- HURRICANE PREPAREDNESS IN THE GRAND STRAND

[Senate Hearing 109-1116]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

S. Hrg. 109-1116

HURRICANE PREPAREDNESS
IN THE GRAND STRAND

=======================================================================

FIELD HEARING

before the

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISASTER
PREVENTION AND PREDICTION

of the

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

__________

AUGUST 10, 2005

__________

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
64-525 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Co-
CONRAD BURNS, Montana Chairman
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas Virginia
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada BARBARA BOXER, California
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia BILL NELSON, Florida
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
JIM DeMINT, South Carolina FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
Lisa J. Sutherland, Republican Staff Director
Christine Drager Kurth, Republican Deputy Staff Director
David Russell, Republican Chief Counsel
Margaret L. Cummisky, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Samuel E. Whitehorn, Democratic Deputy Director and General Counsel
Lila Harper Helms, Democratic Policy Director
------

Subcommittee on Disaster Prevention and Prediction

JIM DeMINT, South Carolina, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana BILL NELSON, Florida

C O N T E N T S

----------
Page
Hearing held on August 10, 2005.................................. 1
Statement of Senator DeMint...................................... 1

Witnesses

Cantore, Jim, On-Air Meteorologist, The Weather Channel.......... 9
Dean, Brad, President/CEO, Myrtle Beach Area Chamber of Commerce. 3
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Gandy, Jim, Chief Meteorologist, WLTX-TV, Columbia, SC........... 23
Prepared statement........................................... 26
Prevatt, David O., Ph.D., PE, Assistant Professor and Director,
Wind Load Test Facility, Department of Civil Engineering,
Clemson University............................................. 12
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Whitten, Paul D., Director, Horry County Public Safety Division.. 20
Prepared statement........................................... 22

HURRICANE PREPAREDNESS
IN THE GRAND STRAND

----------

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 10, 2005

U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Disaster Prevention and Prediction,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Myrtle Beach, SC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:00 a.m. at
the Springmaid Beach Resort and Conference Center, Myrtle
Beach, SC, Hon. Jim DeMint, Chairman of the Subcommittee,
presiding.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JIM DeMINT,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA

Senator DeMint. Well, I'd like to call to order the first
field hearing of the Disaster Prevention and Prediction
Subcommittee. This is a Subcommittee that I'm Chairman of. It
was formed after the tsunamis but in recognition that our
country needs to do a lot more to be prepared for disasters,
whether they be natural or otherwise, and that we do whatever
we can to prevent the loss of life and property damage.
So, this morning the Committee will be hearing testimony
about the state of preparedness in the Grand Strand, and
hopefully we can get suggestions on things that we can do to be
more prepared and, in any way we can, to prevent the loss of
life, economic loss, and damage to property. So, I appreciate
all of my witnesses being here today.
You know, as we witnessed last year in Florida, hurricanes
can have a tremendous impact on life and property. The four
major hurricanes that made landfall were all among the top ten
most costly hurricanes in history and accounted for a total of
over $21 billion in combined insured losses. And this is more
than the insured losses from the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon attacks in 2001.
Unfortunately, from what we've heard from witnesses before
in this Subcommittee, we can expect seasons like last years to
be the norm for possibly the next two decades. Just last month,
the Subcommittee heard from Max Mayfield, Director of the
National Hurricane Center. He discussed NOAA's 2005 hurricane
season prediction, which, at the time, called for 12 to 15
tropical storms, of which 7 to 9 would become hurricanes, which
would be a pretty active season.
Unfortunately, as we all learned last week, NOAA's May
prediction most likely underestimated the total number of
tropical storms we're going to see this year. Instead of the 12
to 15 storms predicted in May, it's more likely we're going to
see 18 to 21 storms this season, and 9 to 11 of them are going
to be hurricanes.
While the brunt of this year's and last year's hurricane
season were focused on the Florida and Gulf Coast, we can't
expect it to continue indefinitely. With the forecast for an
increasing number of hurricanes for the next two decades, we
can expect that, sometime in the near future, we will see a
major hurricane make landfall in or near the Grand Strand. The
state and local governments have been working hard to prepare
for the possibility of a major hurricane making landfall here.
I hope those of you who are here from out of town took note
of the blue and white evacuation signs. I know the locals know
which arteries they need to take to get out of town in the
event of a major storm making landfall here in the Grand
Strand.
I know that the state and local governments appreciate the
threat posed by these storms and are doing all they can to
prepare for the storms. But a lot of the preparation falls to
citizens.
Everyone should have a family hurricane disaster plan that
stocks the necessary supplies in the event that you have to
shelter in place during a storm or if you lose power.
Homeowners and builders should consider using disaster-
resistant building materials that will help protect their homes
from the rain associated with hurricanes. If a homeowner can
keep the rain out of their house during a storm, the damage
would be much less severe.
If the Federal Government, the state and local governments,
and, most importantly, local citizens work together, we can
dramatically reduce the damage caused by these storms.
This morning, we're going to hear from a number of
witnesses who will help provide insights into how we can better
prepare our communities. I'm looking forward to the comments of
Jim Gandy, South Carolina's weatherman, on how our local
communities can better prepare for storms that will impact our
communities in the coming years. He has advised governors on
preparing for storms, and I'm looking forward to his insights.
Also appearing this morning will be Dr. David Prevatt, from
Clemson's Wind Load Test Facility, to discuss how the winds
associated with hurricanes impact structures. Clemson's work to
model the impact of severe storms provides important
discoveries into how we can better construct our buildings to
resist severe storms.
Living in a coastal community exposed to hurricanes, I'm
sure many of you have watched The Weather Channel's Storm
Stories or have seen the on-air meteorologist, Jim Cantore,
report from the field. I appreciate him being here this
morning. He has been in the eye of many storms, and I know he's
going to have important perspectives on what these
communities--what our communities could do to better prepare.
Also appearing this morning will be Paul Whitten, the
Public Safety Director for Horry County. Mr. Whitten is
responsible for planning and preparation that ensures that,
when a storm does impact the Grand Strand, that the community
is prepared. I will be interested to hear how he works with the
various governments and community groups to ensure that Myrtle
Beach is prepared for one of these storms.
Finally, we'll be hearing from Mr. Brad Dean, President of
the Myrtle Beach Chamber of Commerce. The economy of Myrtle
Beach depends, to a large degree, on the vitality of the
tourism industry, which is directly impacted by local and
regional weather, particularly the threat of hurricanes. Mr.
Dean will be discussing local industry's preparation for
hurricanes and the impact that those storms have on local
businesses.
In the past, we've seen periods where hurricane activity
was as high as it is now, but development was not nearly as
dense in our coastal communities as it is today. Tourism and
coastal businesses are an essential part of the Grand Strand
and South Carolina's economy. We must work today to ensure that
we are prepared for a storm when it hits and that we can
recover quickly and get back to business as soon as possible.
While these storms are dramatic events when they make
landfall, they are relatively rare events. Day in and day out,
visitors should enjoy the beautiful beaches we have here in
Myrtle Beach and enjoy all that South Carolina has to offer.
With that, I'll ask our witnesses to make their opening
statements. And if you could confine your statements to five
minutes, I'd appreciate it. If you've got a longer statement,
we will make it part of the official record.
And that is, I think, an important note. The purpose of
this Committee is to collect official information that we can
submit to all the Committee staff who are developing
legislation. It gives us, certainly, the information we need to
convince other Senators to follow our lead on whatever needs to
be done from developing new legislation. So, this is part of
the official record, and it's an official hearing, and I
appreciate all of you taking part in it.
Why don't we start with Mr. Dean? And we will take
statements from everyone. I'll ask some questions, and then, I
mentioned to some of the panelists, if you have questions of
others or comments that you'd like to make in addition to what
someone else has said, we want to get all the information we
can before we leave today.
So, Mr. Dean, if you'll start us off, I'd appreciate it.

STATEMENT OF BRAD DEAN, PRESIDENT/CEO,
MYRTLE BEACH AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

Mr. Dean. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me, if you'll
indulge me, begin with my professional obligation, as President
of the Chamber, welcoming you and all the panelists and
visitors here today to the Grand Strand. We certainly are
delighted to see them. And it's one of the few times where we
are excited and pleased to see Jim Cantore arrive. Normally
when Mr. Cantore arrives, it is not with good news, so we're
welcoming him, as well, today. Thank you all for being here.
Mr. Chairman, as you know and indicated in your opening
comments, travel and tourism is one of the Nation's largest
industries, certainly the largest industry in South Carolina.
Whether you measure that by retail sales, employment, or
economic outlook, it is certainly an important industry for the
Southeastern United States and the United States in general.
Here in South Carolina, tourism is big business. It's a $15
billion industry. And the Grand Strand, the area from Little
River, North Carolina, to Georgetown, is one-third of the
State's tourism economy. Though it is an industry made up of
small businesses, it is truly big business in South Carolina.
And the economic impact extends far beyond the coastline.
Tourism pays for bridges, for roads, for economic development;
it even pays for schools. So, what's good for tourism is good
for South Carolina. And, certainly, what's good for tourism is
good for America.
There has been much debate within the tourism industry and
outside the tourism industry on the recent release of the five-
day forecast. The five-day forecast, because of its inherent
inaccuracy, especially in light of the very accurate three-day
forecast, caused much concern. And I can tell you from the
perspective of the Myrtle Beach Area Chamber, where we handle
hundreds of thousands of phone calls from prospective visitors
each year, just the mention of a tropical storm that could make
its way to the Eastern United States will start the phones
ringing. And the minute that the Carolinas or Myrtle Beach, in
specific, is mentioned as part of that potential five-day
forecast track, it is not at all uncommon to receive hundreds
of calls each hour, with visitors not sure if they should come.
That has clearly been a trend that we have seen, and it has not
changed. If anything, that has grown in the sensitivity--some
might call, the panic--associated with potential five-day
forecasts causes many potential visitors to call and express
concern and perhaps change vacation patterns.
Bear in mind that a big day in tourism along the Grand
Strand is $40 million a day. And that doesn't count the
millions of dollars of state and local taxes. So, the slightest
change in forecasting can very well cause millions of dollars
of economic impact. Although I would go so far as to say, Mr.
Chairman--and I think I speak for the entire tourism industry
when I say that the issue here today is not economics.
Certainly, the most important factor that we all must consider,
and I think would all agree, is safety--safety of visitors,
safety of residents--and securing the safety and well-being of
those who are here, and planning to arrive here. So, the
ultimate discussion is not about the economic impact, but what
we do to minimize that, as well as to maximize the safety and
well-being of our residents and visitors.
We find that the accuracy of forecasting with the three-day
forecast has enabled our local emergency planners--most
notably, Mr. Whitten and those who work with him, as well as
the American Red Cross and other local agencies, as well as
businesses--sufficient time to plan for and handle storms that
may be approaching the coastline and could eventually fall
here. But we don't, certainly, want to rely on what has worked
in the past.
We understand--let me be very clear--we understand that the
five-day forecast is here to stay. One of our chief goals is to
work with NOAA, the National Weather Service, the community of
meteorologists, as well as emergency planners, to ensure that,
if we are to use a five-day forecast, it should be as accurate
as possible. We believe that an accurate five-day forecast will
not only enhance the safety and well-being of our residents and
visitors, it could also enhance tourism, because tourism, in
some respects, lives and dies off of weather, good or bad. But
we believe that the five-day forecast will be far more useful
when its accuracy is improved. And, though I certainly
recognize that it is improving, and has improved in the recent
years it has been used, we would hope to see the day, sometime
soon, when the five-day forecast is every bit as useful as a
three-day forecast in projecting exactly where landfall may be.
Mr. Chairman, let me also echo your comments and say that I
certainly agree with you, when we look at the pace of
development. We have heard that hurricanes are likely to be
more frequent along the coast of South Carolina, and
particularly the Eastern United States. One other trend that is
clear and not going to change anytime soon, and one that we
welcome, is the growth of visitors and residents along the
coast of South Carolina. This is a high-growth area. One
doesn't have to travel too far from where we're sitting today
to see development that is geared toward that projected growth.
So, with more people coming to the coast, and more storms
expected, your point is very well taken, and I applaud you,
your Subcommittee Members, as well as Chairman Stevens and
Senator Inouye, for hosting such hearings to address what we
need to do in the future to maximize safety and minimize the
economic impact of this.
There are a lot of suggestions that can be made, and we
will hear some of those today. But we do believe that a
proactive approach to development to prepare for the eventual
storm that we have not seen in any recent year that would make
landfall here, as well as striving to improve the accuracy of
the forecasting models, will benefit all--residents,
businesses, and government.
We believe that, here along the coast, and particularly in
Horry County, we have demonstrated a model that has worked
extremely well, with a close, ongoing, collaborative
partnership between local government, state government,
businesses, as well as public and private agencies, who work
seamlessly to plan for, prepare for, and, ultimately, handle
storms and the after-effect of storms.
I would note that the economic cost of a hurricane starts
long before it would ever make landfall and lasts sometimes
weeks or months after it has made landfall. But we cannot
simply look for the days before and after the storm, but,
rather, to be prepared for and handle all such effects that we
would see with a large storm approaching the coast of South
Carolina.
Again, let me reiterate that safety certainly should be our
top concern. And none of us, particularly those of us in the
tourism industry, would ever suggest that anything other than
safety is most important. But we certainly strive to balance
that with the economic impact that a storm could have, even if
it's only projected along the coast. When it comes to this, I
assure you, the tourism industry will someday be the biggest
proponent of the five-day forecast that'll let us put behind
us, perhaps, past disagreements over forecasting models and
simply strive together to work to make sure that those which
are used and publicized are as accurate as possible.
Again, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman and your
Subcommittee, for hosting this hearing along the Grand Strand.
I also want to take the opportunity to thank those at NOAA, the
National Weather Service, and the community of meteorologists.
They probably feel, sometimes, that the tourism industry does
not appreciate the work they do. We do, in fact. What they do
is very important work, and it is essential to the safety and
well-being, not only of our visitors and residents, but of our
tourism economy. We believe that when we continue the
collaborative effort, ongoing discussion, thorough analysis,
and the involvement of individuals like those on this panel
today, that we will find solutions to enhance the potential
effectiveness of our preparation and prepare for those days
when storms do arrive here, even with more residents and
visitors along the Grand Strand.
Again, Mr. Chairman, welcome to the Grand Strand, and thank
you for your time today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dean follows:]

Prepared Statement of Brad Dean, President/CEO,
Myrtle Beach Area Chamber of Commerce

Summary
Tourism is a major industry along the Grand Strand and in South
Carolina. The state's tourism industry accounts for $15 billion of
economic impact, in addition to over $1 billion in state and local
taxes. The Grand Strand accounts for nearly one-third that amount.
Grand Strand tourism peaks in the summer, with as many as 500,000 daily
visitors spending in excess of $40 million.
The use of the five-day hurricane forecast has a negative impact on
tourism, as it projects possible strikes with a broad ``cone of
uncertainty'' that spans hundreds of miles. The result of the five-day
forecast is two-fold: it unnecessarily projects a path that is far from
certain, potentially scaring tourists away; and it can lead to such
consistently inaccurate results that residents and visitors accumulate
a false sense of security through experience based upon the consistent
inaccuracy of the five-day forecast.
The five-day forecast was implemented with little or no input from
the tourism industry, but it appears this forecast is here to stay.
Ultimately, the solution is not eliminating the five-day forecast but,
rather, improving it. If the five-day forecast were as accurate as the
three-day forecast is today, the tourism industry would welcome its
use. The best possible solution is improved weather forecasting,
yielding a five-day forecast with a high level of accuracy.
Because we are so significantly impacted by weather and weather
patterns, a weather forecast is a key part of our local tourism trends.
Some estimates indicate that as much as 40 percent of our visitor base
during any week during the summer is dependent on the immediate weather
forecast. This is not surprising when one considers that 44 percent of
the annual visitor traffic to the Myrtle Beach area comes from North
and South Carolina.
A few years ago, when we first learned of the proposed five-day
hurricane forecast, many Grand Strand residents and businesses became
concerned. Knowing that the three-day forecast was far from perfect, we
were justifiably concerned with the planned use of the five-day
forecast. How could the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), a division of the Department of Commerce, expect to implement
this with little or no input from the tourism industry, the very
industry that stands to gain the most from accurate weather reporting
and, likewise, stands to lose the most with inaccurate weather
forecasting. After all, NOAA's mission statement (see Exhibit A)
includes mention of ``improve economic efficiency by providing the best
watches, warnings and forecasts.'' We were told this change was
necessary for the United States Navy to protect its large fleet off the
coast of Florida and, furthermore, that emergency planners along the
coastal regions of the United States preferred the five-day forecast. I
think I can safely speak for the tourism industry when I say that we
had no concerns, then or now, with the use of the five-day forecast by
the U.S. Navy nor emergency planners. After all, both must plan in
advance far before individual citizens need to do so.
What was most concerning was the large margin of error incumbent in
the five-day forecast. By their own admission, meteorologists with NOAA
and the National Weather Service described the massive area of strike
probability a ``cone of uncertainty.'' This area, which can encompass
hundreds of square miles, is accurately referred to as such, since the
use of this five-day forecast has revealed a high degree of inaccuracy
(see Exhibit B).
I have enclosed a document, obtained from the NOAA website, which
shows a graphic representation of the average accuracy of various
hurricane forecasts over a 10-year period. Two observations are clear
and indisputable:

(a) the three-day forecast is far more accurate today than ever
before;

(b) the five-day forecast is far less accurate and not nearly
as reliable as the three-day forecast.

Recent examples of these observations have been witnessed by many.
Hurricane Charley, a serious storm that caused much damage in the
Southeastern United States, made landfall near Punta Gorda, FL, despite
a forecast track that pointed toward Tampa Bay, FL, an area nearly 100
miles north of the actual landfall. Early forecasts of Tropical Storm
Bonnie showed forecasted paths of southern Florida, then later Texas
and Louisiana, before the storm followed an awkward path in the Gulf of
Mexico and ultimately made landfall along the Florida panhandle.
Proponents of a five-day hurricane forecast will no doubt point out
that the five-day forecast in both of the storm situations mentioned
above included a wide area, wide enough to encompass geographic areas
that needed to prepare for such a storm. But this inherent inaccuracy
is the very root of the problem.
Once the national media have publicized the five-day forecast,
areas with little probability of serious storm threats will necessarily
be included in the five-day forecast ``cone of uncertainty.'' It is not
uncommon for more than one state to be included. At the Myrtle Beach
Area Chamber of Commerce, it is quite common to receive many phone
calls from distressed visitors seeking to change or cancel their
vacation plans once the first mention of the Myrtle Beach area or even
``the Carolinas'' is made with respect to a possible hurricane path.
If only the visitors from states other than North and South
Carolina unnecessarily change their vacation plans to the coast of
South Carolina due to a hurricane, the economic costs can be in excess
of $25 million per day. Please bear in mind, this refers to one single
vacation destination in one single state.
But, the ultimate cost is not economic but, rather, in human life
and safety. With so much inherent inaccuracy in the five-day forecast,
meteorologists are transformed into a modern-day, high-tech version of
``Chicken Little,'' unintentionally announcing the sky may be falling.
This is through no fault of their own but, rather, through the
customary use of the five-day forecast published by NOAA. Though some
meteorologists have spoken out publicly against the use of the five-day
forecast, its use continues.
Proponents of this forecast argue for its publication, essentially
noting that ``any information is better than no information.'' They
rightfully note that the potential safety and protection of life and
property justifies the use of the five-day forecast. These arguments
may seem logical at first but ignore the damage that a consistently
inaccurate hurricane forecast can cause. A forecast that is more likely
to be wrong than right may only serve to prompt residents and visitors
to ignore such a forecast, or worse yet, to believe that weather
forecasting in general is inaccurate. This is despite a very accurate
three-day forecast which has proven to be a reliable tool that allows
public safety personnel more than enough time to evacuate the Grand
Strand which, when at its peak, is one of the busiest vacation
destinations in the entire Nation. And that is done despite this area
being the Nation's most popular vacation destination with no direct
access to an Interstate, yet with 93 percent of our visitors driving
here. Despite large numbers of visitors in automobiles and insufficient
infrastructure for visitors to leave the area, the three-day forecast
has proven more than sufficient to manage the safety of our visitors
and residents.
With an amazingly high level of accuracy in the three-day forecast,
and a disappointing level of inaccuracy in the five-day forecast, it is
easy to understand why many in the tourism industry were surprised and
somewhat disappointed when the five-day forecast became a common
forecasting tool. Nevertheless, this genie is out of the bottle and not
likely to return.
So, it is appropriate for us to work together, in a collaborative
manner, to seek the best possible outcome, and that is an outcome that
all involved in this discussion can agree to: the clear, indisputable
need for improved weather forecasting. Those of us in the tourism
industry who have been the staunchest opponents of the five-day
forecast would become, perhaps, its biggest proponents if the level of
accuracy were increased to a level similar to that of the three-day
forecast. Improved forecasting would be far less likely to
unnecessarily harm a coastal tourism economy in any state. Further, an
accurate five-day forecast would be more reliable in the eyes of
individual citizens whose safety must come first, before any economic
loss or promise of economic gain.
I am reminded of the old saying that ``change is not always better,
but to be better, one must be willing to change.'' Clearly, the five-
day forecast has not proven to be a better forecasting tool, even by
the admission of those who use it regularly. Some meteorologists have
even spoken out against the use of the five-day forecast, noting their
clear preference for an accurate three-day forecast. Furthermore, this
change has caused unnecessary concern and economic loss since its
implementation. For the benefit of all, including the safety of our
residents and our visitors, improved weather forecasting that increases
the accuracy of the five-day hurricane forecast will be better for all
involved, ultimately enhancing the safety of our citizens and the
vibrancy of our national tourism economy.

Exhibit A

Exhibit B

Senator DeMint. Mr. Cantore, I think this is the first time
I've ever seen you when you weren't standing in 50- to 80-mile-
an-hour wind. So, it's----
Mr. Cantore. Well, Mr. Chairman----
Senator DeMint.--it's good to have you with us today.
Mr. Cantore.--I've got to tell you, it's a nice break, to
be honest with you. And Mr. Dean, I'm sure, agrees with me,
that you'd rather see me in a suit and tie, too. No question
about it.

STATEMENT OF JIM CANTORE, ON-AIR METEOROLOGIST,
THE WEATHER CHANNEL

Mr. Cantore. But I thank you for having me. And, you know,
I've been doing this for about 13 years. And I just want to
share with you some of the things that I've seen over the past,
maybe some things we can improve on.
This does not cover any post-hurricane issues, obviously,
which I would suggest be discussed, as well, because I think
getting people back in, is perhaps just as important as getting
them out of harm's way, as well.
All right, let's talk about some hurricane facts that I
just wanted to share with you. To this day, there is no way to
accurately predict any tropical intensification fluctuations.
In other words, let's just take Irene, that's out there now.
That was supposed to be a hurricane by now. It is not. It's
barely hanging on as a depression. And, as a result of that,
the steering is influenced heavily by the size of the storm.
So, this is something that, until we get better science in this
area, you've got to realize that we're dealing with an animal
that's going to change on us, in where it's going.
We are in, as you mentioned, Senator, an above-average
phase of hurricane development, because, if you will, this
multi-decadal phase--if you go back into the 1960s and 1970s,
we had above-average years then--starting back in 1995, we have
had above-average years of hurricanes. There's no reason to
expect that to weaken. We expect the current trend to continue,
as you mentioned.
Inland flooding is the number-one killer in land-falling
tropical systems. So, as we prepare to get people off the
coast, we have to also keep them out of harm's way in where we
think that rainfall may be heaviest inland, as well.
And a strengthening and accelerating land-falling hurricane
could be a nightmare. Charley--out of all of the four last year
in Florida, Charley was the only one that was accelerating and
deepening upon landfall. And the people that I talked to in
Orlando, and the people that I talked to in Daytona, remember
Charley more than they remember Frances and Jeanne, which came
in on their side of the coast, as far as damage is concerned.
So, that's a nightmare. And people, believe it or not, still
believe that they can't have anything like that happen to them.
Nobody's going to argue there.
You know, we cannot discuss evacuation without enlightening
everyone to the tremendous psychological impact that occurs
within people as they prepare for an evacuation, what it is
we're asking of them, to leave the comfort of their dwelling
and, in many cases, everything they have worked for, while
seeing images of past hurricanes wreak havoc on the coastline.
Not knowing when they can come back to life as they know it,
many in Florida have not done that, and may never do that. And
we're asking them to sit in traffic for hours while a storm may
or may not be worthy of leaving in the first place. Having to
deal with the enormous psychological stress of evacuation, not
to mention what they could find in return.
So, what do we want to do? We want to tell people to get
out of harm's way and reduce the stresses of getting out of
harm's way, because we know they're already heavily stressed,
just the emotional, you know--the impacts from what they see on
TV, what they hear on radio, and whatnot.
Here's what's good that I see out there. Enhanced
technologies have created greater awareness. Satellites are
better. Radars are better. Cell phones and high-speed Internet
gets everybody access to the information that we use on The
Weather Channel. People know it's coming. Our problem is not
making people aware of the fact that it's coming. Everybody
knows that it's coming.
The EOC, the Emergency Operations Center meetings seem very
timely when I'm on the coastline. They're already meeting, in
many cases, and planning meetings. And we know when those
meetings are. And the public information officers, the PIOs,
who basically represent what is coming out of the EOC, make
themselves very available to the media. The last two
hurricanes, in Emily and Dennis, I covered, I actually had them
call me on my cell phone. They were very willing to do so. So,
we appreciate that.
And the coast has experience. We've been in above-average
hurricane seasons now since 1995, and with video and certainly
all these emergency operation procedures that have been in
place, and continue to be in place and improved upon, you know,
it's just a matter of getting it done.
The bad and the ugly. We run out of gas. We're asking
people to leave, and then we don't have the necessities in
place to get them out of harm's way. That is what I call a
``disaster in a disaster.''
Plywood, generators, gas cans always seem to be in short
supply. I wonder why hardware stores can't just be on standby
with extra supplies that are needed for hurricane preparedness,
and bring those in, even if they have to sell them right off
the truck, because now we've postponed preparedness with
people. And, to anybody who's ever tried to put up a piece of
plywood in 30-mile-an-hour wind, it's very hard and it's very
difficult.
People still have to sit in traffic for hours when
evacuating. This is the big one. This is the thing that I think
needs to be addressed the most. Shelter information--where,
when they open, et cetera--often arrives late. If it wasn't for
my friends at the Red Cross, I would have a hard time getting
that information. It's often the last thing to get to us, ``Oh,
and by the way, here are the shelters.''
Media coverage has tripled in the last ten years. So, what
we do there is risk a mixed message. The more media out there
covering it, I think you risk a mixed message.
My recommendations--all EOC communications must be strong
within EOC and to all media outlets. I look at this like me and
my wife. We tell our kids to do something, and we agree upon
it, usually it gets done. If there's disagreement with us, and
that message is sent to them, then it doesn't get done. So, we
almost have to have a strong family unit within the EOC in the
communications that they send out to all the media.
As far as evacuation orders, when they are given, there has
to be some way to get those people out on all lanes of highways
and Interstates. I know this is a tremendous undertaking, and
maybe even impossible in some areas. But if we ask someone to
sit in traffic for eight hours to go ten miles, like we did in
Florida, they're not going to leave again, regardless of the
strength of the hurricane. So, evacuations and getting the
routes open to get them out is very, very critical.
Like I said, PIOs need to be accurate, complete, and
effective communicators. I've seen that a lot lately. When they
come out, they're pretty much the word of the EOC, and they're
very willing to talk to us, which is great, and we appreciate
that.
I mentioned earlier, we can't have a ``disaster within a
disaster.'' We evacuated the whole East Coast during Hurricane
Floyd, and a lot of people sat in traffic for hours and hours
and hours, and they didn't even have to leave at all. So, a lot
of unnecessary evacuation there. And what I call,`` Gas Mania
2004,'' when the ports of Florida were closed down too early
and people couldn't get gas, what that caused people to do,
even this year during Hurricane Dennis, is to go buy five and
ten gas cans, fill all those up, and we ran out of gas again.
So, we can't run out of gas if we're asking people to leave.
And all the media, regardless of how much we have out
there, need to have a succinct and consistent message. More
media means we risk that. And people need to know as soon as
possible when they can or cannot return. Some of the hardest
stresses on you, I think, are not knowing when you can come
back to whatever you have left. It's kind of like if you go to
the doctor's and you're waiting to hear on a test, a certain
test--the longer that takes, the more stress builds up. So, any
information, in the meantime, of when people can come back,
even if it's a month, two months, an estimate, I think, is
better than not saying anything at all.
So, I conclude with this. There has never been a perfect
forecast, to the best of my knowledge. State-of-the-art
technology gives us a better lead time to prepare for natural
disasters. Strong support for these advances is essential. So,
technology needs to be continually improved upon.
And if we effectively communicate our message and we have
the necessities in place for a stressed community to process,
prepare, and protect themselves and their families, I would
like to see the day--and I do see the day--that hurricane
evacuation goes as smooth as a fire drill.
Thank you.
Senator DeMint. Thank you.
Mr. Prevatt. Dr. Prevatt. Sorry.

STATEMENT OF DAVID PREVATT, Ph.D., PE,

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR AND DIRECTOR,

WIND LOAD TEST FACILITY, DEPARTMENT OF

CIVIL ENGINEERING, CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

Dr. Prevatt. Well, gentlemen, thank you. My name is David
Prevatt. I am an Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering at
Clemson University, and Director of the Wind Load Test
Facility. I appreciate this opportunity to appear before the
Subcommittee and to testify.
I must admit that I come here as an advocate, on behalf of
the researchers and of this community, for an increase in
Federal support for science and technology research to develop
hurricane mitigation and risk-assessment measures. Hurricanes,
as we have heard, are large, costly natural disasters that cost
billions to recover from and, let's not forget, causing misery
and suffering to millions of people.
The fact is, about 50 percent of the U.S. population now
lives in a hurricane-prone coastal area, yet Federal support
for hurricane research only amounts to about $5 to $10 million
per year. In all, over the 20th century, a mere $50 million has
been directed to hurricane research.
On this, we have, from Hurricane Hugo in 1989, Fran,
Bonnie, of course, Floyd, that Jim talked about, and the 2004
hurricanes. These are figures from the EMD--South Carolina's
EMD--$1.6 billion in damage to our state, alone. Now, this
money is not counting the insurance payouts, costs of
agricultural damage, small-business association loans, and
unrealized taxes and business losses, not to mention the other
indirect losses that we probably can't account for.
So, despite this painfully slow lack of funds, we have made
progress in South Carolina and in the states. Research has led
to the creation and adoption of the latest IBC 2000 building
code by South Carolina and other states. This code contains
provisions that significantly increase the chance of survival
of buildings.
The knowledge--part of our research at Clemson University
has been the instrumentation of houses along the coast of
Florida, North Carolina, and South Carolina. What we do here is
set up portable wind towers to monitor the wind speeds, and we
also install sensors on houses to measure the wind pressures on
those houses.
What we have found is this. Lots of--a small bit of asphalt
shingles and sheathing, like this, results in some degree of
damage to your roofing system, without any structural damage.
And, finally, this can result in complete, almost total,
destruction of your interior contents, failed wall systems, and
costs resulting in about 80 percent of your insured value.
So, one of the problems that I see is that we look for, no
longer, just the structural problems, but there are other
building envelope problems that are required to be fixed.
The knowledge is available now to design and construct
structures to resist 100 percent of the hurricanes, 100 percent
of the time. However, no one wants to pay for that, and no one,
probably, would want to live in that kind of building. So, what
is needed for us is to use the knowledge to continue our code
development to study policy implications that can result in
solutions that the community--that the Grand Strand is willing
to pay for.
Here is one of the houses that we have instrumented. Part
of the techniques we are doing is comparing--if you look at the
right-most corner of the picture, you'll see three metal
sensors. Those duplicate the wind pressures.
Next slide, please?
We've done models of that house, and in--we can use those
models to put it in the Wind Load Test Facility's wind tunnel,
and, therefore, compare full-scale and model-scale data. This
is giving us, for the first time, knowledge about how buildings
in suburban areas are loaded by the wind, and, therefore, we
are going to be able to improve our designs and perhaps not
have to be as conservative, sometimes, in our code development.
Simple low-cost measures that homeowners can do to improve
their houses are provided in my written testimony.
I see three urgent problems that we need to resolve. And
this would only be solved through collaboration with
researchers and the Chambers and communities-at-large.
First, we need to reduce the vulnerability of critical
facilities and hospitals and evacuation centers in hurricane
zones. We can all recall, in Hurricane Charley, the
catastrophic failure of the Turner Arcadia Civic Center in
Central Florida which lost a roof and a large masonry wall
while it was sheltering 1,200 persons. This is something that
we must avoid. In addition, over a dozen hospitals were damaged
during the four hurricanes that made landfall in 2004. Most of
that damage was not to major structural systems, it was to
building envelopes, loss of windows, loss of wall claddings and
roof claddings, but the hospital still had to be evacuated.
The other issue I have--and perhaps Jim and I can discuss
this afterwards--is finding practical alternatives to mandatory
evacuation of hundreds of thousands of coastal residents at the
threat of a storm. I am from Trinidad and Tobago. I live on an
island. Evacuation is not an option. When a hurricane
approaches, you batten down the hatches and you stay in your
building once you're outside of that storm-surge zone. The idea
behind us all placing hundreds of thousands of people in cars
for ten hours at a time, to me, is not necessarily the only
solution, or perhaps the best solution for that. Many have
commented that the possibility of a fast-moving accelerating
storm can cause significant loss of life if that affects those
people in their cars on the Interstate.
And, third, the idea of developing affordable structural
systems to improve the poor performance of residential
construction. In particular, the idea of the residential
construction is the segment of the construction industry that
really does not perform that well because the structures are
primarily not engineered structures. Clemson University
researchers did tests on--that led to--this is a manufactured
home built in accordance with the HUD guidelines of 1994. It
survived in that Port Charlotte manufactured-home park
unscathed. All that damage comes from the older manufactured
homes. This was a direct result of research and collaboration
with the construction industry.
And in Horry County itself in 2000, we did some tests on
those houses that were flood-damaged and FEMA bought in 2000,
and here it was--we actually installed load cells and literally
broke this thing apart and found out what would the capacity be
before and after hurricane retrofits. This type of research is
necessary and important for us to continue to develop and learn
from this what is existing.
Here again, we see one of the houses where we just simply
pulled it up to find the uplift capacity. We would recognize
that those are not plywood or OSB sheathing, but plank roofs.
When we tried to fail that with our wind-pressure test chamber,
it couldn't fail, because the design or the construction of a
plank roof requires two nails at every single plank. That
structure failed at about 450 pounds per square foot, as
opposed to the 60 to 80 pounds per square foot that plywood
would fail.
We, as the community, have made the choice to use plywood,
for other reasons, so, therefore, we need to make the choice
that if we have an idea of what the strength of a material is,
then we must be able to say, ``Well, what will we, as a
community, want to tolerate, in terms of failure and damage?''
It is up to the communities themselves to ask these questions
of me, of us researchers, of the Federal agencies, to decide
what to do.
The fact remains, we need to build stronger buildings and
safer homes and businesses. We also need critical facilities
that are designed to higher standards so that they would
survive this storm and serve the community when the community
needs them the most. Basic engineer--wind engineering research
can provide the information necessary to adjust design and
construction methods so as to more efficiently increase the
resistance of the built environment to hurricanes.
The Wind Load Test Facility at Clemson is a resource for
South Carolina and the country--as it is an internationally-
recognized center that consistently provides knowledge and
information that affects our public policy and building codes.
An increase in Federal funding for wind engineering research
would allow research to be performed whose results would
improve our understanding of hurricane-induced damage. That
better understanding can be incorporated into building codes,
into practice, into public policies so that hurricane damage
can be better managed by the local community and by national
agencies.
I urge you and the Committee to consider the needs of South
Carolina and the country, and ask that you support increased
Federal funding for wind engineering research. The benefits of
such research to the country would be significant, and the Wind
Load Test Facility at Clemson would have the opportunity to
apply to a much larger source of funds for monies than what is
currently available.
Chairman DeMint, I look forward to working with you and
your staff on hurricane issues, whether the issues be public
policy concerns, technical engineering decisions, or wind-
related matters.
That's the end of my testimony. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Prevatt follows:]

Prepared Statement of David O. Prevatt, Ph.D., PE, Assistant Professor
and Director, Wind Load Test Facility, Department of Civil Engineering,
Clemson University
1. Introduction
Chairman DeMint and members of the Subcommittee, my name is David
Prevatt, and I am a professional engineer and an Assistant Professor of
Civil Engineering at Clemson University. Since 1990, I have been doing
research to mitigate the effects of hurricanes to low-rise coastal
structures. I also direct the Wind Load Test Facility, which is a
research laboratory focused on research to mitigate the effects of
hurricane wind loads on low-rise buildings. We are actively involved in
creating basic knowledge and developing practical solutions for use by
engineers and homeowners to improve the resistance of buildings to
hurricanes, thereby minimizing damage and reducing loss.
I very much appreciate the opportunity to appear before this
Subcommittee and to testify in this hearing. In this testimony I will
first present an engineer's view of the potential for catastrophic
hurricane damage facing our South Carolina coastal communities. Next, I
will present my observations of structural damage during the 2004
hurricane season and present recommendations that can reduce the
vulnerability of buildings. Finally, I will discuss what the
engineering research community is doing to reduce wind damage to and
vulnerability of buildings in hurricane-prone areas, and how the
research community's results affect public policy.
For almost a generation (1965 to 1994), the frequency of hurricanes
in the North Atlantic Tropical Cyclone Region was relatively low and
few hurricanes made landfall in the U.S. Concurrently during this
period, there has been urban development along vulnerable U.S.
coastlines, and as a result, about 50 percent of the U.S. population
now lives in hurricane prone coastal areas. Hundreds of miles of once
empty coastlines are now major population centers with trillions of
dollars of buildings and infrastructure exposed to the risk of
hurricane damage.
Mitigating hurricane damage is of special concern to Americans
living in our coastal communities including the coastal communities of
South Carolina. Public and private support for science and technology
research is urgently needed in order to address the mounting economic
losses and manage the risks from future hurricanes.
Currently, Federal support for hurricane research lags woefully
behind support for other natural hazards. In 2000, Margaret Davidson of
NOAA-Coastal Services comparing the research funding for earthquake
risk with hurricane risk provided data showing that while the total
damage from earthquakes in the 20th century was only about half the
total damage from hurricanes ($47.97 billion to $100.7 billion), the
research funding for earthquake reduction was seven times greater than
funding for hurricane research (>$350 million for earthquake as opposed
to $50 million for hurricane research).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Alvarez, Ricardo (ed.) ``Proceedings of the National Hurricane
Hazard Reduction Act Meeting,'' Feb. 2000, International Hurricane
Research Center, Florida International University.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The scenario in the 21st century will be different; more property
is at risk from hurricanes and more lives that will be affected.
Four Questions to Consider:

What will it mean to the Myrtle Beach (and Charleston)
tourism industry and to the State of South Carolina when (not
if) a large, powerful hurricane makes landfall?

What would be the impact of such a disaster on the lives of
many full-year residents who rely on the tourism, timber and
fisheries industries for employment?

If strengthening all buildings will minimize future losses,
what should engineering science and technology researchers do
to support coastal community efforts to protect itself from the
threat of future hurricane damage?

Is the community better served by spending already limited
resources on inevitable post-hurricane repairs or instead,
systematically investing in scheduled ``pre-hurricane''
Improvements to buildings?

The Grand Strand may face as a minimum, $3 billion to $4 billion in
damages and an extended recovery period lasting 6 to 8 months or
longer. In 1990, participants who attended the ASCE-sponsored Hurricane
Hugo--One Year Later Conference \2\ may recall that the city of
Charleston was still picking-up and repairing its buildings during
those deliberations 12 months after Hugo. Although the loss to the
forestry and fisheries industries may as yet be beyond our control, as
engineers we can and should do something to improve the resistance of
our built infrastructure to withstand hurricanes and minimize loss.
Furthermore, as illustrated by the Northridge (1994) and Loma Prieta
(1989) earthquakes, Hurricane Andrew (1992), and other natural
disasters many small businesses close--never to reopen--because of the
inability to reconstruct and service customers and clients in a timely
manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Sill, B.L. (Clemson Univ); Sparks, P.R. eds. Source: Hurricane
Hugo One Year Later, ASCE, 1991, 293p.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Hurricane Catastrophe Potential for South Carolina
I have come here to advocate on behalf of the researchers and this
community for an increase in Federal support for science and technology
research to develop hurricane mitigation and risk management
activities. With the predicted upswing in frequency and intensity of
hurricanes over the next few decades, and the growing populations
living in vulnerable coastal cities, losses from hurricanes will
escalate in coastal communities unless we can better understand--and
manage--the effects of hurricanes on the built environment;
understanding that can only result from federally funded basic wind
engineering research.
Horry County, South Carolina, has enjoyed impressive growth in its
population over the past 15 years, increasing approximately 44 percent
from about 145,000 in 1990 to about 210,000 today. The Grand Strand
region is a significant contributor to the economic well-being of the
state. However, hurricanes and the threat of hurricanes continue to be
detrimental to this tourism-based economy. Comprehensive and sustained
efforts to alleviate this threat will be needed to support the regional
tourism-recovery program being developed by state and local leaders.
The effort should focus on: (1) improving the performance of all
buildings, both residential and commercial to maintain functionality of
the community, and (2) managing expected losses that will occur.
Myrtle Beach will suffer economic losses if the hotels along the
Grand Strand are not full of paying guests because of a lack of basic
services, infrastructure and because the swimming pools facing the
beach are filled with sand. But while I expect hotel buildings would
sustain some damage, single family residences are the structures most
likely to be damaged significantly. Wind loads on low-rise buildings--
wood-framed structures in particular--have received more attention
recently because of the large economic losses they have sustained
during hurricanes in the last 10 years. Residential construction
continues to bear the brunt of damage to the built environment from
hurricanes.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Rosowsky, David; Schiff, Scott, What are our expectations,
objectives, and performance requirements for wood structures in high
wind regions? Natural Hazards Review, v 4, n 3, August, 2003, p 144-
148.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The main reason for the poor performance of this building type is
that residential structures are typically not engineered to resist
loads. Rather, the construction methods have been developed empirically
over time. I use the term ``engineered structure'' to described any
structure in which all of its components have been designed in a
rational manner, using latest information on the expected loads, and
knowledge of the material strengths. Such structures are designed to
have a reasonable margin of safety. It is through technology transfer
of fundamental research knowledge to the practicing engineers and code
officials that the latest knowledge becomes available and improved
building methods implemented.
Another concern for the Grand Strand region and South Carolina is
the performance of the critical facilities during a hurricane. As I
will describe later in this testimony, hospitals, evacuation shelters,
police and fire stations remain vulnerable to damage and some of these
will not be functional during or after a hurricane. Also, mandatory
evacuations of hundreds of thousands can be a problem with large
coastal populations. Many experts have stated that a fast moving storm
could result in large loss of life among persons in traffic jams trying
to evacuate.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Reinhold, Tim (2005) Testimony Given at Disaster Prevention and
Prediction Hearing: Severe Storms and Reducing Their Impact on
Communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the above observations, hurricanes cause damage due to one
of three reasons:

A hurricane exceeded the design requirements of the
community.

Structures were poorly designed.

Structures were poorly constructed.

Research performed at the WLTF addresses all three reasons:

1. For what hurricane should a community be designed? The
knowledge exists to design and construct structures to resist
100 percent of the hurricanes 100 percent of the time; however,
no one wants to pay for--or occupy--such structures and,
therefore, hurricane damage will occur. The WLTF recognizes
that a community's willingness to rebuild after a hurricane is
reflected in building code requirements. Viz., lower
requirements would result in frequent rebuilding while higher
requirements would require less rebuilding but larger initial
costs. Thus, the building codes reflect a community's
willingness to spend money on rebuilding. The WLTF's research
considers varying design and construction requirements
according the needs of a community, effectively participating
in the development of public policy.

2. Poor design. Students that have participated in the WLTF in
their studies have a solid understanding of wind effects on the
built environment. The vast majority of these students work as
structural engineers after graduation and incorporate what they
have learned about wind into their design decisions.

3. Poor construction. Some research at the WLTF studies
existing structures so as to identify if they are vulnerable to
wind events that are smaller than that specified in the
building code, and--if they are deficient--the most efficient
manner of rehabilitating structures to resist the required
loads.

For the above reasons, we need to build stronger buildings and
safer homes and businesses, and we need critical facilities that are
designed to higher standards so they would survive and be able to serve
the community when the community needs them the most. Basic wind
engineering research can provide the information necessary to adjust
design and construction methods so as to most efficiently increase the
resistance of the built environment to hurricanes.

3. An Engineer's Observations from the 2004 Hurricanes
The 2004 hurricane season provided a real-time laboratory for me
and other researchers from across the country. WLTF researchers and
students set up field experiments in 3 of the 4 storms (Hurricanes
Charley, Frances and Ivan) and we conducted post-hurricane
investigations to observe and document damage. Our research involved
collecting wind speed data and posting it to the World Wide Web and
instrumenting houses to measure wind pressures on roofs.
Generally, we observed that houses built under the latest codes or
deemed-to-comply documents and which were not directly exposed to storm
surge did not fail catastrophically. Instead, houses experienced the
failure of building envelope components, (roofing, wall cladding,
windows, and doors); the same failures that have been occurring for
over 50 years.
We found that small breaches in the building envelope, especially
in the roofing systems and soffits can provide paths for water leakage
that results in extensive water damage to the interior walls, ceilings
and to building contents. Such minor failures (loss of asphalt shingle
and underlayment) to one Pensacola house resulted in water damage to
about 80 percent of all interior finishes on the ceiling and walls.
Drying out of water-soaked buildings to prevent mold growth and decay
after the envelope has been breached became BIG business after the
Florida hurricanes. Some of the less durable materials, insulation,
gypsum sheathing and acoustic ceiling tiles cannot be dried out and
must be removed and replaced.
We observed numerous engineered buildings that suffered little
damage and retrofitted non-engineered houses also performed
satisfactorily. In Charley, a major success story was the good to
excellent performance of newer manufactured homes that were built in
accordance with 1994 HUD guidelines. Most of these survived with
minimal damage, while adjacent older manufactured homes that did not
have wind-resistant construction were destroyed.
Failure of building envelope systems had a more dramatic impact on
hospitals and critical facilities during these storms. From Mobile, AL
to Ft. Meyers, FL, more than a dozen hospitals were damaged or were
evacuated due to the effects of the 2004 hurricanes. Charlotte Regional
Hospital in Port Charlotte and the Navy Hospital in Pensacola both
sustained damage to their roofing systems and windows. The Martin
Memorial Medical Center in Stuart, FL, lost its elevator penthouse in
Hurricane Frances and suffered further roofing damage and water damage
from Hurricane Jeanne three weeks later. Even the Medical University of
South Carolina in Charleston suffered significant damage during a
minimal-strength Category 1 Hurricane Garston.
In addition, during the 2004 storms, numerous fire stations and
evacuation shelters were not able to maintain function throughout or
after the storms, including the spectacular failure of the Turner-
Arcadia Civic Center in Central Florida that suffered a masonry wall
and roof collapse while 1,200 persons were sheltering from Hurricane
Charley. The failure of hospitals, critical facilities and evacuation
shelters placed additional burdens on the already stretched civic
institutions which had to consider removal of sick patients,
interruption of emergency protection services (fire stations and police
stations). When we recall that most of these facilities did not
experience forces near their design levels, we begin to realize the
enormity of the problems facing us today.
It is my expectation that we would see similar building failures
here if a hurricane made landfall in South Carolina. With buildings
located among our forested areas, tree damage may also be a factor
here. South Carolina needs buildings with structural and building
envelope components that are designed and constructed so that they do
not fail prematurely in winds below their design wind speed.
Unfortunately, as illustrated by Hurricane Hugo, South Carolina should
expect significant amounts of damage to occur at wind speeds below
design wind speeds.

3.1 Practical Construction and Retrofit Recommendations
South Carolina has adopted state-wide, the International Code
Council's (ICC) International Building Code (IBC) 2000 building code.
This document provides the most current available information and best-
practice design to construct wind-resistant buildings. Provided
legislation is not enacted so as to weaken code provisions, the IBC
provides appropriate standards for the construction and retrofit of
coastal houses.
The extensive damage to the building envelope during high wind
events can be reduced by providing durable flashing materials in window
openings and continuous water barriers in walls and roofs. These
recommendations are good practice and should be installed whether in a
high wind zone or not. Furthermore, the following table presents
options for reducing the vulnerability to wind damage.
While some options may at first appear radical, with the right
research and benefits/costs analyses it is possible to determine
appropriate systems for our changing and growing coastal communities.

4. Research at the Wind Load Test Facility
Since 1991, research at the Wind Load Test Facility (WLTF) has made
great contributions to improving building codes and increasing our
understanding of wind forces. The facility was founded with Federal
funds obtained from FEMA under the Stafford Act as part of the post-
Hurricane Hugo mitigation effort.
I believe our most important contribution to the state is the role
we play in the education and training of future civil engineers. We
have produced over 60 engineers who did their Masters and Ph.D.
projects at the WLTF. Many of these men and women continue to work as
civil engineers within South Carolina. Through their research, our
graduates became sensitized to wind engineering issues and to the
vulnerability of the state's infrastructure and they (we) continue to
spread the message that we have the know-how to construct hurricane-
resistant structures for our communities.
We use the atmospheric boundary layer wind tunnel to conduct
studies to determine wind loads on residential construction and non-
engineered structures. Our current research focus remains on the wind
loading of buildings within suburban neighborhoods because so little
information is available to designers. Science and technology advances
at universities have made significant improvements in the
instrumentation and data collection of loads on buildings. Recent
research collaborations by Clemson University, Florida University and
Florida International University on the Florida Coastal Monitoring
Program \5\ have provided full-scale data in real-time, on near-ground
level wind speeds that is helping NOAA's Hurricane Research Division
verify the accuracy of wind speed predictions. In addition, wind
pressure data collected from actual residential buildings allows us to
determine the loads on the roofs. This work has also provided a means
to validate results of wind tunnel studies against full-scale data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ http://users.ce.ufl.edu/6fcmp/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are grateful for the financial and other support of many
organizations, including the South Carolina and Florida Sea Grant
Consortia, FEMA, NOAA, the Florida Department of Consumer Affairs, the
Institute for Business and Home Safety and the South Carolina
Department of Insurance.
Through our full-scale destructive testing of houses in Horry
County before and after installation of hurricane retrofits,
researchers were able to determine how much strength was being added to
the structure using various retrofit techniques. The houses were made
available because they were bought by FEMA following the extreme
flooding in Hurricane Floyd.
With our wind tunnel testing program and related research, we will
develop design methods for critical building components and connections
applicable to wood-framed structures. Our missile impact tests have
been used to test the impact resistance of lightweight plastic
composites and aluminum shutters. Our research remains focused on
developing cost-effective methods for reducing damage; the damage
mitigations methods should provide the greatest reduction in damage for
the least cost. However, the ability to develop methods is limited by
the lack of funds for performing the necessary research.
While the construction cost of an individual home does not justify
extensive wind tunnel testing or engineering input, the design
professional needs to have an idea of the wind loads to which a house
is susceptible. Knowledge of loads is the basis for sound engineering
design. There has as yet been little incentive for the housing industry
to undertake the research needed to refine these loads because home
builders perceive any modification to design loads as increasing the
cost of a house and is, therefore, bad business practice. Therefore,
the research at the WLTF provides a valuable and unique contribution to
knowledge of hurricane-resistant construction, not only for South
Carolina, but for the entire country. The knowledge and information
from research performed at the WLTF is used to improve deemed-to-comply
building codes by incorporating more engineering knowledge into our
houses.
Four areas of ongoing WLTF research are:

Understanding the full-scale wind load and validation of
wind tunnel techniques.

Condition and risk assessment of critical facilities,
evacuation shelters and hospitals.

Load path investigation for wood-framed roofing structures.

Performance-based design criteria for building envelope
components.

5. Summary
The cost of hurricanes is something that we must bear as a
community. It is fitting that the community be involved in the
mitigation efforts. The increasing numbers of large, more complex
coastal cities and urban centers with unprecedented wealth and industry
concentrated in small geographical locations makes it important that
serious consideration be given to designs of all construction that are
capable to withstand the onslaught of hurricanes.
The increasing annual amounts of damage from hurricanes and the
inherent danger to millions of residents have created a greater
incentive to understand the load regime and performance of residential
buildings in suburban neighborhoods. Government funding is needed for
the broad generic research that will lead to improved loading
information and the subsequent development of improved construction
techniques. This improved information would be incorporated in the
country's building codes.
However, providing improved building techniques and enforcement of
building codes is only part of the solution. A strong political resolve
must also exist that will improve the construction and performance of
the country's buildings. In addition to improved building codes,
incentives or policies that encourage consumer demand for better-
constructed buildings are required. The WLTF recognizes the need for
participating in the development of public policy that will promote
hurricane understanding.
Our coastal communities should be able to rely upon the continued
efforts of Clemson's Wind Load Test Facility and allied testing
laboratories and universities to develop the understanding of wind
load, knowledge of structural performance of our buildings and to
perform the engineering research that leads to cost-effective solutions
for improved building performance. Our efforts cannot continue
indefinitely without the commitment to support hurricane research and
the support of coastal communities and organizations in South Carolina.
The good news is that Hope is around the corner! Ongoing related
efforts at other (academic, etc.) institutions, and the wind
engineering community have led to the National Windstorm Impact
Reduction Act of 2004, H.R. 3980, being passed by the 108th Congress.
When appropriated this bill would increase available annual funding for
wind engineering research to about $22 million.
By providing research that helps us forecast, prepare for and
understand hurricanes, the engineering research community continues to
make a valuable contribution to a more sustainable and hurricane-
resistant community on the coasts of South Carolina and beyond. The
WLTF at Clemson is a resource for South Carolina and the country as it
is an internationally recognized center that consistently provides
knowledge and information that affects public policy and building
codes. An increase in Federal funding for wind engineering research
would hopefully improve the ability of the WLTF to perform research
that would benefit South Carolina and the rest of the country.

Senator DeMint. Thank you, Dr. Prevatt. Very interesting.
Mr. Whitten.

STATEMENT OF PAUL D. WHITTEN, DIRECTOR,
HORRY COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY DIVISION

Mr. Whitten. Yes, sir.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear. I truly appreciate
the opportunity to share my thoughts on hurricane preparedness
in South Carolina, and specifically on the Grand Strand. I also
wish to state that these statements are mine alone and do not
necessarily represent the opinions of the Horry County
Government.
I've been involved in the hurricane preparedness and
response business since 1992, when I responded to Hurricane
Andrew in South Florida. Since then, I've also worked at the
State Emergency Management Division for South Carolina, where I
served as the state's first hurricane program manager.
In 1997, I moved to Horry County, where I became the
Emergency Management Director, and, as such, I dealt with
several storms at the local level, also. In 2000, I became the
public safety director dealing with this, again, still on a
larger level.
We cannot continue to ignore the threat that hurricanes
pose to our coastal communities. A number of factors are
combining to create a potentially serious tragedy.
The two biggest factors I see are the growth of our coastal
communities. Horry County has experienced a tremendous surge of
population. Many of the new residents are from areas that do
not experience hurricanes, and, since they do not have any
experience, they have no practical knowledge in dealing with
storms. In addition, one of the fastest-growing segments of our
population is the 55-and-older demographics.
As you also stated, we're in an increased period of
hurricane activity. A lot of the hurricane experts believe that
this period is going to see us up to possibly 21 main storms
this year.
If we honestly face this reality, we realize we must begin
to better prepare our communities. To accomplish this, I
believe we must consider implementing the following actions to
the Grand Strand.
The number-one priority is the development of a southern
connector. The southern part of the Grand Strand must have an
effective evacuation route. We continue to put people at risk
by not having a good evacuation route for tens of thousands of
our residents living in Surfside Beach, Garden City Beach, and
the Waccamaw Neck and surrounding areas. Research indicates
that too many people fail to evacuate because they do not want
to get caught in the huge traffic jams that have been
mentioned.
I believe South Carolina has one of the most effective
hurricane plans in the Nation. The South Carolina Emergency
Preparedness Division provides the Governor with the
information and recommendations that guide the state through
the evacuation process. And, while South Carolina has
implemented many innovative traffic procedures, such as lane
reversals and counterflow operations, the reality is that the
lack of actual road infrastructure still hampers every
evacuation on the Grand Strand.
The second issue I think we need to tackle is the
development of a real mitigation program. Historically, the
Federal Government has spent a tremendous amount of money on
post-disaster assistance. However, we must acknowledge that
it's better and more cost efficient when we emphasize pre-
disaster mitigation. We have seen progress in this area,
especially with the requirement for state and local mitigation
plans, but without funding these plans are difficult, if not
impossible, to implement.
In addition, we must be smarter about developing in high-
risk areas. Through the National Flood Insurance Program, the
Federal Government spends a tremendous amount of money on
repetitive lost properties. These are properties that are in
flood-prone areas, and we continually pay to repair these
properties, to the point that it would be more cost effective
to acquire and demolish them.
The third issue is the development of a medical evacuation
program. One of the biggest unsolved problems facing coastal
communities is our inability to adequately manage what I refer
to as a medical-community evacuation. Horry County has numerous
nursing homes, assisted-living centers, hospitals, and bed-
bound citizens in a potential evacuation zone. The resources
just do not exist in the local area to conduct an evacuation of
these citizens.
We've been working on this issue since Hurricane Bertha in
July of 1996. Despite efforts to address this issue, I believe
we are still not capable of implementing a full evacuation of
this medical community. In the event of evacuation, such as the
one caused by Hurricane Floyd in 1999, this would put us in the
position of probably leaving some of our most vulnerable
citizens in the evacuation zone during a major hurricane.
Since Hurricane Hugo hit in September of 1989, South
Carolina has made tremendous progress in preparing for the next
hurricane. I'm impressed by the dedication of the government
agencies and the private organizations that worked together in
this effort. However, I've seen the impact that a storm can
have on communities. Preparing a community's infrastructure is
an obvious goal of local government; but until the business
community is restored, recovery is not complete. Many times,
this is a neglected component in the process.
In addition, I've been with families that have had their
lives and homes destroyed by the impact of a major storm.
Walking through a house with a family that has had six feet of
flood water in their home, you realize the devastation that
occurs both to the structure and to the family unit. Even if we
had been able to assist them in rebuilding, I can't help but
thinking that prevention is a better solution.
I learned, many years ago in this business, that
landfalling hurricanes have predictable consequences. And
predictable is preventable. We must guide to ensure a teamwork
approach, including the Federal Government, state government,
local governments, private agencies, and individual citizens.
This teamwork must focus on the entire cycle of disaster, with
a special emphasis on mitigation. We've worked, in a number of
times, with agencies such as the Clemson University's Wind Load
Test Facility that Dr. Prevatt discussed and showed. We
initiated that process literally days after Hurricane Floyd
started, when we realized we were going to be acquiring houses.
We wanted to make them available to the Clemson University Wind
Load Test Facility to conduct research. We see the benefits of
that research at the local level and fully support their
efforts.
I appreciate the opportunity to come to talk to you today.
And if you have any questions, I'll be glad to answer them.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Whitten follows:]

Prepared Statement of Paul D. Whitten, Director,
Horry County Public Safety Division

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before this subcommittee. I
truly appreciate being able to share my thoughts on hurricane
preparedness in South Carolina, and specifically on the Grand Strand. I
also wish to state that these statements are mine alone, and do not
necessarily represent the opinions of Horry County Government.
We cannot continue to ignore the threat of hurricanes to our
coastal communities. A number of factors are combining to create a
potentially serious tragedy. These factors include:

1. The growth of our coastal communities. Horry County is
experiencing a tremendous surge in population. Many of the new
residents come from areas that do not experience hurricanes,
and have no practical knowledge about dealing with storms of
this nature. In addition, one of the fastest growing
demographics in our area is the 55 and older group.

2. An increased period of hurricane activity. Many hurricane
experts believe that we are in a period of increased hurricane
activity. This year we are already on our 9th named storm, and
the National Hurricane Center is projecting this season to see
up to 21 total named storms.

If we honestly face this reality, we realize we must begin to
better prepare our communities. To accomplish this, I believe we must
consider implementing the following actions for the Grand Strand:

1. DEVELOP A SOUTHERN CONNECTOR

The southern part of the Grand Strand must have an effective
evacuation route. We continue to put people at risk by not
having a good evacuation route for tens of thousands of our
residents living in Surfside Beach, Garden City Beach, the
Waccamaw Neck and surrounding areas. Research indicates that
too many people fail to evacuate, because they do not want to
get caught in huge traffic jams.
I believe South Carolina has one of the most effective
hurricane plans in the Nation. The South Carolina Emergency
Management Division provides the Governor with the information
and recommendations that guide the state through the evacuation
process. And while South Carolina has implemented innovative
traffic procedures, such as lane-reversals, and counter-flow
operations, the lack of actual road infrastructure still
hampers every evacuation.

2. DEVELOP A REAL MITIGATION PROGRAM

Historically, the Federal Government has spent a tremendous
amount of money on post-disaster assistance. However, we MUST
acknowledge that it is better and more cost-efficient when we
emphasize pre-disaster mitigation. We have seen progress in
this area with the requirement for local Mitigation Plans, but
without funding, the plans are difficult, if not impossible, to
implement.
In addition, we must be smarter about developing in high-risk
areas. Through the National Flood Insurance Program, the
Federal Government spends a tremendous amount of money on
repetitive-loss properties. These are properties that are in
flood prone areas, and we continually pay to repair these
structures, to the point that it would be more cost effective
to just acquire and demolish them.

3. DEVELOP A MEDICAL EVACUATION PROGRAM

One of the biggest unsolved problems facing coastal
communities is our inability to adequately manage what I refer
to as the medical community evacuation. Horry County has
numerous nursing homes, assisted living centers, hospitals, and
bed-bound citizens in the potential evacuation zone. The
resources just do not exist in the local area to conduct an
evacuation of these citizens.
We have been working on this issue since Hurricane Bertha in
July 1996, and despite efforts to address this concern, I
believe we are still not capable of implementing a full
evacuation of the medical community. In the event of an
evacuation such as the one caused by Hurricane Floyd in 1999,
would put us in the position of probably leaving some of our
most vulnerable citizens in the evacuation zone during a major
hurricane.

Since Hurricane Hugo hit in September of 1989, South Carolina has
made tremendous progress in preparing for the next major hurricane. I
am impressed by the dedication of the government agencies and the
private organizations that work together in this effort. However, I
have seen the impact that a storm can have on communities. Repairing
the community's infrastructure is an obvious goal of local government,
but until the business community is restored, recovery is not complete.
Many times, this is a neglected component of the process.
In addition, I have been with families that have had their homes
and lives destroyed by the impact of major storms. Walking through a
house that has been flooded 6, of water, you realize the devastation
that occurs, both to the structure and the family's emotions. Even when
we have been able to assist them in rebuilding, I can't help thinking
that prevention is a better solution.
I learned many years ago that land-falling hurricanes have
predictable consequences, and predictable is preventable. We must
strive to ensure a teamwork approach, including the Federal Government,
state government, local governments, private agencies and individual
citizens. This teamwork effort must focus on the entire cycle of
disaster, with an emphasis on mitigation.
Thank you for coming here today and providing the opportunity to
hear these issues and concerns.

Senator DeMint. You can count on the questions. We'll get
to that after Mr. Gandy's testimony.

STATEMENT OF JIM GANDY, CHIEF METEOROLOGIST,
WLTX-TV, COLUMBIA, SC

Mr. Gandy. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And
thank you for inviting me to address this hearing.
I'm Jim Gandy, and I'm the Chief Meteorologist at WLTX in
Columbia, South Carolina. I've been a professional
meteorologist for 30 years. I've been here in South Carolina
for 21 years, so I've seen a few hurricanes hit the coast of
our state.
I want to say that, first of all, I'm really encouraged by
what South Carolina has done. It has learned some hard lessons,
and it has taken steps to address what has been learned. And
you've already heard quite a bit from these gentlemen here. And
I want to say that here in South Carolina we're very fortunate
to have a facility doing the research that's being done at
Clemson University. And what the state has been doing to
address some of the problems is admirable. We've learned some
lessons. And I think what I'll probably end up doing is
summarizing what you have already heard from these gentlemen.
But let me just say that I was here during Hurricane Hugo,
and there were some lessons to be learned from Hurricane Hugo.
There is a critical need to address communications after the
storm has passed. Hugo wiped out phone service. And if another
hurricane of that nature hits our coast, it's going to wipe out
phone service and wireless communications. It's going to be
difficult for the state agencies to communicate. So, that's
something that needs to be done at both the state and local
level.
Also, there is a frustration, not only from Hugo, but from
just about every hurricane that we encounter, with evacuations.
That's something that's going to have to be addressed.
From the public perspective, the most important information
I keep hearing from the public is the extent of the damage.
Now, the officials are the first to go into the damaged area.
So, the earliest assessment that we can get of the damage needs
to be communicated to the public, because they're sitting,
waiting to go back, and they want to know. They need to know
what the dangers are if they do go back. And they need a
reasonable estimate as to when they can return to their
property. That's a real frustration I hear from the general
public, ``When can I go back?'' And I understand the pressures
on public officials to tell them that. And it's hard sometimes
to assess what the damage is and how soon people can safely go
back into their communities.
The basic infrastructure needs to be restored as soon as
possible after the storm, because when people go back, they're
going to need food, they're going to need water. That needs to
be addressed.
And building codes need to be strengthened in all coastal
communities. Much of the damage to homes and property comes
from flying debris, so whatever we can do to reduce flying
debris is going to help reduce the damage that's experienced by
buildings.
Let me make a few comments about some of the lessons that
we learned from Hurricane Floyd.
Floyd turned out to be the largest peacetime evacuation in
U.S. history. Close to three million people were evacuated
during Floyd. And here in Myrtle Beach--being in Columbia, I
heard the details of that evacuation. And during Floyd it was
taking people 14 to 15 hours to drive from Myrtle Beach to
Columbia, which is normally about a three-hour drive, or a
little bit less.
There is a need for lane reversals, and it needs to become
effective as soon as the mandatory order is issued. There is a
need to coordinate those evacuations with other states, because
one of the problems with Floyd, people were evacuating into
future evacuation zones, making that evacuation even more
difficult.
A plan needs to be established to make sure that there is
enough fuel available for people to make the trip inland. The
best example of that was Interstate 16 in Georgia, going west
from Savannah. There is not a lot there. But the Interstate
became gridlocked. People were running out of fuel, and the
Interstate was essentially becoming a parking lot. So, that's
something that we need to address.
People need better information about where to go for
shelters. Shelters are available. The problem is trying to get
that information to the public. And I think that's where not
only local officials can help us, but the media needs to be
better at communicating that information. And we can do that.
Television is changing. It's no longer television
meteorologists you're looking at; we're true broadcast
meteorologists. We now broadcast on many different platforms--
television, cable, telephone, radio, and now wireless
communications. In Columbia, we're the first TV station to have
our website available to those who've got PDAs. And that's
where we can broadcast a lot of information. Because if you
take a look at the evacuation plan here in South Carolina,
those people are moving from the coast, they're heading toward
the central part of the state. It's all focused on Columbia.
And when we can broadcast to those people evacuating where
those shelters are, that, I think, will be a big benefit.
This is a problem that I have, personally. Senior citizens,
those in assisted-living areas and residents of nursing homes,
they need to be evacuated before the warning is issued. And the
reason for that is because they're the last people who need to
be sitting in traffic. So, my recommendation is that they be
evacuated during a hurricane watch, which is usually issued
about 36 hours before hurricane conditions are expected. That's
a tough call, but it's something that needs to be done.
Other lessons. You've heard about South Carolina's plan for
lane reversals, and the current one was developed under the
auspices of Governor Mark Sanford, and I applaud the effort. It
looks good, and I think it will work. And I think we've done
the right thing here in South Carolina. The authority for those
lane reversals rests with the Governor's office. In Louisiana,
it does not. And that problem was accentuated during Hurricane
Ivan. The authority for lane reversals comes from the local
parishes. The problem is, it has to be coordinated with the
state police. It was not, during Hurricane Ivan. And when the
mandatory evacuation order was given for New Orleans, it
resulted in gridlock. The order was given and made at 7:30 in
the morning. The lane reversals were not implemented until the
middle of the afternoon. New Orleans, having over a million
people, you can imagine what the roads were like, trying to get
out of New Orleans. So, that's something that we need to
address.
Hurricane Andrew and Hurricane Charley have something in
common. They highlighted the need to strengthen building codes.
We are all familiar with the damage that Hurricane Andrew did.
What it did was, it highlighted the need to strengthen the
building codes. What Hurricane Charley did was, showed us the
benefit--and you just saw an example of that--of the
manufactured home that survived a hit by Hurricane Charley.
Now, we may not be able to prevent all of the damage, like
Andrew. Andrew was just a very powerful storm. But that's rare.
A storm like Charley is probably more likely. And if we can
survive those storms, we can greatly reduce the damage that's
caused by these storms. And so, the message is clear, I think,
from Charley, that if you can reduce the amount of flying
debris, there's a greater chance of reducing the damage.
We just completed doing a study. We just rewrote our
hurricane plan at our TV station. One of the things that we
found, which was kind of interesting, there are now--in just
the Census figures--from 1970 to the year 2000, the population
of coastal South Carolina grew by more than 70 percent. There
are now more than a million people living on the coast of South
Carolina. That's as many people that live in the coast of
Georgia and North Carolina, combined. So, we've seen a
tremendous growth in the population.
On top of that, on any given weekend before Labor Day, the
population of coastal South Carolina is two to three times
that. You're looking at two to three million people along the
coast of South Carolina.
Our worst nightmare is going to be a storm that approaches
before Labor Day. After Labor Day, it's not as bad, because a
lot of people have ended their vacations and kids are at
school, so you don't have quite the problem after Labor Day
that you do before Labor Day.
So, I'm going to accentuate your remark by saying that
there is a critical need for some kind of Interstate system
that connects the Grand Strand with Florence and I-20 so we can
get people out. And that's in addition to what we already have
to get people out of the Grand Strand.
One comment that I'd like to make concerning global
warming. We know that that is taking place. Exactly how it's
going to manifest itself is difficult, but we do know that sea
level is rising. That's going to affect coastal communities.
More importantly, new research has just come to light--and I
was just exposed to this last week when I was in Washington,
D.C.--and that research indicates that, by the middle part of
this century, major hurricanes could be stronger because of the
warming of ocean waters, so that what you're looking at is: a
major hurricane, when it occurs, is more likely to be stronger
than the major hurricanes that we're seeing hitting today. A
good example of that would be Hurricane Hugo, where the maximum
sustained wind was estimated at 138 miles-per-hour. That same
type storm hitting in the middle part of this century is more
likely to have winds of 150 miles-per-hour. So, that's
something we need to plan for in the future.
And, finally, let me just say that we do a pretty good job
on radio, but we could do better. State and local agencies need
to work with the media. We are the eyes and the ears for the
public and whatever information that can come our way is
generally broadcasted very quickly. We're a very efficient way
of getting information to the public. And any kind of
partnership that could be strengthened, I think, is going to be
done in trying to make these evacuations smooth.
Thank you, again, for allowing me to----
Senator DeMint. Thank you, Mr. Gandy.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gandy follows:]

Prepared Statement of Jim Gandy, Chief Meteorologist,
WLTX-TV, Columbia, SC

I am Jim Gandy, Chief Meteorologist at News19 WLTX in Columbia,
South Carolina. I have been a professional meteorologist for 30 years
and have worked in Columbia for 21 years. My experience with hurricanes
dates back to my childhood in Florida which was one of the reasons I
became a meteorologist. I have worked tirelessly as a meteorologist
trying to inform and prepare the public about hurricanes for many
years.
I want to thank Senator Jim DeMint and the Committee, for inviting
me to testify before you today. I hope that the comments that I make
will be useful in helping improve preparation for hurricanes along our
coast. Further, I wish to state that the testimony I am about to give
reflect my opinions and are not necessarily the views of WLTX
Television.
Let me begin by saying that most communities recognize the danger
posed by hurricanes. Most have done an effective job preparing for such
events and executing their plans. However, we continue to learn as each
storm presents unique dangers.

SOME LESSONS FROM HURRICANE HUGO

No other storm affected South Carolina in the Twentieth Century
like Hurricane Hugo. It was the strongest hurricane to strike the state
since 1893 which produced over 2,000 fatalities in the low country of
South Carolina. The state and communities were poorly prepared to deal
with destruction on such a large scale. It took years to recover from
the experience. It is a fact that a similar storm will strike the state
in the future and there are some lessons to be learned from Hugo:

1. There is a critical need to address communications in the
aftermath of such a storm. Phone service was completely
eliminated after Hugo. Only ham operators were functioning and
they provided the critical communications link in the storm's
aftermath. Today that would extend to wireless communications
as well. A major hurricane is likely to disrupt phone service,
cable service, and wireless communications. The forms of
communications that are most likely to survive would be ham
operators and satellite phones. Therefore, it is imperative
that local and state agencies have access to multiple
communications platforms. Redundancy is critical to making sure
some form of communication survives.

2. A frustration expressed by evacuees during Hugo was the
lack of communication between officials and the public. There
were many complaints that authorities were not passing along
any information. Thus, a public information office needs to be
established at either the state or local level to quickly pass
information to the media and public. Evacuees are patient when
they have information, but they become restless with a lack of
information. The most important information to communicate to
the public is the extent of damage, the dangers that might be
present, and a reasonable estimate as to when they can return
to their property.

3. The basic infrastructure needs to be restored as soon as
possible after the storm. People returning to their property
will need access to food and water quickly to begin the
rebuilding effort.

4. Building codes need to be strengthened in all coastal
communities. Much of the damage to homes and property comes
from flying debris. This is often the result of a building
disintegrating in the face of strong winds. The State of
Florida seems to be the farthest along in light of Hurricane
Andrew and the hurricanes in 2004.

SOME LESSONS FROM HURRICANE FLOYD

Hurricane Floyd resulted in the largest peacetime evacuation in
U.S. history. More than 3 million residents fled their homes due to the
potential danger from this storm. The experience was an unpleasant one
for many who ultimately did not need to evacuate. Many tell stories of
it taking 14 to 15 hours to travel from Myrtle Beach to Columbia. This
is normally a 3 hour trip or less. Of the lessons learned from Floyd
these include:

1. There is a need for lane reversals to become effective as
soon as the mandatory evacuation is ordered. This usually
occurs when the National Hurricane Center issues a hurricane
warning. States need to prepare to implement the lane reversals
as soon as the hurricane watch is issued or 12 hours before the
need for mandatory evacuation. People will hesitate to evacuate
if it takes 15 hours to make what is normally a 3 hour trip.

2. There is a great need to coordinate evacuations with other
states. This is in an effort to avoid evacuating into other
evacuation zones. This problem aggravated the evacuations
during Floyd causing even longer delays.

3. A plan must be established to make sure there is enough
fuel available for people to make the trip inland. Sections of
Interstate 16 in Georgia became a parking lot because stations
were running out of gas.

4. People need better information on where to go to take
shelter. This lack of information often leads to evacuees
traveling much longer distances than needed to escape the
storm. The media needs better and timelier information on which
shelters are open and where they are located. Wireless
communications now permit this information to be communicated
even when people are not near a television.

5. Senior citizens, those in assisted living areas, and
residents of nursing homes need to be evacuated during a
hurricane watch. Many of these people may encounter undue
hardships if caught in the normal evacuation delays. These
people are more likely to need medical help during an
emergency.

OTHER LESSONS FOR SOUTH CAROLINA

The State of South Carolina now has a detailed plan for lane
reversals and the procedures for implementing the plan. This was done
as a result of Hurricane Floyd as the request of Governor Mark Sanford.
The plan is comprehensive, flexible, and relatively quick to execute.
Furthermore, the authority to execute the plan rests solely with the
Governor's office.
The importance of where to place the authority was highlighted
during Hurricane Ivan in 2004. Louisiana gave the authority to order
lane reversals to the individual parishes. The order was given in
Hurricane Ivan, but it was not coordinated with the state police. This
resulted in a massive traffic jam in New Orleans when the mandatory
evacuation order was given. It took more than 12 hours for the
situation to improve. There were two fatalities in this evacuation and
numerous complaints about the delays. These delays were often too great
for the elderly trying to evacuate.
South Carolina's plan has been tested in mock simulations, but it
has yet to be tested in real-time. I believe that it will test well and
that it will ease the delays of a mandatory evacuation. It is my
opinion that the State of South Carolina is on the right track. If it
has flaws, these may not become apparent until reality strikes.
However, the plan will not fail from lack of trying.
Hurricane Andrew and Hurricane Charley highlighted the need for
South Carolina to strengthen its building codes. Both of these
hurricanes hit Florida, but they showed what needed to be done and what
can be done.
Most structures were completely destroyed when Hurricane Andrew
struck south Florida in 1992. The resulting surveys convinced the state
to strengthen its building codes particularly with respect to
manufactured housing. The new standards took effect in 1994 and were
put to the test 10 years later.
Hurricane Charley roared through Punta Gorda in 2004. The
manufactured homes built before 1994 were often completely destroyed or
heavily damaged. Meanwhile, the post-1994 homes suffered minor damage
except in cases where they were hit by disintegrating mobile homes
built to pre-1994 standards.
The message is clear. Any time you can reduce the amount of flying
debris there is a greater chance of reducing the damage.

OTHER CONCERNS

The population along the South Carolina coast grew by more than 70
percent from 1970 to 2000. There are now more than one million
residents in the coastal counties of South Carolina. However, on any
given weekend from Memorial Day through Labor Day there are some 2 to 3
million people enjoying our coasts. My worst nightmare is trying to
evacuate in the face of a major hurricane through the Labor Day
weekend. Any problems we have now would be greatly magnified.
Hilton Head and Charleston both have an Interstate exit to other
Interstates. No such Interstate exists for the Grand Strand. The state
has done the best it can under the circumstances. However, there is a
critical need for an Interstate connecting the Grand Strand with
Florence and Interstate 20.
There is also an increasing threat to coastal communities from
global warming. Research indicates that by the middle of this century,
sea levels will be higher and major hurricanes may be stronger.
The increase in sea level will come from several sources. As the
waters of the Atlantic warm there will be a rise in sea level from
thermal expansion. In addition, the melting of glaciers and the
thinning of the polar ice will add to the rise of sea level. The
sinking of some land areas near the coast will only add to the rise of
sea level.
In addition to threats from the rise of sea level, the strength of
major hurricanes may increase as the Atlantic waters warm. It has
recently been demonstrated that the depth of warm waters impacts the
strength of hurricanes. Hurricane Camille moved over a deep and very
warm eddy as it approached the Gulf coast. The energy available from
this warm pool helped create the giant it became.
Finally, state and local agencies need to work better with the
media. The media becomes the eyes and ears for the public. It is the
fastest means of communicating with the public and most versatile. Most
television stations broadcast on many different platforms such as
television, cable, Internet, radio, telephone, etc. These are the
communication experts and they need to be used more effectively. This
can be and should be done by better cooperation between the government
agencies and media.
This concludes my remarks concerning the threat from hurricanes. I
wish to again thank Senator DeMint and the Committee for allowing me to
appear before you today.

Senator DeMint. I want to ask a few questions. I'm
thinking, like here in the Grand Strand, is it impossible for a
hotel to be certified to withstand a Category 5 hurricane, and
that if the preparations with water reserves, alternative
power, would it not be even a good marketing tool for that
hotel to be able to say, ``We're evacuation-proof. You can stay
here and watch the storm.'' And I suspect that would require
vinyl on glass, shatterproof, all that kind of stuff.
But I'm just wondering, just to start the discussion,
should we build all of our preparation on the idea that we're
going to evacuate, or can we, as Dr. Prevatt has suggested,
through research and construction techniques, even come--have a
scenario where if you're in one structure, you have to get out
of here; but if you're in another one that has been certified,
that you don't--which might create some--just market-force
incentives for hotels and even residential areas, builders, to
use research that's already existing, because, apparently, from
the slide you showed, I mean, we know how to build a structure
to withstand a storm, that it's just not done.
The cost of this is not just an advantage. Everyone who
lives on the coast is paying a premium through their insurance,
constantly. And those rates go up and up and up, raising the
cost of living here, which I think is something we need to look
at.
And so, I'd just like to start with the idea, is it
possible to certify structures so that evacuation would not
necessarily be the only means to keep people safe? And, Mr.
Gandy, you apparently want to say something, so----
Mr. Gandy. I'm familiar with the South Carolina coast, and
I think, here in the Grand Strand, the main focus there--and
correct me if you disagree--but I think the main focus there,
if we can get them out of the storm-surge area, then I think
that's a really good idea. Because here in--along the Grand
Strand, the storm surge is not going to be as great as, say,
down in the Low Country. And let me give you--you're familiar
with the situation out in the Low Country--Hilton Head,
particularly. That may not work for Hilton Head, but it could
probably work here in the Myrtle Beach area. And if a major
hurricane--say a Category 4 or Category 5 hurricane--were to
hit down there, the storm surge potentially could go all the
way to I-95. Now, that's pretty far inland. And if Hurricane
Hugo had hit Savannah instead of Charleston, Hilton Head Island
would have been completely submerged.
So, I think, if we're going to do that, we need to look at
particularly where the storm surge is going to be. And if you
get them out of the storm surge, then I think you've done a
good job.
Senator DeMint. Yes, that would have to be part of the
certification process----
Mr. Gandy. Yes.
Senator DeMint.--I guess, but the----
Dr. Prevatt?
Dr. Prevatt. Senator DeMint, this is--the idea of
evacuation for wind is something that has come from who knows
where. You know, the primary reason was for storm surge. And
wind is just--people sort of look at their neighbor and say,
``Well, if you're evacuating, I'm evacuating, too,'' and
everyone jumps in their cars and--you know, and I heard from
the South Carolina emergency management people yesterday in
Columbia that said people were evacuating not just one car, but
they were evacuating two and three cars and the boat. They
wanted to get everything out of harm's way.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Prevatt. Now, one of the things, I think, why certified
buildings would be a very good idea is, looking at the Florida
experience, based on the work that Florida DCA and RCMP are
doing with their windfall insurance money funding, I think, in
addition to improving the safety of the buildings in Florida,
it is an additional marketing tool that perhaps Mr. Dean might
want to consider. At some point, Florida may be able to state
categorically that, ``This building and this residential
community, this resort, is certified for a Category 5. Why not
vacation here instead of other places?'' And that is certainly
something that I can see using as a marketing tool.
Senator DeMint. Myrtle Beach could use that against the Low
Country.
[Laughter.]
Senator DeMint. ``Vacation here. We're evacuation-free.''
Dr. Prevatt. But, you know, and I think of it even in terms
of the question of evacuation of hospitals and those nursing
homes, that, yes, I may have outlying buildings that I say
there are critically ill people that do not need to be there.
They can move to a more sturdily constructed building. And
instead of staying on the ground floor, if you have sufficient
power, you go up. You do vertical evacuation, come away from
the windows. I have looked at studies for the Medical
University of South Carolina recently in which they wished to
upgrade a few of their major facilities that aren't duplicated
in other areas of the state, and they say, ``These things need
to be here. We're not going to move someone on kidney dialysis
machines and put them in a car or in an ambulance.'' You know?
And so, yes, there are things that we can do. For instance,
if I look at hotels around here, one might consider impact-
resistant glass or a film on your glass to improve that
strength. And one would use more durable materials in your
exterior wall systems. It's typical to use EIFS, but they don't
work very well in wind conditions. You know?
But these things certainly, I believe, we can design it.
It's a question of, Do we want to pay for it? And encouraging
people, everybody, that you need to pay for these up front----
Senator DeMint. Let me ask, because you mentioned more
research dollars, which sounds clearly like there may be some
opportunity. But it doesn't appear that the market is using the
research that's available today. I mean, if we've got things we
know we can do in construction that can virtually make a home
hurricane-proof, that doesn't seem to be--at least I don't see
that as something that's going on, to any large degree. Is that
not true, or, I mean----
Unidentified Panelist. It's more cost than anything.
Senator DeMint. Yes.
Mr. Dean, do you see that here, that folks are building to
a certain code?
Mr. Dean. Yes, Mr. Chairman. And I think your point's very
well taken. There is information that's nice to know, there's
information you need to know. And, in this particular case--and
I think the Doctor indicated earlier--the research that is
being done would certainly enhance improvements, but, from the
perspective of a home builder or, particularly, a business
along the coast, if it's a foregone conclusion that during a
certain level of storm you're going to evacuate, and if your
insurance rates don't necessarily distinguish between benefits
of having such or not--and they don't always do it--then it
becomes an issue of, Is it really advantageous to do so?
Now, turn that around from a problem into an opportunity,
to your previous question. If, in fact, a certain level of code
could prevent a resort from having to evacuate in a storm,
where the storm surge is not going to be an issue for that
particular area, and if it did provide incentives, now there
would be an incentive to do that. And, to your point earlier,
it would become very marketable.
So, I think the answer to your question is that the
information is being used, but it's not advantageous such to
the point that businesses need to----
Senator DeMint. Well, maybe if insurance companies don't
recognize it, property taxes could. So, you could look
locally--I think that Mr. Cantore may have been the one that
mentioned that most of the deaths are from flooding when people
are moving around, not necessarily from in a structure. Am I
right, or is----
Mr. Cantore. Well, inland flooding.
Senator DeMint. Yes.
Mr. Cantore. Whether it be the mountains of North Carolina,
with Frances and Ivan, you know, where they had 30 inches of
rain. You know, you take a system that's supposed to be in the
tropics, and you put it over the mid-latitudes or in the United
States, and you can have some big problems with flooding. And
that is--you know, we get people away from the coast. We get
them out of the storm-surge zones. But we just have to make
sure we don't put them in an area that can flood, or a low-
lying area. That was my big concern.
Senator DeMint. What would have to take place, Mr.
Whitten--and you mentioned, certainly the elderly, those who
are in a medical situation--if you're going to have someone in
a retirement home, assisted living, some kind of medical
building, it has to be in a certified Category 5 storm or you
can't do it. I mean, does it make sense to continue to allow
people to open and put folks in these homes if we know that,
practically, we're not going to be able to evacuate and that
they are not safe at storm levels?
Mr. Whitten. Well, and I think you're hitting the exact
issue. And I'm going to give you a little bit more detailed
answer. The evacuation zones in South Carolina are built
exclusively on the hurricane surge. They're not wind-based at
all. They are all hurricane surge. And based on some of the
data you've heard about, the inability to adequately or
accurately forecast intensity, we have to take some allowances
for that.
The reality is, we have some nursing homes that are very
well built. I believe they have taken those extra steps to
increase the strength that their building can withstand a wind
event. But if they're in the surge zone, then they still need
to evacuate.
Senator DeMint. Even with the vertical evacuation idea that
Dr. Prevatt mentioned?
Mr. Whitten. Well, the problem is, the existing ones--most
of our existing ones are single-floor.
Senator DeMint. Right.
Mr. Whitten. And the other thing that I am--I would like to
throw in the conversation is, we talk about that structure
being able to survive a storm, but the Governor has got to be
able to provide infrastructure. If I can't get you clean water,
sewer, I can't get you electricity or telephone service, you're
okay, you've survived, and your structure might be fine, but
you've got a problem about living. We've seen, after storms,
especially on the coast where you have the surge, you see roads
that get washed out. And that was a big issue in Folly Beach
after Hurricane Hugo, and some other places. The road washes
out from underneath, so it's unsafe. If I can't deliver public
safety--if I can't get ambulances and cops and fire trucks
around, you might be down there, but, if you have an emergency,
I can't get to you. And that's a basic obligation of local
government. And so, from my perspective, I'd rather you not be
in that position, because what happens, if you come out, your
house is fine, but the community has got a lot of problems and
you get hurt, we're committing a lot of resources trying to get
aid to you.
Senator DeMint. Well, again, this--following this line of
questioning--and it may be a question of a paradigm of
evacuation--and rather than the millions of dollars of moving
people out and ultimately moving people where they don't even
know where they're going, could it--would it not be possible to
have enough areas designated that may be able to have reserve
water supplies, reserve power, that, even if the roads were out
within a half a mile of almost every resident, there was--there
could be sources of support? Knowing that nothing is perfect,
but, given the fact that people moving along the highways,
running out of gas, elderly people being evacuated--would it
not be at least a compatible or complementary strategy to look
at building the capabilities to--for people to withstand the
storm where they are, or near where they are, that they should
move to a vertical evacuation building within a mile of their
home, and if we had maybe 30 of those on the Grand Strand--I'm
not sure, but I guess it's something we need to question.
Mr. Whitten. I think there's some value to that. And we
even have worked with that. Max Mayfield has said, ``You run
from the water and you hide from the wind.'' And that's one of
the things that we try to push when we have an evacuation, is,
``This is the evacuation zone. You need to leave. If you're
outside the zone, you take some adequate precautions that were
discussed''--basically, you protect your windows, and you do
some basic things--``we recommend you stay.'' Unfortunately, a
lot of those people, who haven't been here, have never--are
from an inland state, possibly--they don't even want to risk
it, so they add to that congestion on the road.
Senator DeMint. We also have mandatory evacuations and that
even--I know it happened to me last year. I ended up down here
two days, and then I was--at least the Governor said I had to
leave.
[Laughter.]
Senator DeMint. And I probably should have called and asked
if that really applied to everybody, so, it is a confusing
message. If you might have a situation where you're actually
safer staying if you're outside the surge----
But let me ask a question just about construction. I know I
saw some pictures of a high-rise condo project on the Gulf, and
one of the storms that came through, that we would have assumed
that this structure could have withstood it in any hurricane,
yet the surge, the water, worked its way under the foundation,
since it was in a sandy foundation, and this whole thing
collapsed. I mean, fortunately, the people had gone. But, as I
look down the coast here, I would assume that a storm came
through, all these large buildings would be okay. Do any of us
have any idea if these are built with a foundation that could
withstand that kind of undermining? Do we know that?
Dr. Prevatt. My sense is yes. But, with certainty, I can't
say that. But the experience has been that engineered
structures like the high- or mid-rise buildings do, in fact,
perform satisfactorily during any hurricane that we have
survived. That one was certainly a unique case.
But the idea--or the problem, should I say, with those
buildings primarily is the wall-cladding, the roofing systems,
and the windows that get damaged. Once those things fail, a lot
of water and wind enter the structures, and that, in fact, can
cause more damage than the----
Senator DeMint. Well, we know how to put roofs on homes and
buildings that could withstand, and we know how to develop
shatterproof glass. I guess the question is, we're just not
really using them----
Dr. Prevatt. Because----
Senator DeMint.--So we have to evacuate.
Dr. Prevatt.--because we are not willing to pay for it up
front. We prefer to wait until after the event and get the
post-hurricane money, as opposed to the pre-hurricane retrofit.
Senator DeMint. And I guess the incentives, as Mr. Dean has
suggested, that insurance costs do not really reflect any kind
of expense that will make these virtually hurricane-proof. So I
guess it is easier to say, ``Well, we'll just let the insurance
pay for it.'' But the economic impact of that, as well as, I
think, the potential safety problems of putting that many
people on the road, is enough for me to at least question if
evacuation is the best primary strategy.
Mr. Dean. I think, Mr. Chairman, because evacuations are a
foregone conclusion in so many situations, that we really
haven't incentivized that. Clearly, our collective mothers'
advice that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure
would enable a healthy discussion to evaluate, is there a
better way to approach it? I think the recent construction on
the Grand Strand has certainly addressed some of those concerns
that you've alluded to, but there are older properties that,
when they were built, we didn't know the information we have
today.
Senator DeMint. Right.
Mr. Dean. And I suggest, as we continue to grow and
develop, not only along the coast of South Carolina, but the
coast of the Southeastern United States, more and more of this
information would be used, and, if used as an incentive to
advantageously approach this, I think you would find, not only
a lot of support amongst residents and businesses, but also
local and state government.
Senator DeMint. I see, I guess, some construction holes,
and I assume this is being built to accommodate a certain level
of surge so that we assume those structures might make it
through a storm.
Well, I could keep this questioning going for a long time,
because I think we're kind of onto something that we need to
explore a little more. And I do think the research and the
possible incentives for construction alternatives to evacuation
and perhaps certain types of restrictions that might suggest
that if you're building medical facilities, that if they need
to withstand the surge where they are, and a lot of that we
could do.
Before--I need to wrap up pretty quickly, but I want to
make sure that none of you have a quick comment that you want
to make based on other things that have been said. We really
don't have time for another five minutes, but just an
observation or something that you'd like to make sure we carry
back. I mean, you've all come a long way, which I greatly
appreciate. It has been, I think, incredibly good information
to help us develop a consensus of some ideas. But a few
comments.
Yes, sir?
Mr. Dean. Mr. Chairman, again, thank you for holding this
hearing here and for taking the time to be with us. Thank you,
to the other panelists. And we appreciate your interest in this
issue that is so important, not only to the Grand Strand, but
to the entire coast of the United States.
I would also be remiss, Mr. Chairman, if I did not thank
you and your counterparts in the South Carolina Congressional
Delegation for your efforts to improve the infrastructure. It
has been touched on here today, but we all know that Interstate
73 will not only bring job growth, it will eventually save
lives. And though that is not a part of this committee, your
efforts as part of the Environment and Public Works Committee
certainly give us hope that the infrastructure in South
Carolina will dramatically improve in the near future, and that
ultimately will improve the safety of our residents.
Again, we thank you for your interest in this. It's very
important to the coast of South Carolina and other areas, and
we appreciate your leadership in such matters.
Senator DeMint. Anything else?
Mr. Cantore. Mr. Chairman, in 1900 we lost approximately
8,000 people in Galveston because we didn't leave the beach.
People underestimate the power of water. It weighs 60 pounds a
cubic foot. That's when it's not moving. You know, I think
there are some great ideas about getting people out of harm's
way, but to be anywhere close to a surge where we are basically
cutting off people, masses of people and buildings, is a
dangerous proposition.
Senator DeMint. I think that's a good thought. It would be
a good warning to have. I think that the difference between
water and wind is probably an important distinction.
Dr. Prevatt. Mr. Chairman, I think the research community
is doing all it can. You know, I have my vehicles ready, and we
are ready. We're doing the reverse evacuation in every single
hurricane to collect the data that people will need to develop
better buildings.
More importantly, I think it is important for the
engineering researchers, the civics facilities, as well as the
emergency managers to speak to each other, to develop the right
mix of research, building code, and policy that would provide
those incentives for changing the way we build. We chose to use
plywood instead of plank roofing. You're right. We chose to
build weaker houses. We can choose to go the other direction.
Unidentified Panelist. Absolutely.
Mr. Whitten. Right.
Senator DeMint. Thank you.
I want to do something--Mr. Whitten, you may want to say
something, but I want to say something about you. I'd like to
make a little presentation. Mr. Whitten, if you would come
around here.
One of the things we're doing on our tour around the state
during our August break is to recognize people, organizations,
and governments, who are helping move South Carolina forward.
And the disaster preparedness here in Horry County and the
technology that has been used has been recognized, really, all
over the country. The progress that you're making, is one way
we think is moving South Carolina forward. And so much of what
we talk about in politics and in the news is often negative or
some kind of disaster that's coming through. We don't talk
enough about the good things that are happening and the
progress we're making.
And so, this South Carolina ``On the Move Award'' is
awarded to Horry County for the Emergency Preparedness
Division. And, Mr. Whitten, I'd like you to accept it on behalf
of all of Horry County.
[Applause.]
Senator DeMint. I appreciate all of the witnesses who
appeared today. I promise you, we'll use every bit of
information you've given me. And it's certainly a lot of
insight into what we need to do to move this forward. So, I
can't thank you enough, and, all of you who came and sat
through this, I appreciate it.
And so, this hearing is officially over. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 10:18 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]