[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
.
SAVING LIVES AND MONEY THROUGH THE PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PROGRAMS
=======================================================================
(110-122)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 30, 2008
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
42-252 PDF WASHINGTON : 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, JOHN L. MICA, Florida
Vice Chair DON YOUNG, Alaska
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
Columbia WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
JERROLD NADLER, New York VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
CORRINE BROWN, Florida STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio
BOB FILNER, California FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas JERRY MORAN, Kansas
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi GARY G. MILLER, California
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa Carolina
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
RICK LARSEN, Washington SAM GRAVES, Missouri
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York Virginia
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois TED POE, Texas
DORIS O. MATSUI, California DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
NICK LAMPSON, Texas CONNIE MACK, Florida
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii York
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia
JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr.,
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota Louisiana
HEATH SHULER, North Carolina JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
JOHN J. HALL, New York VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
JERRY McNERNEY, California
LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
(ii)
?
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency
Management
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of Columbia, Chairwoman
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine SAM GRAVES, Missouri
JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Virginia
Pennsylvania, Vice Chair CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee York
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota JOHN L. MICA, Florida
(Ex Officio) (Ex Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vi
TESTIMONY
Bohlmann, Robert C., Director, York County Emergency Management
Agency......................................................... 9
Maurstad, David I., Assistant Administrator and Federal Insurance
Administrator, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency
Management Agency.............................................. 3
Mullen, James, Chairman, Mitigation Committee, National Emergency
Management Association......................................... 9
Woodworth, Brent, Chairman, Multihazard Mitigation Council,
National Institute of Building Sciences........................ 9
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Altmire, Hon. Jason, of Pennsylvania............................. 24
Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes, of the District of Columbia......... 25
Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota............................ 27
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Bohlmann, Robert C............................................... 30
Maurstad, David I................................................ 35
Mullen, James.................................................... 39
Woodworth, Brent................................................. 46
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Woodworth, Brent, Chairman, Multihazard Mitigation Council,
National Institute of Building Sciences:
``Mitigation Generates Savings of Four to One and Enhances
Community Resilience,'' Natural Hazards Observer 30, no. 4
(March 2006)................................................. 51
Summary of Economic Analysis of Benefits and Costs of FEMA
Hazard Mitigation Projects................................... 55
ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD
National Association of Regional Councils, Hon. Betty Knight,
President, written statement................................... 70
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2252.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2252.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2252.003
SAVING LIVES AND MONEY THROUGH THE PREDISASTER MITIGATION PROGRAMS
----------
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
House of Representatives,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and
Emergency Management,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:07 a.m., in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Eleanor Holmes
Norton [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Ms. Norton. I want to say good morning and welcome all of
our witnesses and all who have come this morning. Today's
hearing will focus on the reauthorization of the Predisaster
Mitigation Program authorized by section 203 of the Stafford
Act, which is due to sunset on September 30th of this year.
The Predisaster Mitigation Program was first authorized by
this Committee in the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. The
title of today's hearing, Saving Lives and Money Through the
Predisaster Mitigation Program, perfectly describes a program
that saves far more than is invested.
The Predisaster Mitigation Program is a companion for the
Postdisaster Hazards Grant Mitigation Program, also authorized
by this Committee in section 404 of the Stafford Act. The vast
predominance of disasters in the country, of course, are from
natural disasters. Examples of mitigation for such disasters
include elevating or buying out structures in a floodplain and
strengthening buildings to better withstand earthquakes or
hurricanes. This program provides cost-effective technical and
financial assistance to State and local governments to reduce
injuries, loss of life, and damage to property that might
otherwise be caused by natural disasters.
The Predisaster Mitigation Program has been developed based
on a successful pilot program, Project Impact. One often-cited
example of the effectiveness of predisaster mitigation is from
Washington State. Immediately after the Nisqually earthquake
struck Seattle on February 28th, 2001, Seattle Mayor Paul
Schell and other public officials cited predisaster mitigation
grants that fortified buildings as one of the primary reasons
that lives and property were saved during the earthquake.
Ironically, the mayor's statements came on the same day that
the administration claimed that the project administration
predisaster pilot program should be defunded because it was not
effective. However, Congress had already written this program
into law based upon compelling evidence that the Predisaster
Mitigation Program is an investment that has shown it works.
The evidence that had resulted in congressional action came
from a successful pilot project and has been substantiated by
anecdotal evidence such as provided by Seattle, and, more
importantly, by empirical evidence provided later by two
congressionally mandated studies. In 2005, the Multihazard
Mitigation Council, part of the National Institute of Building
Sciences, chaired by one of our witnesses today, found, quote,
that a dollar spent on mitigation saves society an average of
$4, end quote.
The Congressional Budget Office issued a September 2007
report on the Predisaster Mitigation Program as required under
the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, which stated, and here I
quote, the best available information suggests that on average
future losses are reduced by about $3 for each dollar spent on
those projects, including both Federal and non-Federal funding,
end quote.
Choose whatever study you prefer, but unavoidably money for
this program has consistently been shown to provide an
excellent return on investment. Today's hearing will focus on
investments in mitigation measures which affect the safety of
infrastructure. The full Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee is planning a hearing on other investment
opportunities which also will focus on our Nation's
infrastructure needs.
I am pleased to hear from our Ranking Member Mr. Graves.
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I appreciate all of
our witnesses being here today and taking the time to come by.
Today's hearing will focus on the reauthorization of the
Predisaster Mitigation Program administered by FEMA. The
Predisaster Mitigation Program under section 203 of the
Stafford Act sunsets on September 20th, 2008. The Predisaster
Mitigation Program was originally authorized by the Disaster
Mitigation Act of 2000 as a pilot program to study the
effectiveness of mitigation grants given to communities before
disasters strike. Prior to the creation of the Predisaster
Mitigation Program, hazard mitigation primarily occurred after
a disaster through FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
Every disaster costs us in damages to homes, businesses,
and infrastructure, and potentially in the loss of lives. The
Predisaster Mitigation Program prevents damage and destruction
by helping communities to act proactively through planning and
projects that reduce the costs and limit the adverse impacts of
future disasters. With FEMA's assistance, local governments
identify cost-effective mitigation projects. When approved,
these projects may be funded by the Predisaster Mitigation
Program, which operates as a competitive award grant program.
Since its inception, the Predisaster Mitigation Program has
assisted local communities across the country and has helped
fund a wide range of mitigation projects such as mitigation
plans, buyouts and improved shelters.
In 2005, the National Institute of Building Sciences issued
a study that conclusively demonstrated that Federal mitigation
programs save the Federal Government money. Specifically, the
study found that for every dollar spent on mitigation, the
American taxpayer saves over $3 in Federal disaster payments.
In short, mitigation works. It saves lives, limits future
damage, reduces Federal disaster costs.
The Predisaster Mitigation Program is a worthy program, and
I look forward to working with the Chair to reauthorize it this
year. Again, I want to thank our witnesses for being here
today, and I look forward to the testimony.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much.
We will go to our first witness, and his full name is David
Maurstad, who is Assistant Administrator and Federal Insurance
Administrator of the Mitigation Directorate. Pardon me. You may
proceed, sir.
TESTIMONY OF DAVID I. MAURSTAD, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR AND
FEDERAL INSURANCE ADMINISTRATOR, MITIGATION DIRECTORATE,
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Mr. Maurstad. Good morning, Chairwoman Norton, Ranking
Member Graves, Members of the Subcommittee. I am David
Maurstad, FEMA Assistant Administrator for Mitigation. Thank
you for the opportunity to testify today about the success of
FEMA's Predisaster Mitigation Grant Program and respectfully
request reauthorization of the program.
FEMA's mission is to lead the Nation in an effort to
prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from all hazards.
This comprehensive emergency management system starts with
mitigation: sustained efforts by communities, businesses, and
individuals to reduce their vulnerability from future
disasters. PDM has become an integral part of FEMA's mitigation
strategy by providing grants to States, territories, tribal
governments and communities so that they can develop mitigation
plans and implement mitigation activities before hazards
strike.
Community-level mitigation planning and activities save
lives, reduce property damage, direct response and recovery
efforts to where they are needed most, decrease reliance on
Federal disaster funds, and reduce the financial impacts of
disasters on the communities they strike as well as the Nation.
All States and territories and more than 16,000 communities,
involving approximately 64 percent of the Nation's population,
now have mitigation plans. Many were funded by PDM. These plans
not only help communities focus on reducing vulnerability to
hazards, they open the door for PDM brick-and-mortar grants
that support a wide range of cost-effective mitigation
activities such as acquiring repetitively flooded homes;
protecting utilities; and retrofitting, elevating or relocating
hazard-prone homes and businesses.
PDM's basic premise, to help communities build stronger and
smarter, is not new. FEMA has been facilitating community
mitigation efforts since 1988, when the Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program was created. An excellent example of a cost-effective
HMGP project can be seen in Exhibit A. This photograph shows a
coastal Mississippi home that was elevated using HMGP funds.
Several years after the project was completed, this home was
the only one left standing on a street ravaged by Hurricane
Katrina's storm surge. This HMGP success not only offers a
clear example of mitigation's effectiveness, but also
underscores the fact that it often takes time to realize
avoided losses. PDM, like the postdisaster HMGP, also funds
elevations like the one shown in Exhibit A, and over time,
States and communities will be able to highlight many similar
successes.
In Rutherford County, Tennessee, for example, State and
local officials used PDM funds to acquire a flood-prone home. A
family closed on the home in 1997 after conducting a reasonable
and prudent examination of the pros and cons of purchasing.
What this family did not know, however, was the home's flood
history. The home suffered 20 documented floods after it was
purchased, with an annual recovery cost averaging $17,000. PDM
funds enabled Rutherford County officials to acquire the
property from the homeowner, demolish the structure, and return
the property to open space, thus eliminating a persistent flood
risk, and reduced the burden on the local services that protect
the homeowner and his family from potential and actual
flooding.
These mitigation success stories show how States and
communities can benefit from both types of mitigation
assistance.
PDM's success leads FEMA to be optimistic about the
program's future, and in anticipation of reauthorization and
related appropriations, the Agency is moving forward with the
following grant cycle schedule: June 2nd, 2008, release of the
unified hazard mitigation assistance guidance and opening of a
6-month application period; December 12th, 2008, close the
application period and begin eligibility and completeness
review; mid-January 2009, begin National Technical and Peer
Evaluation Reviews; and in March of 2009, finalize selections
and begin preaward process. This projected aggressive schedule
reflects feedback FEMA has received from our constituents, and
is consistent with Congress's desire that FEMA obligate all
available PDM funding in a timely manner.
The administration supports reauthorization of the
Predisaster Mitigation Grant Program through 2013. Doing so for
5 more years will assure a stable and dependable source of
mitigation funding, and will promote consistent community
efforts to pursue mitigation planning and activities. Without
PDM, I am afraid that the momentum we have developed over the
last 5 years in States and communities across the Nation to
address hazards before disasters strike will be lost.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify this morning. I
look forward to any questions that you might have.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Maurstad, for that
testimony that lays out some of the results.
So I take it that, just for the record, that the
administration does support reauthorization?
Mr. Maurstad. Yes, ma'am. Support reauthorization to 2013.
Ms. Norton. How many grants have you received, and how many
have been awarded, please?
Mr. Maurstad. I could get you--well, I am pretty sure I
have got the number here. Through 2007 we have awarded 1,494
subapplications for projects and plans for a total of
$485,359,000; 943 were plans and 551 projects. As of today, 85
percent of the funds have been obligated, but all of the funds
have been dedicated to particular projects.
Ms. Norton. How many did you receive in total, Mr.
Maurstad?
Mr. Maurstad. Generally speaking, in a grant cycle, for the
five grant cycles, we have received two to three times the
amount of requests for the funding that was available.
Ms. Norton. How do you evaluate? Here you have what looks
like a very popular program, and a competitive program at that.
But, by the way, do you think it should continue to be a
competitive program? There have been some who have suggested
that there should be some sort of formula. Which do you prefer?
Mr. Maurstad. I think that first it is--as you indicated,
it is a nationally competitive program. And I think the amount
of the applications indicate that there is a great deal of
mitigation work that can be done throughout the country. The
benefits associated with the nationally competitive program is
that the limited funding that is available goes to the best
projects. That is done through a series of activities starting
at the local level in developing the project, knowing that it
is a competitive project. I think that puts additional emphasis
for the communities to develop good projects. They then go to
the State that also looks at the projects, determines the best
projects to forward for the national competitive review. The
regions look at them.
But the benefits for the national peer review is
consistency, to make sure that there is consistency with State
and local plans, effective use of the resources, making sure
that they have the proposed viability, likelihood of successful
loss reduction. They go through technical review, engineering
studies, make sure that they are again cost-effective.
The last 2 years we have had a blended program. We have had
a national competitive program, and we have also had a minimum
set-aside for each State of $500,000. That has proved to be a
very workable process that allows all States to participate in
PDM, and believe that is a good way forward.
Ms. Norton. That is an important addition, the set-aside
program. Of course, what you described as important in any
competitive process are steps, and it is important for our
grants--and most of our grants are competitive--for us to go
through the kind of rigorous competition you have just
suggested. And I think some have suggested a formula approach
because of the sophistication needed in order to write such a
grant.
We have made no decision on that, but the notion that some
areas or States or counties are more sophisticated than others
to engage in the competition, do you have any views on that, on
how, for example, people might be helped, whether or not there
is some way that FEMA could offer some assistance to the
jurisdictions that don't have the technical sophistication or
capability of writing a competitive grant in an area like this?
Mr. Maurstad. Well, first of all, I think there has been
great progress made by all the States. This is a relatively new
program, 5 years now, and certainly over that period of time,
the applications have improved because of the technical
assistance that we provide, the training that we provide at
both the State and the local level, and because a significant
component of the national review is a peer review that involves
both individuals from headquarters of FEMA, region FEMA, but
also individuals from States and local communities. We had over
40 members of the technical review from local communities. That
has helped get information out as to----
Ms. Norton. Are those people who help evaluate----
Mr. Maurstad. Yes, it is a peer review evaluation, and we
include members on the team from State and local governments.
Ms. Norton. How are they chosen?
Mr. Maurstad. Primarily they are either advanced by the
State, they come from one of the groups that is going to
testify on the second panel, but they volunteer, essentially.
So with the technical and training that we are doing, with the
number of years now that the program has been under way, the
involvement of State and local in the peer process, we believe
the applications are becoming much better.
The 500,000 set-aside, however, does allow all States,
regardless of their size, which I think is maybe more important
than their technical capability, to receive funding from PDM.
And we believe that this blended process certainly has worked.
But in the competitive process we have had winners, so to
speak, from all the States. So everyone has the capability.
Ms. Norton. You have had from all the States?
Mr. Maurstad. Uh-huh. I believe we have, yes.
Ms. Norton. So virtually every State has received some
funding?
Mr. Maurstad. Yes. Yes.
Ms. Norton. Now, the grants, of course, like all Federal
grants, are administered at the local level, yet FEMA obviously
is held responsible because it is Federal money. How do you
monitor compliance with Federal requirements for these grants?
Mr. Maurstad. Well, first of all, we rely on the close
working relationship between the regions and the States. But
the State is the applicant, so they work with their local
communities to make sure that the Federal laws are followed. We
follow up to make sure that the programs--or, I mean, the
applications and the projects do what they are intended to do.
Of course, there are random audits by IG of all of our grant
programs, and certainly if there are difficulties associated,
we will recover those funds from the local communities or the
State.
So there is certainly the process, and the process is
followed to make sure that the funds are spent like they are
supposed to be spent.
Ms. Norton. In this country where we are used to dealing
with crises, you have to sell the government, you have to sell
people on dealing with crisis before it becomes a crisis. The
American way, having much to do with the great good fortune of
living in a country with our kind of resources, kind of
innovation our people show, seldom prepares for something
terrible. And so if there is something terrible, we go in and
fix it the best way we can. So this program in a real sense
goes against the grain because it says nothing has happened
yet, and yet you should spend some money in case something
happens.
I ask you the program about compliance with Federal
regulations because the program is new, and it has shown such
results that if a concern arose because the money wasn't being
spent for something that hadn't been authorized there, you
would have somebody saying, see there, we haven't had a flood,
and these people haven't had a hurricane in 50 years, and these
people are spending money; how come they are spending money on
that rather than something else? So we are all trying to
educate ourselves and the Congress, and, for that matter, the
country, about why spending this money in this way is important
to do.
Now, Katrina is kind of a case in point, but not really,
because I am not sure what kind of mitigation--of course, you
could have had some. But no one is talking about spending huge
amounts of money on mitigation, and certainly not the kind of
mitigation that it would take to ward off an unforeseen
hundred-year notion, although at the very moment, if I may say
so, FEMA is going through just such a process, because we are
indeed requiring people to look at what would happen in the
case of a hundred-year flood. And there have been whining and
groans throughout the country, including my own jurisdiction
here, about how we have never had any flood or anything like
that, why are we have having to do this? Why are we having to
spend this money? So your testimony on what this program has
done and how you monitor it is important for us to hear.
Now we are going to hear some testimony that suggests that
nonprofits, private nonprofits, should be allowed to be
subapplicants for the program, as they offer some programs
already under the Stafford Act. Would you support such a change
in the legislation to allow, authorize private nonprofits to be
a part of the program?
Mr. Maurstad. Before I get to that, could I make a comment
on mitigation activities in the gulf coast based on what you
said?
Ms. Norton. Please.
Mr. Maurstad. There actually is quite a bit of mitigation
going on in the gulf coast. We are going to have over 1
billion, 300 million dollars will be spent in Louisiana alone,
nearly 500 million in Mississippi to help reduce that area's
vulnerability to future events. A lot of the State mitigation
plans that are in both of those States were funded by
mitigation dollars that will help those communities better
prepare for the future. So there is a considerable investment
going on in the gulf coast in mitigation.
Ms. Norton. Actually, I am very glad you intervened to make
that point and to correct the impression that I have left that
somehow if you are having an unforeseen matter, there is no
mitigation to be done. You are absolutely correct, Mr.
Maurstad.
Mr. Maurstad. And you do, you have outlined the challenge
that mitigation faces and why the report that the Congress
required has been so helpful, the CBO report. The private
sector now is far more--is recognizing far more the benefits
also associated with mitigation, and is helping spur local
governments and individuals to take these activities that are
long-term investments in reducing our vulnerability.
As far as the private nonprofits, they really have a
mechanism right now, certainly different than in some grant
programs, to apply for predisaster mitigation funds in working
with a local community to sponsor their application with the
State. Now, some communities have deemed that the nonprofit
either has resources to do the activities on their own or have
other priorities, as is what may be the case at the State. So
we certainly--it certainly can be workable within our process
if it is the desire of Congress to allow them to work directly
with the States. Quite frankly, we are just looking for as many
good mitigation possibilities out there as we can, as we can
find.
Ms. Norton. Apparently there is some evidence that
relatively small communities would have a better chance of
competing for a grant if, for example, a private university
were to--rather than the State, which doesn't, or the local
jurisdiction which doesn't have the particular expertise.
Again, we don't have particular evidence on it. We are just
trying to widen the competition to make sure that all----
Mr. Maurstad. Exactly why competition is one of the issues;
because of the limited funding that is available, you have more
people competing for the same amount. So that is one of the
difficulties. But again, what we are looking for is the best
mitigation opportunities out there and to help those that want
to develop those types of projects.
One point I forgot to mention that we are improving on is
one of the issues that has been raised to me since the
beginning of PDM was the cost-benefit in association with how
to determine cost-benefit. We have made great strides in
working with our State partners in better understanding cost-
benefit, how that analysis should be done. And we are coming
out with a new software tool that is going to again make that
process more--easier for the applicants to comply with.
Ms. Norton. I think that the Committee itself may want to
look at some of our economic development project areas or areas
which have not been able to be economic development project
areas. That is where we have lots of competition for EDA funds.
And I have in mind some of those areas where you are dealing
with rural communities where you couldn't begin to get the kind
of expertise within the community except through some kind of
university or the like.
You made a good point, though, Mr. Maurstad: Widen the
competition for limited funds.
Mr. Maurstad. Yeah, ma'am, if I may be so bold to
interrupt, I come from a very small community, 12,500 people,
and my old hometown after I left, they were successful recently
in this competition for a PDM grant. So I think we are
providing the technical assistance and the training that really
any community that is interested in being able to put together
a competitive grant application can do so. It really starts
with the will at the local level to want to make a commitment
to mitigation.
Ms. Norton. Finally, could I ask what you do when you, for
example, as a mitigation acquire a property, return it to open
space, are there permanent restrictions on the use of that
property once it is declared open space? How is that put in
place?
Mr. Maurstad. Yes, there are. Because the local community
is the subapplicant, and because it is on a willing-buyer/
willing-seller basis, the community takes the deed and then
deed-restricts the property for open space. And so it cannot be
turned back to development. And we have been very successful in
all of our grant programs. We have returned about 6,000 acres
of previously developed property to open space.
Ms. Norton. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Maurstad. Very
good testimony.
And we would like to call the final witnesses: James
Mullen, chairman of the Mitigation Committee of the National
Emergency Management Association; Greg Woodworth, chairman of
the Multihazard Mitigation Council of the National Institute of
Building Sciences; and Robert C. Bohlmann, director of the York
County Emergency Management Agency. We can just go left to
right then. Mr. Mullen?
TESTIMONY OF JAMES MULLEN, CHAIRMAN, MITIGATION COMMITTEE,
NATIONAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION; BRENT WOODWORTH,
CHAIRMAN, MULTIHAZARD MITIGATION COUNCIL, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF
BUILDING SCIENCES; AND ROBERT C. BOHLMANN, DIRECTOR, YORK
COUNTY EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Mr. Mullen. Thank you, Chairwoman Norton, Ranking Member
Graves, and distinguished Members of Committee, for allowing me
the opportunity to provide you with a statement for the record
on the Predisaster Mitigation Program. In my statement I am
representing the National Emergency Management Association,
NEMA, whose members are the State emergency management
directors.
The PDM program works as a companion to the Postdisaster
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. PDM means we don't have to
wait until a disaster occurs to take mitigation actions, and
the program broadens the Nation's efforts both geographically
and in terms of the hazards that may be addressed.
As Congress considers the Predisaster Mitigation Program's
reauthorization, adequate funding levels are needed to give the
program the opportunity to demonstrate real value for the
investments. NEMAsupports the program's reauthorization and
looks forward to working with Congress to improve the program.
The title of DMA2K that authorizes the PDM program is
scheduled to sunset on September 30th, 2008. Again, we ask for
Congress to reauthorize this critical program before that
September 30th, 2008, sunset as any funds appropriated cannot
be used after the sunset date. We believe that PDM is an
important program and is making significant strides to mitigate
against future disasters.
Before coming to my current position with the State of
Washington, I served as the city of Seattle's emergency
management director and was intimately involved in developing
Seattle's Project Impact pilot program, a public-private
partnership that addressed and identified mitigation needs and
promoted corrective strategies. The February 28, 2001,
Nisqually earthquake demonstrated to the city and to the Nation
there was significant value to that program. Many of the
actions taken to retrofit and seismically protect buildings
were helpful in preventing further damage, most notably in
schools. We believe that these efforts saved the lives of
schoolchildren in one school in particular.
While Project Impact provided value, there was concern that
the communities were not being chosen in coordination with the
State emergency management agency, nor were the projects. PDM
does allow for this coordination, particularly with the State's
required hazard mitigation plan and identified projects. And
while NEMA has concerns about some aspects of the PDM program,
we remain firm that the program's reauthorization is
particularly important.
PDM is a young program that is still evolving, and FEMA's
Mitigation Division has worked very closely with the State
emergency management directors to listen to our input and
respond to our position papers, even though we do not always
agree.
NEMA believes there are a couple of areas that do need to
be looked at with respect to PDM. First, NEMA initially sought
for PDM to be a formula-based program in which every State had
a chance to receive funding. A competitive program, as is
current practice, severely limits the ability of smaller States
and those with less frequent disasters to successfully apply
for and receive grants. Science cannot accurately predict where
the next disaster may be or what kind of disaster may be faced.
Attempting to prioritize limited predisaster mitigation funding
on the national level is counterproductive to the establishment
of State and local planning; therefore, NEMA supports the
distribution of predisaster mitigation funds by a base-plus-
population formula rather than by competitive grants.
The competitive system as it is presently funded creates
more losers than winners. In an enterprise that seeks to
encourage communities to protect themselves, it seems
counterproductive to pit good programs against good programs
where the objective is to promote the development of community
predisaster mitigation programs overall. For small States and
local jurisdictions, the cost of preparing the applications and
the energy consumed through the various reviews are substantial
and burdensome, particularly so when a good program is denied
funding.
Secondly, we would like a longer rolling application window
to allow States and communities to begin applications even
before funding is available, because priority lists are based
on the State plans that are already in place. One of the issues
is the timing of the application process over the holidays and
disaster declarations.
Finally, more technical assistance is needed to help States
and communities before receiving the grants, as that would
assist with the costly environmental and historic impact
reviews.
Thanks in large part to PDM funding, about 85 percent of
the 6-1/2 million people who live in the State of Washington
live in communities that have developed hazard mitigation plans
envisioned by DMA2K and funded in large part by PDM grants. I
want to share with you just one key example from Washington
State that illustrates the importance of this program.
Edmonds, Washington, School District obtained a 3 million
PDM grant in 2005 to help it retrofit nine of its schools from
earthquakes. The total project price is $8 million, and the
project will be completed in the coming months. This project is
important because the school district sits at the south end of
the South Whidbey Island Fault, which scientists now tell us is
the most dangerous earthquake fault in the State. The largest
project the State of Washington anticipates funding through the
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program in the next few years is $1-1/2
million.
The President's budget proposal includes 75 million in
funding for the Predisaster Mitigation Program. The funding
level is a $39 million decrease compared to fiscal year 2008
funding levels. Additionally, the program contained significant
earmarks in 2008, thus reducing the amount available for State
and local governments to openly apply to be considered for the
grants. The program funding is sorely under the national need,
especially with the original intent of the law to provide each
State with a portion of funding so lessons learned from
disasters could be taken advantage of by all States. Each year
FEMA typically receives requests for grants averaging over $450
million.
With such low levels of funding, the Predisaster Mitigation
Program has never been fully able to address the intent of
DMA2K. In 2005, Multihazard Mitigation Council published a
study that found that every $1 FEMA invested into mitigation
projects saves society approximately $4. The same study also
showed that every dollar spent on hazard mitigation saved the
Federal Treasury $3.65 in postdisaster relief and increased
Federal tax revenues. These findings are vitally important to
knowing that Federal investments are getting a strong return,
as well as the 25 percent cost share that State and local
governments contribute to the PDM grants upon award.
In conclusion, Congress has continued to support PDM by
reauthorizing this program three times. We must continue to
build national preparedness efforts with a multihazard approach
aimed at reducing lives lost and damage to property. We ask
that Congress ensure that PDM authorization doesn't expire, and
that a strong reauthorization is passed this summer. Thank you
very much.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Mullen.
Mr. Woodworth?
Mr. Woodworth. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, Ranking
Member Graves, and Members of the Subcommittee and
distinguished guests. I truly appreciate this opportunity to
speak with you today concerning a very important subject, the
need for, the benefits of investing in predisaster mitigation.
My name again is Brent Woodworth, and I am president and
CEO of a company called Global Crisis Services, which is an
international risk and management consulting firm, but I also
chair the Multihazard Mitigation Council, which is a voluntary
advisory council of the congressionally authorized nonprofit
NIBS, or National Institute of Building Sciences, which is why
I am here today.
We are responding--we worked with FEMA in developing a
study to take a look at the benefits of predisaster mitigation.
The study included a review of FEMA grants, which included the
FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, Project Impact, and the
Flood Mitigation Assistance Programs, from 1993 through 2003.
Over 5,000 grants were reviewed. The study was completed in
2005 and clearly shows that FEMA's mitigation grants have been
extremely effective in reducing future losses from earthquake,
wind, and flood. We were very, very pleased with these results,
and again shared them up the line.
In taking a look at the study, we used a number of
statistically representative samples to look at both project
and process mitigation activities. The project activities
included such things as brick-and-mortar efforts, which might
be elevating a house above flood level, installing hurricane
clips, or bolting down a foundation. Process activities are
aimed at increasing awareness and fostering mitigation action,
including stimulating communities to adopt up-to-date building
codes, purchase flood insurance, or update their disaster
recovery plans.
We used some sophisticated modeling techniques in using our
study, including software such as the HAZUSMH software tool to
help analyze some of the earthquake and flood analysis. Bottom
line, the total mitigation investment expenditure during the
study period was $3.5 billion. The financial benefit to the
population from investing in mitigation efforts during the
study period was valued at approximately $14 billion, using
2004 as a constant dollar figure. Dividing the mitigation
benefit by the mitigation expenditure yielded a benefit-cost
ratio of 4 to 1.
The second part of our study, we also took a look at in-
depth examination of eight different selected communities. Our
findings there showed that the FEMA mitigation grant funds
utilized by each of these communities was also highly cost-
effective and led to additional non-Federal-funded mitigation
activities. Communities have the greatest benefit when those
particular funds were institutionalized into hazard mitigation
programs, and it inspired a lot of activities within the
community.
This brings me to our conclusions. First, mitigation is
cost-effective and warrants Federal funding on an ongoing
basis, both before disasters strike and during postdisaster
recovery efforts. The Nation will always be vulnerable to
natural disasters, and therefore it is only prudent to invest
in mitigation. As the British philosopher Henry de Bracton in
1240 stated, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Number two, predisaster mitigation grant programs should
not rely solely on benefit-cost ratios as the selection
criteria for investment. Not all benefits can be easily
measured. For example, the benefit of moving structures out of
a known floodplain can be quantified, but it is difficult to
measure the benefit of the same land being reclaimed as
naturalized wetlands or converted into a community recreation
area. Even more difficult to measure is the benefit of reducing
the stress people feel when constantly threatened by some of
these disaster events.
Finally, number three, mitigation is most effective when it
is carried out on a comprehensive, communitywide, long-term
basis. Single projects can help, but carrying out a coordinated
set of mitigation activities over time is the best way to
ensure that communities will be physically, socially, and
economically resilient in coping with future hazards.
Our recommendations to this Committee are as follows: One,
invest in natural hazard mitigation as a matter of policy. This
should be done on an ongoing basis, both before and during and
after disasters. Number two, give FEMA the ability to consider
benefits to society in the broadest possible sense. And
finally, number three, support mitigation activities that will
build the resilience of communities by helping to fund programs
that increase knowledge on the basis of mitigation, promote
public- and private-sector investment, and motivate community
members to engage in collaborative preparedness efforts.
In closing, we appreciate this opportunity and clearly urge
you to reauthorize the PDM program.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Woodworth.
Mr. Bohlmann.
Mr. Bohlmann. Good morning, Chairman Norton, Ranking Member
Graves, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. I am
Robert Bohlmann, the emergency manager and homeland security
director for York County, Maine, and I am representing the
International Association of Emergency Managers this morning.
We believe that the PDM is an important program, and urge
Congress to quickly take action to reauthorize it prior to the
PDM's scheduled sunset on September 30th, 2008.
An adequate level of funding is necessary to ensure the
success of PDM. The number of applications received this year
would indicate there is a great need and an interest. The 75
percent Federal cost share of the 446 applications received
this year would have totaled over $317 million, which far
exceeds the $52 million available for competitive grants.
We understand there are concerns about the amount of PDM
funding in prior years that remain in the FEMA account. We
believe that the origin of the confusion regarding these funds
is related specifically to the fact that even after a project
is selected and the funding dedicated, it is not yet officially
obligated.
IAEM members firmly believe that the PDM program is an
investment in the community, the State, and the Nation.
Included in my written statement are examples of benefits of
PDM projects. One of them is York Beach, a tourist community in
York County, Maine, which was especially hard hit by the
Mother's Day flooding event of 2006. The project will place a
gate on the ocean outfall, so that the silt cannot fill the
catch basins. When this project is completed, 26 businesses
will be able to remain open during the tourist season. The
construction of this project will keep 200 jobs in place in the
community, and keep the community producing tax revenue at the
local and State level, as well as provide a great place to
vacation during the summer.
We would like to suggest several possible improvements to
the program. Our suggestions include FEMA should allow direct
application of eligible private nonprofits. An eligible private
nonprofit such as a college or a hospital can apply to the
State as a subapplicant for Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and
for assistance under FEMA public assistance; however, for the
predisaster mitigation grant they are required to find an
entity such as a city or a county to serve as the subapplicant
on their behalf. This is an unnecessary and burdensome step,
and we urge the Committee to work with FEMA on either a
legislative change or a legislative interpretation which would
allow PNPs to apply directly to the State. In many
circumstances, PNPs have not been able to apply because already
understaffed agencies are unwilling to serve as subapplicants.
FEMA should allow a cost escalation factor to cover costs
of price increases. It may be 24 months or more from the time a
vendor's estimate is obtained for a project application to the
actual time of beginning construction.
FEMA should simplify the cost-benefit analysis.
FEMA should allow more time for preparing applications. We
believe that any additional time allowed to applicants in this
process would result in higher-quality applications for
projects.
In closing, we urge the Committee to reauthorize the
program. We would appreciate consideration of improving the PDM
program by allowing eligible private nonprofits to apply
directly to the State as subapplicants, by including a cost
escalation factor, and by simplifying the cost-benefit
analysis, and by allowing more time for thoughtful
applications.
I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Bohlmann.
Mr. Mullen, you speak of the formula approach. How would
you justify a formula approach, which would mean, I guess, that
every State--and we already have a set-aside for every State--
if it would mean that some legitimate projects of far more need
would not get the funds that in any priority ranking they might
otherwise receive?
Mr. Mullen. Well, Madam Chairwoman, there are two ways of
looking at this, I think, and one is that local governments and
State governments need to have some certainty. Having been a
local official for some time, it takes a lot to build the kind
of community coalition to do the application process and get
everyone excited about doing the work. And sometimes an
emergency manager at the local level has to choose to do that
as opposed to some other task that they are already
understaffed for that they have to do. We spend a lot of time
trying to get through the week at the local level. And so it is
very difficult from a State perspective to say you need to
ratchet up and do this work when they are not sure whether or
not they are going to get funded or not or have any hope if it
is a program of merit.
I think the problem here, the second part I want to say, is
programs of merit are not getting funded now. And going back to
my testimony, I would have to mention that science can't tell
us where the next disaster will be. And one of the ways we can
get consensus around mitigation in this country is to really
promote everybody looking at their risks, their threats on the
basis of their particular requirements and have some sense of
certainty that at least their best projects will surface. And I
do believe that that wouldn't replace a peer review or anything
else. It wouldn't be competitive, though. The peer review then
could be supportive and helpful and advisory in terms of you
can make your project stronger if you do this. So I believe
that would be my answer to that.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Woodworth or Mr. Bohlmann, do you have a
view on that matter?
Mr. Woodworth. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
In looking at bringing in private and nonprofits, our
particular view is that mitigation projects need to be broad-
based, across the community, and have the greatest value they
possibly can.
Ms. Norton. But I am asking about the formula basis as
opposed to competitive basis.
Mr. Woodworth. That I understand. And in putting together a
formula to help meet that particular requirement, we haven't
looked at what the specific formulas would be to do that. We
are not opposed to it as long as it impacts the widest possible
community as a result of the formula so that the greatest
number of citizens within the community can indeed benefit from
the formula.
Ms. Norton. You, Mr. Bohlmann, do you have a view?
Mr. Bohlmann. I became aware of this when I read Mr.
Mullen's testimony last evening, and I have not had a lot of
time to go over it. And I did talk to our leadership quickly,
and we really don't have a solid position on it. We have not
had issues in our communities with what has happened in the
past by the competitive grant. And I think we have to do a
little bit more study and have some more detail on this to see
where our association is actually going to stand.
Ms. Norton. Given the amount of money, there would be a
presumption, I have to say to you, gentlemen, in favor of
competition. I bring some experience from another Committee on
which I serve, the Homeland Security Committee, which also has
jurisdiction over FEMA for other disasters, disasters related
to terrorism. And, of course, we started out with something of
a formula, and we still have the legacy of something of a
formula. And we have had some terrible examples of places where
you would not expect al Qaeda to search out on a map receiving
funds, while places, according to all the chatter, where
terrorists seek, cry for funds.
So the notion of every State, some of whom have constant
natural disasters, and some who rarely have them, raises in me
a presumption or at least a burden that those who want the
formula would have to bear. I am not closed to the idea. The
Homeland Security experience has been horrible, because people
think up projects if they know that there is a formula. That
said, the Committee is open to looking at various ways to fund
this program.
Mr. Mullen. Madam Chairwoman?
Ms. Norton. Yes.
Mr. Mullen. I actually have a comment relevant to that. The
EMGP program is a formula program much like----
Ms. Norton. Which program?
Mr. Mullen. The EMPG, Emergency Management Performance
Grant program, is a formula program. Also one of the problems
that maybe we are dealing with is there is insufficient money
in the pipeline altogether. The program that asks for $450
million and only has 100 million or so in it creates more
losers than winners, and that isn't productive if we are trying
to promote mitigation. So the insufficiency of the funding at
this level, I think, indicates that we have got to find a way
to bridge the gap between the need and what we are able to
deliver.
Ms. Norton. Well, there is certainly an argument to be made
to do both. The mitigation program assures, yes, there is a
baseline ability of every community to handle a natural
disaster. The what I can only call a tiny amount of money in
this pot may also speak up on its own behalf about how the
money should be distributed.
Could I ask you, Mr. Woodworth, I was very interested in
your formula, and CBO came back with something close--yours was
$1 invested--$4 for every $1 invested. They have $3 for every
$1 invested in savings. Could you say a word about your
methodology?
Mr. Woodworth. Yes, Madam Chairman. The difference between
those two is that we did look at slightly different disasters.
When you take a look at what the CBO report covered, it went
beyond the three elements that we touched on, which were
primarily wind, earthquake and flood. They also included fire
and tornadoes and some other elements in additional detail
beyond what was in our particular study.
The other difference is some of the discounting factors
that were used in evaluating value of life over time, et
cetera. In the CBO study they do comment that the numbers that
they have on things such as wind and flood pretty much match
with what the MMC study is. There were some variations on the
earthquake side based on the samples that they took versus the
samples that we took, which were completely random. So we saw
that mathematical variance between the two, but in both cases
we considered it a fairly small variance.
The positive news is that, of course, a 3-to-1 or a 4-to-1
benefit-cost ratio is very good. And some of the things that
also would impact that over time are we are looking at
analyzing the frequency of disasters, the magnitude of
potential consequences of disasters and so forth as to how you
truly value them.
Ms. Norton. Thank you.
Yes, CBO has acknowledged that its own estimates have been
low.
Mr. Bohlmann, I am very intrigued by parts of your
testimony on page 4 about not letting cost-benefit analysis,
traditional cost-benefit analysis, be the sole determinant
regarding the effectiveness of these programs. And you speak
about indirect benefits. Could you give an example of indirect
benefits? And could you indicate how you think one might
quantify or otherwise evaluate indirect benefits coming from
the program?
Mr. Bohlmann. Of course a cost-benefit analysis is a common
way of doing it, but there are a lot of indirect benefits from
these programs that we have seen out there in large communities
and small communities. And that is the spin-off, as I mentioned
in my testimony, of the communities where it may be just the
access, allowing folks to go to work, allowing fire apparatus
in. It is hard to put into a cost-benefit, but it is a
tremendous benefit to the community. And those are the things
that local emergency managers try to measure as well as purely
the cost-benefit analysis.
Ms. Norton. It is intriguing. Open space, for example, I am
not sure how you would evaluate that, but communities might
evaluate that very highly.
You have a view on that, too, Mr. Woodworth?
Mr. Woodworth. Yes, Madam Chairman. In looking at some of
the benefits of mitigation that are not as tangible, for
example, we talk a lot about environmentally green activities,
and one of the things that is a benefit of investing in
predisaster mitigation, making structures more sound or taking
them out of flood areas, is frankly a reduction in debris when
there is a disaster, so there is less debris and garbage, et
cetera, to handle in those events. Another example I mentioned
was just measuring the reduction in stress and the ability of
people to feel an ability to go back to work more effectively
following a disaster, or even eliminating that stress through
predisaster mitigation activities. Those things can have a very
significant impact on social, economic, environmental issues.
Ms. Norton. I think the challenge for us is to find ways to
measure some of these, and until we do, we are stuck with how
government measures effects of its programs. But what we are
not stuck with is excessive bureaucracy.
I want to just put on the record once again from the time I
ran a Federal agency until this very moment, I can tell you
that bureaucracy--not that we have heard much in the way of
complaints about this program, but I can understand why it
leads people to hate government. They can't get to the issues
that government is supposed to deal with. And government feels,
of course, that it is dealing with taxpayer money, and it has
got to go through a process. So my concern always is are we
performing the government function itself in the most efficient
and low-cost way? And when it comes to applying for a program
out of which funds come, I would be very interested in what you
would have to say about whether you believe there are ways to
streamline this particular process.
Ms. Norton. You heard me ask Mr. Maurstad about the
technical way in which the applications have to be presented.
Would you, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Woodworth, or Mr. Bohlmann, have
any suggestions about unnecessary requirements of the process
or ways to streamline the process itself that could be helpful
to us in the authorization?
Mr. Mullen. Madam Chairman, I will take a stab at that.
I think it is very helpful to consider the notion of a
rolling application process, which I mentioned in my testimony
and which Mr. Maurstad referenced, which is that the idea of
having more than a 3-month window to apply is very important.
In the last 2 years, in 2006 and in 2007, we had three
Presidential-declared disasters in the middle of that. I have a
staff that is of a reasonably good size, but when we have a
Presidential disaster and floods all over western Washington
and storms that cut out 3 million people with power for 2
weeks, we have to put all hands on deck to deal with that. So
my mitigation person comes in from the----
Ms. Norton. How much lead time, do you think?
Mr. Mullen. I think the 6 months is good. We would like 10
months, but 6 months is certainly a vast improvement, and it is
a sign of the responsiveness that I mentioned also in my
testimony also in the mitigation division. They have been very
helpful in listening to us and in processing our requests and
in evaluating our needs, and so I am encouraged by 6 months. If
I ask for 10 and he gives me 6 and we are at 3 months, we are
making good progress.
Ms. Norton. You are getting somewhere, Mr. Mullen----
Mr. Mullen. Yes.
Ms. Norton. --because we do not want the time period to be
such that it gets postponed. If it is only going to last 3
months, we are back where we were, but I certainly take your
point. We are learning this new program essentially. We are
learning the process. So we want to--particularly for the areas
that are of concern the most and that have the least expertise,
we do not want time to be able to work against them.
Do either the rest of you have suggestions along those
lines?
Mr. Bohlmann. I will take a stab at that as well.
I think the 6-month extended period does help us a lot, and
anything that can be done to reduce the application process
would be helpful, especially in our smaller States and in our
smaller communities. The technical training that is being
offered by FEMA has improved, and I think that if they can
enhance that even more, it would help. When you get down to the
small, rural community, you have probably three full time
municipal employees in the whole community, and a lot of the
work is done by volunteers. We actually had a case in Maine
where the lead person on a very large project was a volunteer
who stepped up to the plate, and he pushed this process
through, and it worked extremely well, but you do not find that
capability in every small community. So, for any help that can
be given in technical expertise to make those communities more
viable to apply, the need is there. There is a tremendous need
for mitigation all the way around in small and large
communities, and there has to be a process, and it has to be
one that is valid, which they certainly have with the peer
review.
Again, the process needs to be as easy as we can make it.
An extended time frame as we have stretched out now_and even
the 10 months would be good because it does take time to bring
these together and to make a good project if it is going to go
on a competitive basis nationally.
Ms. Norton. Well, in this case, time really is money for
many communities that have the time to do it. They may, in
fact, be better able to compete in the process.
Mr. Woodworth.
Mr. Woodworth. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I also believe that having at least the 6 months is very
reasonable, of which Director Maurstad spoke, but I believe
down at the local level we really have to do a job of training
and education on how to fill out these forms; what applies and
what does not; some great examples of grants that have been
accepted; others that would not be accepted, so that the local
community has a far better understanding of how to actively
compete for these.
Ms. Norton. Let me ask you a question. I think especially
it is for Mr. Bohlmann. Actually, I would like all of you to
take a stab at it. And that is suggestions regarding tightening
building codes and zoning codes to help prevent damage and
disaster. You know, if you think of something that on the
surface may seem, of course, to be no cost, of course,
communities may regard it as costly because it determines where
people build, who people build. If you are looking at the
funding, if you are looking at building codes that could help
prevent a disaster or a zoning that could help prevent a
disaster, you cannot help but think, my goodness, why isn't
this community helping itself simply by its own building codes
and zoning codes to prevent disasters which it may see coming
time and again or which it may know is going to come?
Do you have views on this notion? If so, how might it be
accomplished? How important is it or isn't it in this
mitigation work?
Mr. Bohlmann. Well, I believe it is very important.
However, I have to couch this a little bit. I come from New
England. New England is very steep in, "do not tell me how to
do things."
Ms. Norton. So is the rest of the country.
Mr. Bohlmann. Well, I was trying to keep it localized.
A lot of our communities started out very small, and as
growth came, they did not lean forward and put zoning into
place. Now they are looking at that, but in many cases, the
damage is already done. We have got buildings built in areas
that, under today's standards, you probably would not, and with
today's building codes, you might not allow some of those
buildings. So we already have a lot of those places in harm's
way that we have to look at, but I think we do need to work
much harder with our communities to move forward with good
planning.
Ms. Norton. Well, one way is, for example, to ask you
whether you think it should be a factor in evaluating
applications.
Mr. Bohlmann. Definitely. Definitely.
Building codes and what they are doing to upgrades
certainly should be a factor. I mean, we do not want to rebuild
again and again. Of course, the open space is answering some of
that.
Mr. Mullen. Madam Chairman, I have kind of a longer view of
this.
It is interesting that the first time that FEMA in the
previous administration approached me about Project Impact was
in September of 1997. The immediate assumption was that we
would run out and upgrade our building codes. It is interesting
you would say that. We did four other things because we felt we
could actually address those more easily. It is, oftentimes,
that emergency managers are not in the zoning and building code
food chains, so with a program like this, we deal with what we
think is an immediate problem. But I will say there are a
couple of things.
First, in order for people to adjust codes, they need
information that says it is more valuable to take the cost and
the burden and the political challenge of tightening a code. It
is important to do that so that a bad thing does not happen. So
people have to know what the risk is and know that this measure
that is being proposed will match the risk. That is a local
discussion that takes place.
I would say, in my State--and I cannot speak for other
States--but in my State, we have pretty robust earthquake codes
because of the seismic activity we have experienced over the
years, and that has helped us a great deal. What really has to
happen, I believe, nationally is that mitigation itself has to
get back into the dialogue. It has to be discussed. It has not
really been considered a primary element for a number of years
in this country. Even in emergency management circles, there
were times, frankly, in the early years of the century where
you whispered the word "mitigation," and people kept trying to
find another word for "mitigation."
Mitigation, I think, has survived all of that. I think I
see a comeback from all quarters among all of those others of
us who are committed to disaster mitigation. I think we need to
change the dialogue and bring up and really challenge local
governments and State governments and the Federal Government to
treat mitigation as a very critical priority. It is so much
cheaper to avert damage than to repair it. It makes perfect
sense.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Woodworth.
Mr. Woodworth. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
From a zoning and building code standpoint, I think
building codes play a very, very important part. As part of the
NIBS board, we have seen that time and time again.
From an earthquake example, if you look at the enforcement
and the development of codes and at the use of codes in
California for earthquake and then compare seismic activity
that has occurred in the past to other countries which do not
necessarily have those kinds of building codes, we can see
dramatic examples of the huge advantage and the benefits in a
reduction of damage, in saving lives, in increased productivity
and so forth by implementing those codes. Things down in
hurricane area, such as hurricane clips, bolting down
foundations, putting on shutters, are all of huge benefit in
reducing losses. There are a lot of inventions that continue to
come out in the marketplace which help focus on this area.
Just to comment, I know Popular Science, a magazine, about
a year and a half ago had their invention of the year that was
actually a nail, and it was a nail that had a flatter head. It
was then twisted and ribbed, and when used on construction
projects, it would actually increase the holding strength of
the structure by more than two to one over conventional nails.
Yet, the cost to build a house with this was less than a $15
difference than building with standard nails. So we are seeing
many things that are out there that can help us increase the
resiliency of structures in high-risk areas, and I think we are
all in favor of where it makes sense applying the building
codes properly.
Ms. Norton. This is very, very important testimony. Every
community, as Mr. Bohlmann says--this is America, after all--
does its own cost-benefit analysis when it comes to something
like building codes. More power to them.
The problem I have is I have a hard time as Chair of this
Subcommittee justifying spending Federal dollars, for example,
for mitigation for a community that did not want to take any
steps itself, a community that was flood prone, for example,
and decided that they wanted a grant, but slight changes in its
building codes was something that it did not want to make. I
understand the political ramifications of these things, and the
government certainly would never mandate such things, but when
it comes to government dollars, it does seem to me that one
factor ought to be, what has this community done to help itself
that we can reinforce with the very small amount of government
funding we have available in the first place? You have got to
have some way to eliminate people.
You heard the testimony that there were--what?--three to
one, the number of applications. Well, how do you sort that out
when all of these people who have taken the time and effort
must desperately want this grant? It is not an easy grant to
apply for. Well, you have to have some criteria that are fair
in sorting out, so you get down to those you are going to
consider.
What Mr. Graves said with our first witness was so
straightforward. He did not have any particular questions. I
have gone on. I want to ask him if he has anything further to
ask this panel.
We found your testimony very, very helpful. We would like
to look more--or at least I would like to have the Subcommittee
look more into eligible nonprofits.
I suppose my final question to you would be: Do you think
that there is a substantial number of communities that would
have no way whatsoever to compete without the help of a local
expert like a university or a hospital or other nonprofit or do
you think maybe that is one way we ought to use and eliminate
people? Remember, I indicated we have got to find some way to
decide who gets in the final pool. Would what amounts to
increasing the pool by allowing some communities which do not
have the capability to rely on an eligible nonprofit for the
application process be an indicated thing to do in your
judgment?
Do any of you have views on that?
Mr. Mullen. Madam Chairwoman, I am getting two questions
out of that. Let me try to answer them as fully as I can.
I think that the nonprofit issue is something that is
interesting to me. I would have to go back and consult with the
mitigation committee, my colleagues at NEMA, to see what the
range of views would be across the Nation. It is a pretty
diverse group, and I would really want to know what kind of
feelings they had about that before I commented for NEMA.
Ms. Norton. This is new to us, and we know it is allowed,
though. We have allowed it before, so I suppose what would
convince me is not so much opinion as some indication that
there are substantial numbers of communities that are in
terrible need that might, indeed, be made eligible. Do any of
you have suggestions of such examples?
Mr. Bohlmann. Well, Madam Chair, I think they currently
could apply if they can find a State or a county or a local
community, and what we were recommending----
Ms. Norton. That is true.
Mr. Bohlmann. --is that it follow the same standard as the
HMGP--Hazard Mitigation Grant Program--or the FEMA disaster
program where they could apply directly and remove that one
piece. I do not think it would increase the numbers that want
to apply. We have heard from our membership that it is
difficult for a number of our members to take on that role of
being the subapplicant for them. That is where the difficulty
comes in.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Woodworth.
Mr. Woodworth. I truly believe that there is a good role
for the nonprofits on the academic side in, perhaps, helping
and in working with some of the smaller cities and communities
in developing the proper grant proposals. Again, looking at
measurement activity, such as the frequency of disaster within
the community, the impact on the community, the potential
effect of the consequences, I do know that there are a number
of national nongovernment organizations, nonprofits and so
forth, that are focusing more and more on this year of
predisaster mitigation both domestically within the U.S. and
worldwide. So this has become a hot topic within the emergency
management community.
An example of this is not a small city, but I will give you
an example within a larger city in Los Angeles where with the
support of the city and the mayor, a group of the NGOs along
with businesses are coming together to try to put together a
nonprofit foundation focused on predisaster mitigation and
preparedness for the City of Los Angeles, and I think there are
a number of other efforts similar to that that will be going
on.
Mr. Mullen. Madam Chairwoman, I might add that adding
applicants to the pool, unless there is sufficient funding for
them to have a reasonable opportunity or prospect of receiving
funds, is problematic, but I do not doubt that there are groups
that put out applications that could benefit from more
technical assistance and more support.
FEMA probably would have--I do not want to speak for FEMA
certainly, but they might have some concerns, since they are in
the decision chain, about giving assistance to specific groups
that ask them, but I would think that some contracting
capability or some arrangement with the universities or someone
else could really--if it were funded so they could justify
spending that time, it might attract people to the process, and
it might also--if there were sufficient funding to give them to
think they would have a chance of success, it might help. We
would certainly work with the Committee to come up with an
appropriate way to do that. Standards are always important.
Even if you make it available to everybody, there should be
some minimum criteria for entering into the pool, I think.
Ms. Norton. Well, what you have all had to say, I think, is
important to consider. The competitive process, obviously, has
everything to do with whether you are able to carry out the
process where you submit the application. I am concerned about
people in our local community who are able to carry out that
process, but there is an art and science to writing
applications. If we want to make sure that need is truly
factored in here so you get to some of the neediest parts or
subparts of various States and, of course, the capability which
is built into the application process automatically, you are
still left with: Who are you leaving out for whom writing such
an application would just be beyond anything they could do?
Will the State give the required attention? Meanwhile, right
next door is a university that is equally impacted, has a
vested interest, has people who could write the application,
who could assist the community, and for lack of opportunity to
get the appropriate jurisdiction to pay attention, the
community simply is not factored in. It is a very diverse kind
of country, and there are very small communities in States and
where the State has spent a lot of time on very large cities
and on communities that are much more high-profile than obscure
communities, which are always poorer, always have all of the
problems often of big cities but have none of the expertise and
could never have it.
So this is something that I am entirely open to and am
almost agnostic about, but I think about the small amount of
money also when considering who should get the money. I really
have a hard time believing that small communities which
experience what is constantly--for example, they are in the
same position as the county seat of a big city. How do we make
up for that? It does seem to me to be an obligation of this
Committee. I speak as somebody from a big city who does not
have much knowledge or understanding of life in very small
towns, but I know in this town that the government could write
any kind of application it wants to, and you get on them when
they do not because they have the capacity. I just cannot say
that about smaller areas even close to Washington.
I very much appreciate your testimony. It has been very
helpful to hear from those of you who have been, as it were, on
the ground and who can, therefore, tell us what we surely need
to know in the reauthorization process. Thank you very much for
coming to testify.
[Whereupon, at 10:28 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2252.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2252.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2252.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2252.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2252.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2252.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2252.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2252.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2252.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2252.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2252.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2252.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2252.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2252.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2252.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2252.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2252.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2252.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2252.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2252.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2252.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2252.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2252.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2252.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2252.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2252.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2252.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2252.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2252.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2252.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2252.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2252.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2252.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2252.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2252.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2252.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2252.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2252.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2252.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2252.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2252.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2252.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2252.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2252.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2252.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2252.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2252.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2252.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2252.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2252.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2252.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2252.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2252.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2252.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2252.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2252.059