the plans or specifications or anybody that has
worked on that project, soil borings would clearly help
determine the strength and stability of the levee. Then we
would have to look at all the conditions surrounding that
levee, the hydrologic conditions, what kind of development
around it, what is the latest flood of record, what is the
history of flooding in that area, to determine how it responded
during the past floods. So all those kinds of factors would be
taken into account to determine not just the structural
stability, but how it would act within the system of levees.
Mr. Miller. So you are going to do a hydrology report to
determine the amount of flow to a region.
General Riley. Yes.
Mr. Miller. You are going to do borings on private and
State levees where you don't have specifications available to
you. What is the cost going to be per mile to do an assessment
that is a realistic assessment?
General Riley. Yes, sir, I have asked that question and
there is no answer to that, because it would be so changeable,
depending on the conditions.
Mr. Miller. It would not be inexpensive.
General Riley. Yes, sir.
Mr. Miller. That is where this whole argument starts to run
into a problem, because to do an adequate risk assessment,
developing safety standards for each individual levee, and they
would vary based on construction and design, what would you
have to do to accomplish that?
General Riley. Sir, what you would have to do is, depending
on, you would have to look at all the design records, all the
construction records, the record of flooding, and do a survey
of the height and the width of the levees, if there is any
question about how it was built, then you would want to go with
soil borings. Then you do the H&H, the hydraulics and hydrology
modeling, to run models of the floods through that area to see
how that would respond. So that's where the expense would come.
And of course, we would look to the States to do that and
take the lead for non-Federal levees. But what we would want to
do is have it all in the data base, so that everybody could
look at it and see and touch and feel and manipulate.
Mr. Miller. I had costs given to me that could equal
$60,000 per mile? Does that sound reasonable?
General Riley. That is not unrealistic.
Mr. Miller. Okay, so $60,000 per mile times how many miles
of levees are you going to review?
General Riley. The Corps has 9,000 that we--
Mr. Miller. How many haven't you reviewed that we are
considering you reviewing, private and otherwise?
General Riley. I'm not sure I could even guess a number on
the total non-Federal levees.
Mr. Miller. This $20 million could be--
General Riley. Oh, no, sir, you are talking the $20
million, the $30 million in the appropriations last year, we
proposed another $20 million for the inventory, setting up the
data base, the methodology for assessments. And just to get to
the most critical Federal levees, that would be ones that we
built and maintained, build and turn over to States and
maintain or incorporate in our system or the National Flood
Insurance Program, can be up to $400 million to assess, the
Federal. The non-Federal is separate from that, of course.
Mr. Miller. Then we get to the next question, which I have
a problem with. Once this is accomplished, and once we
determine that the levees are safe, your comments said that we
should require flood insurance for up to a 500 year flood on
any area subject to inundation should a levee fail. How
realistic is that? If you build a dam and you mitigate an area,
that will take it out of the 100 year floodplain. You build a
dam or a levee, and you take it out of the 500 year floodplain.
The 500 year floodplain is a very, very large area, in many
cases. Don't you think that's an unrealistic requirement for
the Federal Government to place on people to have to get flood
insurance in those 500 year floodplain areas, when we have
taken it out of the impact?
Ms. Pogue. I don't, and here is why. First of all, as the
General mentioned, I think one of the things that is very, very
important which is why it is important, which is what you are
getting to, to linking floodplain management with levee safety
and dam safety, is I do not know with the dams that I have in
Rhode Island what the areas of inundation are, exactly what
those areas of inundation are.
I think if one thing has been pointed out through the
various pieces of legislation on the Hill since Katrina is
people need to know the risks. Whether it is in the FEMA Map
Mod program, whether it is in the levee safety program, people
really need to understand why they are at risk, where they are
at risk and how they are at risk. So I do think it is
important.
One other thing that I think, though, when you talk about
mandatory purchase of flood insurance, getting to this residual
risk issue, is I think that there needs to be a better
understanding of what we are talking about when we are talking
about the policy costs of what FEMA calls a preferred risk
policy. People can live in a 500 year floodplain, which as you
say, it can be very, very large, or as we say, fat.
However, a preferred risk policy which has the same
coverage can only cost anywhere from like $122 a year. So we
are not talking about people living way far away from water or
a water course and having to pay $5,000 annual premiums. The
preferred risk policy, which also covers those people in a 500
year floodplain, is much less expensive.
Mr. Miller. If you take an area such as the Sacramento
area, it is the second largest flood plain in the Nation other
than the Mojave Desert, you are taking into consideration a
huge area of development. And the closer you get to the river
area, the higher the assessment is going to be based on the
insurance premiums.
I think it is a huge windfall for insurance companies. But
I am not sure it is a Federal mandate that should be applied. I
think that the States or local agencies should apply that
mandate, whether the Federal Government designed a standard
that States must comply.
So I have a problem with the Federal Government making that
mandate. If the State wants to do it, Massachusetts,
California, they want to implement that, then I think that is
wholly reasonable. But I think it is wholly unreasonable for
the Federal Government to place a mandate.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Duncan. Very good point, Mr. Miller.
Mrs. Schmidt.
Mrs. Schmidt. Yes, I have a question for you, Ms. Pogue. I
am sorry I am late, I had to vote on another bill. But I was
reading some of the remarks that you had at the end of your
testimony. They are pretty extensive in which you would like to
see included in the language of the bill.
Have you had a cost assessment of some of these as well as
a property assessment of some of these requirements that you
would like to see added to the bill?
Ms. Pogue. I am sorry, could you be more specific in terms
of what in particular?
Mrs. Schmidt. Let me go back and look. Page 9 of 10,
Section 7. You want us to consider delaying the legislation to
set up a national levee safety program until the inventory is
completed in three years, whereupon added data is available to
design such a program, if included. You recommend adding after
economically, socially and environmentally, you add and to
build public awareness of the risks and to build the State
capacity for levee safety programs.
I just want to know, in wordsmithing such as this, there is
usually a cost attached to these things. Have you done a cost
analysis of what this would add to the burden of the Federal
Government?
Ms. Pogue. No, I have not. It is difficult to do a cost
analysis which is why I think what we have said, in agreement
with everybody else on the panel, it is difficult to try to
quantify the magnitude of the problem when we don't even know
the size of the problem, because we don't know how many levees
are out there, what condition they are in or so forth. Which is
why under Section 7 in that paragraph, the emphasis really is
on getting the inventory competed, not only the inventory in
terms of the number and location, but also the actual risk, how
much risk this is posing to this many people. Then you can
start working with costs to try to determine what this is going
to cost.
Mrs. Schmidt. I don't have any other questions at this
time, thank you.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much, Ms. Schmidt.
Mr. Shuster.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Another cost question. I think, Ms. Pogue, you are
absolutely right, we have to figure out what the inventory is
and the condition of it as we move forward or we are never
going to know exactly what it is. I think Mrs. Schmidt, your
question is--that is an appropriate question and that is why I
guess we are really trying to get to the bottom of it.
In the levee safety bill, do you think that there needs to
be, we need to strengthen the section concerning cost benefit
analysis? Where do we build a levee? You mentioned, Ms. Pogue,
that we shouldn't be building them in undeveloped areas. But
are there places that there are levees today that we should
look at and say, and there is mitigation, move people out, they
have done that in my hometown of Altoona, Pennsylvania. There
is a floodplain there and we finally got eight houses, we have
given them the money and they have moved out.
So should we strengthen the cost benefit analysis so that
when we are deciding to strengthen levees we ought to be making
that assessment?
Ms. Pogue. I think that is why there were suggestions made
in there in terms of socially and economically and so forth.
When levees were built, and again this gets back to the
inventory and knowing what design standard it is, and what the
risk is that that particular levee poses, when we target, if
you will, certain levees, we are talking about those that are
high risk and medium risk, and why? Because as you are saying,
those are the ones that were built, maybe not to an adequate
standards, but subsequently, a lot of development occurred on
the other side of the levee, which probably wasn't intentioned
when the levee was originally built.
So I think when you are looking at socioeconomic factors,
and I think Mr. Rabbon talked about, and perhaps Dr. Nicholson,
about how with the Army Corps guidance in terms of looking at a
cost benefit analysis, we sort of need to add two things in
there, and that is public safety, health and welfare. And I
think that hopefully will tip the cost benefit analysis.
Mr. Shuster. Right. General, your thoughts on cost benefit
analysis?
General Riley. Yes, sir, I clearly agree. Within our
principles and guidelines, there remains a great deal of
flexibility. A little more than a year ago, we published
engineering regulations which descried that all of our planning
studies will look at not just the national economic
development, but also regional economics, environmental and
what is categorized as other social effects, where loss of life
would be a very important factor. So we are requiring all of
our planning studies to look at all four of those accounts.
We state you must identify the national economic
development alternative, but select that one which best meets
the needs of the Nation. So we have already directed that those
kinds of factors be considered. In our budgeting process as
well, not just our planning process, but our budgeting process,
risk to loss of life is also a factor in our budgeting.
Mr. Shuster. I saw in New Orleans, what the Chairman was
saying about earlier, I am no engineer, but when I was in New
Orleans, where the breach occurred, I don't know which one,
maybe 17th Street, Canal Street, there were yards, the levees
were part of people's yards. There were trees planted in it.
Across the canal on the other side, there was an access road, a
barrier, then the buildings started.
So again, from an amateur's eye or layman's eye, it just
seemed obvious to me that that had to contribute to the failure
of the levee, having the trees in people's back yards and other
structures there.
In your analysis in New Orleans, I saw the breakdown where
it was somewhere between $3.5 billion and $10 billion to raise
the standards of the levees, but 8 percent of the population in
some off those outlying parishes, about 8 percent, was going to
cost $3 billion or $4 billion. My staff did a quick analysis
that is $250,000 per person, man, woman and child. That just
seems to me that if I lived there and somebody offered me, not
$250,000, but some kind of money, they would grab it and run
out of there, and we could use it for some other purpose.
The second question I have, have you learned anything from
our international partners around the world? For instance, the
Dutch, I know they build their levees to the 15,000 year
floodplain, which I don't know who was around 15,000 years ago
to be able to determine that. But what are your thoughts about
that, General?
General Riley. Yes, sir. We have the Dutch on our planning
teams. We have them also on the forensics team, as well as the
Japanese, who have great experience in this. So we are clearly
eager to accept any and all advice in our interagency
performance evaluation team, which Dr. Nicholson is doing the
external review on.
We have 50 different agencies and organizations represented
in that. So we are serious about bringing in all the expertise
we possibly can get.
Mr. Shuster. Do any of the rest of you care to comment on
anything you have learned internationally from the Dutch or the
Italians? Even the Russians in St. Petersburg have a
significant concern up there, with that city.
Mr. Nicholson. Yes, as well, we have, in our assessment
team, when we went to New Orleans, we had both Japanese and
Dutch participation. And as well, we have Dutch participation
on our review panel of the Corps' investigation.
Ms. Pogue. I will make one comment. In February I was
invited as the chair of ASFPM to speak before the French
Parliament. They had quite a gathering, over 200 people from
around Europe. The one comment I will make, which is less on
structural design and so forth, is more on the people's psyche.
In those areas of the country, where they have been at this for
a much longer time, there is just an absolute accepted practice
of mitigation. It is just accepted, it is believed in, it is
without question and it is looked upon as an investment rather
than expense.
So I think it is sort of in people's behavior, it is much
different over there in terms of they accept the risk and they
know the risk and they are willing to do something about it.
Mr. Shuster. Is that the French or just Europeans in
general? Or are you talking about the Dutch?
Ms. Pogue. Well, there was a Dutch panelist who advocated
that, a German panelist and a French panelist, particularly in
the Noire Valley and in those areas.
Mr. Shuster. Mitigation meaning moving people or building
up stronger?
Ms. Pogue. Mitigation--exactly. Mitigation meaning moving
people if need be, meaning elevating structures, meaning don't
build there to begin with. Basically long term looks at
reducing flood impacts.
Mr. Shuster. My time is up, so I will yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Duncan. Are you through, or did you want something
else?
Mr. Shuster. I have another question if that is all right.
Mr. Duncan. Go right ahead.
Mr. Shuster. On the Dam Safety Bill, which the levee safety
program is modeled after, could you comment on, I think Ms.
Pogue, you mentioned there were some weaknesses in it. Could
you all sort of comment on what you think the Dam Safety Bill
needs to strengthen, as well as, I think you touched on the Dam
Safety Bill, $10 million is not enough? I think you are right.
Ms. Pogue. The Dam Safety Bill, first of all, thank God,
they did it when they did it. I will say, if not for that bill
and that program, Rhode Island would never have figured out how
many dams we have and how many are at risk and how many are
categorized. So it is a great starting point.
The disconnect, however, is that dams are built or dams are
taken down and there is no sort of, and the General referred to
it in sort of a watershed concept in terms of planning and
management, looking at that more holistic approach.
So unfortunately, I think what is happening, at least in
our State, and many States with the Dam Safety Bill, is they
are not incorporating floodplain management principles when
dams are built or taken down or so forth, or when there is
development on the other side of a dam or as a levee. So I
think the point we are trying to make is start with that, but
then you really need to incorporate the principles of
floodplain management into levee design and safety.
Mr. Shuster. Anybody else?
Mr. Rabbon. One very short comment, which I think we need
to pay attention to, because of what we have here, California
has an outstanding dam safety program. It was because there was
a dam failure and people lost their lives.
Mr. Shuster. My district does not have Johnstown,
Pennsylvania, but I live about 35 miles from there and over
2,000 people in the late 1800s were killed because that dam was
not properly constructed.
Anybody else care to comment?
General Riley. Sir, the only comment I would make, not on
the Act itself, but on the implementation, the Corps does have
the authority in that Act to inspect any dam, regardless of
Federal or not. We have not done that, primarily one, we would
want the States to request our assistance, and when they do
that, then we assist. Nor is there any general funding to do
that.
The other piece is the upgraded data base, geospatial data
base, it would be best to use it for that, too. Of course, we
have that technology now. Not the funding to do that, but that
is one of those things that we could do better in the
implementation.
Mr. Duncan. Mr. Shuster, thank you very much. I think we
are getting close to some votes. Mr. Taylor has a couple of
follow-up questions.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General, and again, I don't want to cast aspersions on the
efforts of this bill, because it is certainly a noble cause. My
question is the difference between identifying problems and
fixing problems. And I guess the for instance I would like to
use is, what was the dollar amount of levees that the Corps had
identified prior to August 1 of 2005 that became in effect an
unfunded requirement to be fixed, just in the New Orleans area?
Could you give me an idea?
General Riley. No, sir, I don't think I could right now. I
would have to take that one for the record. Would you please?
Because the one that sticks out in my mind is I remember going
all the way back to 1971, the Coast Guard at New Orleans being
told they were going to move their base so the Industrial Canal
locks, which were getting ready to fail in 1971, could be
moved. It is now 2005, and if my memory serves me right, those
Industrial Canal locks are still sitting in the exact same
place.
So that is just one for instance of what I guess is going
to be a billion, multi-billion dollar tab of things you had
identified prior to the storm that needed to be fixed, but for
lack of funding didn't. And again, so I guess I just want to
point out that it is pretty easy to identify problems. The hard
part for this Congress has been coming up with the funds to fix
those things once you identify that. But I really would like to
have that for the record.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Duncan. I thank you very much, Mr. Taylor. Certainly
you are correct about that.
Dr. Ehlers.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really have no
questions, because I am hopping between three subcommittee
meetings. But as a scientist, I am fascinated with this topic.
I appreciate the evidence you brought, and I appreciate your
holding the hearing, Mr. Chairman. With that, I will yield
back.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much.
Ms. Johnson.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. To the
panelists, in most of today's testimony, there is general
criticism that the funding levels in H.R. 4650 are insufficient
to meet the need. So what would each of you suggest would be a
more appropriate level of funding for the scope of levees
included?
Mr. Nicholson. I will go ahead and speak. As you mentioned,
my spoken testimony here, we suggested approximately doubling
the appropriations amount, essentially front-end loading that
for the inventory, which has to be the starting point of this.
So essentially put that $20 million a year for the first three
years to get that inventory done. Before we have that
inventory, we don't really know where to go.
Ms. Pogue. I think at this point, we had gone somewhere
between--I feel like I am playing with monopoly money, doubling
or tripling, but the point being, as Dr. Nicholson is saying,
it does need to be front-end loaded, so that you can get the
inventory started and start to get an idea of what the
magnitude of the problem is, as I had mentioned.
Mr. Rabbon. NAFSMA does not have a recommendation for the
additional amount of funding, but we do concur the first step
must be the levee inventory. And after that, I think it would
be easier to propose a number.
General Riley. Yes, ma'am, our planning right now, of
course we have $30 million that you provided last December, $20
million in our 2007 budget. It looks to get through our phasing
of the inventories over the period of the next three years we
would need about $20 million a year, which would be inclusive
of that that's already been either provided or in our budget.
Now, to move on to an assessment phase, that is a different
story, which we really don't have a true estimate. The bill
asks us to develop the methodology to do that assessment. So we
are in the process of doing that now.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much to the witnesses. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you.
Dr. Boozman.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As you know, FEMA and the Corps are placing a lot of
scrutiny on levees throughout the Country, including in my
district. Is it possible to investigate the integrity of the
levees in a satisfactory way without requiring outright
certification?
My second question is, should there be different
requirements concerning Federal versus non-Federal. What is
your thinking on those questions?
General Riley. Sir, if I could address the first one, there
is, of course, a FEMA requirement for certification for those
levees in the National Flood Insurance Program. We certify that
both structurally and in the hydrology, we would have to model
the 100 year storm to go through there and see how that would
respond, and determine the appropriate height.
You separate that now from your structural question, and it
is certainly possible to structurally determine the capability
of a levee to determine, and its capability to withstand a
certain year of floods. So we could determine the assessment of
a levee, whether it is a 20 year storm of 50 year storm or 100
or 200. Separate from the FEMA's national flood insurance
program.
Mr. Boozman. How about the Federal versus the non-Federal,
different standards.
General Riley. Sir, the standards ought to be the same.
There is no question. And there are different categories, and
the data base will have all the different categories, but
certainly standards ought to be the same.
Mr. Boozman. Government has a tendency to overreact
sometimes when major events occur and that's not to suggest
that what we're talking about is inappropriate. I am very
supportive of the Chairman.
Along those same lines, regarding the FEMA mapping, I know
there is some talk of areas in Arkansas that might get remapped
in such a way that would cause problems with regard to the
current usage, where we've never had any problems. What is your
feeling? Do you feel like there is a tendency to overreact in
this area?
General Riley. Sir, the Administration has proposed a
national levee inventory in its budget for next year. So that
is our proposal. So we don't think it is an overreaction. We
think it makes eminent sense to have that inventory to know
what we have out there and then to allow us then to focus on
the assessments on the most critical ones.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Dr. Boozman.
General Riley, I am not sure I was understood or was clear
a while ago about, or that it was clear to me what you said
about where you stand now with the $30 million that was in the
supplemental. I thought I heard you say something about three
years time. Where are you?
General Riley. Sir, right now--
Mr. Duncan. People make comments to me throughout the
hearing and sometimes I miss part of the answers. What did you
say?
General Riley. In our inventory, we have got the four
phases planned in our inventory, Mr. Chairman. Phase one is to
begin that geospatial data base, and then phase two, begin to
debate against that, phase three, by the end of 2000 [sic],
then incorporate and refine the data base and bring in all the
Federal and non-Federal levees into the data base.
That, by the end of next year, up to about $40 million to
do that, those two pieces. And then another, phase four, when
you complete this detailed inventory, another $20 million to
$40 million. So that is what I was saying is, with the $30
million appropriated, the $20 million in our budget, that will
be necessary to get this moving and it will get it off to a
great start for the next two years. What we would need probably
to complete that is about $20 million a year for the following
two years.
Mr. Duncan. So if I understood you correctly, it would take
you about four years from now to complete the inventory?
General Riley. Yes, sir.
Mr. Duncan. Okay.
And Mr. Rabbon, can you tell us where you stand? We have
been hearing and reading about all the rains in the Sacramento
area and so forth. I know that you have, or the State of
California has declared an emergency regarding their levees. I
am told that you are in the process of repairing 24 critical
levees. Are most of those in that area that we are hearing
about? Or what is the situation?
General Riley. Yes.
Mr. Duncan. You are going to complete that by the end of
this year, is that correct?
Mr. Rabbon. The intent is for the State of California and
the Corps of Engineers to complete construction on the 24
critical erosion sites. And those have been identified
primarily because the levees that we are looking at protect
highly urbanized areas. We actually have over 180 erosion sites
throughout the Sacramento River flood control system.
Mr. Duncan. All right. Well, we are getting into these
votes now. Let me just, I am not going to be able to ask all
these questions. But I do want to ask one of Ms. Pogue and Dr.
Nicholson, separate questions. Ms. Pogue, in your testimony,
you suggest that the Federal Government, including the Corps of
Engineers, should not be performing the detailed engineering
assessments for non-Federal levees. Who should be responsible,
and why do you say that or suggest that?
Ms. Pogue. I think again that gets back to what
Representative Boustany brought up, and that is that it is a
Federal, State and local problem. It needs to be shared. I
think when those levees are regionally owned, county owned or
local or State owned, they bear the burden of trying to have
those engineered and surveyed.
So it is either going to be engineering staff on State
departments, which we don't have in Rhode Island, so it is
basically the private sector, private engineers. But I think
that burden again goes back to the States and goes back to the
local governments to bear that brunt.
Mr. Duncan. Well, on most things, we find that the private
sector, and then the local and State governments can do things
a little more cheaply and economically than the Federal
Government. Do you find that also?
Ms. Pogue. Not only do I agree with that, but I think also
often, more expeditiously as well.
Mr. Duncan. All right. Dr. Nicholson, you suggest setting
up a system of independent peer reviews on all these federally
funded levee projects. We have added some of that for the
bigger projects into the WRDA bill that we passed. Why do you
think that is important, and how much do you think something
like that would cost? Do you have any rough guess?
Mr. Nicholson. No, I don't have an estimate on the costs
associated. But what we find is that in most cases, certainly
for large dams, even if those are constructed by Federal
agencies, those will most often have an external peer review.
Because there is no one single, even though there may be a
standard, every dam is going to be different, the levees now in
the same way that dams may be protecting or providing flood
mitigation for urbanized areas.
Mr. Duncan. Well, the problem I see, already they are
talking about $60,000 per mile for just the assessment phase.
If you start adding in all kinds of extra things already, then
I just don't, it is just like talking about the Dutch. We
certainly want to use their expertise and their suggestions.
But we are so much bigger, that we can't really do exactly what
they have done all over this Country without spending our
entire Federal budget on some of these things. So that is the
problem, I think.
Mr. Nicholson. I don't think really it is a whole lot of
extras. Having an external peer review is not necessarily going
to have near the cost of doing the evaluations. When we talk
about the costs of actually doing evaluations or assessments of
these embankments--
Mr. Duncan. Sir, I tell you what. If we are going to take
your suggestion seriously, though, why don't you send us an
estimate specifically, as specific and detailed as possible, as
to how much that would cost and how much time it would add to
the process, okay?
Mr. Nicholson. We could look into that, sure.
Mr. Duncan. Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate the
testimony and the answers of all the witnesses. This has been a
very good panel. Thank you very much, and that will conclude
this hearing.
[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8280.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8280.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8280.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8280.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8280.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8280.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8280.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8280.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8280.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8280.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8280.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8280.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8280.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8280.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8280.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8280.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8280.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8280.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8280.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8280.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8280.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8280.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8280.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8280.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8280.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8280.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8280.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8280.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8280.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8280.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8280.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8280.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8280.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8280.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8280.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8280.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8280.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8280.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8280.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8280.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8280.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8280.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8280.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8280.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8280.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8280.046