[Senate Hearing 110-486]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-486
THE STATE AND FEDERAL RESPONSE TO STORM DAMAGE AND EROSION IN ALASKA'S
COASTAL VILLAGES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISASTER RECOVERY
of the
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 11, 2007
__________
FIELD HEARING IN ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
__________
Available via http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
38-848 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii TED STEVENS, Alaska
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
BARACK OBAMA, Illinois PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri JOHN WARNER, Virginia
JON TESTER, Montana JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire
Michael L. Alexander, Staff Director
Brandon L. Milhorn, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Trina Driessnack Tyrer, Chief Clerk
AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISASTER RECOVERY
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana, Chairman
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware TED STEVENS, Alaska
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
Donny Williams, Staff Director
Aprille Raabe, Minority Staff Director
Amanda Fox, Chief Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Landrieu............................................. 1
Senator Stevens.............................................. 1
WITNESSES
Tuesday, October 11, 2007
Brigadier General John W. Peabody, Commander and Division
Engineer, Pacific Ocean Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 3
John W. Madden, Director, Division of Homeland Security and
Emergency Management, Department of Military and Veterans
Affairs of the State of Alaska................................. 5
Susan K. Reinertson, Regional Administrator, FEMA Region X,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security.............................................. 7
Colleen E. Swan, Tribal Adminstrator, Native Village of Kivalina,
Alaska......................................................... 25
Stanley Tom, Tribal Administrator of the Newtok Traditional
Council, Native Village of Newtok, Alaska...................... 29
Tony A. Weyiouanna, Sr., Kawerak Transportation Planner and
Technical Staff Assistant to the Shishmaref Erosion and
Relocation Coalition, Shishmaref, Alaska....................... 31
Steve Ivanoff, Village Transportation Planner, Unalakleet, Alaska 33
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
Ivanoff, Steve:
Testimony.................................................... 33
Prepared statement........................................... 135
Madden, John W.:
Testimony.................................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 50
Peabody, Brigadier General John W.:
Testimony.................................................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 45
Reinertson, Susan K.:
Testimony.................................................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 55
Swan, Colleen E.:
Testimony.................................................... 25
Prepared statement........................................... 62
Tom, Stanley:
Testimony.................................................... 29
Prepared statement with attachments.......................... 68
Weyiouanna, Tony A., Sr.:
Testimony.................................................... 31
Prepared statement with attachments.......................... 86
THE STATE AND FEDERAL RESPONSE TO STORM DAMAGE AND EROSION IN ALASKA'S
COASTAL VILLAGES
----------
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2007
U.S. Senate,
Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Disaster Recovery,
of the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Anchorage, Alaska
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9 a.m., in
Z.J. Loussac Public Library, Anchorage, Alaska, Hon. Mary
Landrieu, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Landrieu and Stevens.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANDRIEU
Senator Landrieu. I would like to call the Subcommittee on
Disaster Recovery to order. I thank our panelists for being
available and thank all of you for your interest and work on
this important subject.
I am going to turn the gavel over to Senator Stevens, who
needs no introduction, of course, here in Anchorage, Alaska. He
is not only a giant among Senators, a veteran, and a hero, but
a tireless advocate for the interest of the citizens of this
State.
I have been pleased to work with him, to battle with him on
behalf of the citizens throughout all parts of Alaska. And it
is a great privilege for me, really, to be with him in his home
State.
He has stood by the side of the people of New Orleans and
Louisiana as we tried to rebuild out of the rubble of two of
the worst storms to ever hit the continental United States,
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, which decimated large swaths of
the Gulf Coast States just 2 years ago.
So again, it is a pleasure for me to be here. We had a
remarkable visit yesterday and I am looking forward to the
testimony today. At this time, I will turn the gavel and
microphone over to Senator Stevens.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR STEVENS
Senator Stevens [presiding]. Thank you, very much, Senator
Landrieu. You are very generous. I am delighted that you have
scheduled this hearing.
Yesterday I attended a portion of the hearing of the State
legislature here on some of the State functions regarding the
disaster areas that we are concerned with here this morning.
And for the interest of everybody, we did go to Shishmaref
yesterday and had a very short but meaningful visit there. I am
delighted that Senator Landrieu was willing to go there to see
the devastation that has been caused along our shore.
It is an important thing for us to try and deal with this
now. I want to emphasize, of course, that I am sure Alaskans
know that no State is more affected by global climate change
than ours. We have rising temperatures. The permafrost is
melting. The trees are growing further up north. The sea ice is
melting. And the storms, in particular, have increased in their
severity and their number.
I hope that we are going to be able to hear today some of
the concepts that are involved in Federal responsibilities with
regard to these villages.
As you all know, in 2003, at our request, the GAO examined
and produced a report concerning the flooding and erosion of
Alaskan Native villages. They found that 184 of the 213 at that
time, 86 percent of the villages were affected. Shishmaref,
Kivalina, and Newtok were those who had suffered the worst.
We are in the process still of dealing with the Federal a
gencies, particularly those who are here today, to determine
what can be done on the Federal level to deal with these
villages and the results of the storms so far. And really, we
went yesterday, to see how effective some of the steps we have
taken to try and protect the villages have been. And clearly,
we have to find a way to work together if we are going to solve
this problem.
So I am delighted, Senator, that you are willing to do
this, make this trip, to listen to this, and conduct this
hearing. It is a most important thing for us, I think, to
pursue.
I have been to New Orleans 2 days after the Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita disasters. I served in World War II and saw a
lot of devastation, but I have never seen devastation in the
United States like I saw there. At least 20 square miles of
homes were totally flattened. We had a real emergency and I do
believe that Senator Landrieu and her colleagues, moved forward
to try and get the massive efforts of the Federal Government
coordinated and effective.
We have a similar situation, only it is spread along the
coastline, half of the coastline of the United States. It is
more difficult to deal with. But I know that the experience
that Senator Landrieu has had with regard to that major
disaster is going to help us in terms of trying to deal with
those that we are facing now and may face in the future.
So let me, if I can, at your suggestion, introduce to you
the people who are going to testify today.
First, we are going to hear from Brigadier General John
Peabody, who is the Commander and the Division Engineer for the
Pacific Ocean Division of the Corps of Engineers. He is
responsible for engineering design, construction, and real
estate management of all of the military establishments in the
Pacific Region, as well as the Corps of Engineers water
resource development and regulatory programs for Alaska,
Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam, and Northern Marianas. He has a
vast area, so we are happy to have you with us today.
Is the time limit 7 minutes for statements? We would like
to see you keep your statements as short of possible, so we can
go into some questions. The Chairman says 5 minutes.
So General, let's hear from you first.
STATEMENT OF BRIGADIER GENERAL JOHN W. PEABODY,\1\ COMMANDER
AND DIVISION ENGINEER, PACIFIC OCEAN DIVISION, U.S. ARMY CORPS
OF ENGINEERS
General Peabody. OK, sir. Thank you, very much.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of General Peabody appears in the
Appendix on page 45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Madam Chairman, Senator Stevens, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss coastal storm
damage and related issues in Alaska.
I am General John Peabody, Commander of the Corps of
Engineers Pacific Ocean Division, and I will provide a brief
overview of the Pacific Ocean Division, review our Corps of
Engineers' Authorities and programs, and highlight some of the
challenges regarding coastal erosion affecting Alaskan
communities.
The Pacific Ocean Division is headquartered in Honolulu,
Hawaii. We have four district offices in Hawaii, Alaska, Japan,
and South Korea. All of our districts have important military
construction missions. In addition, the Honolulu and Alaska
districts have a civil works mission that provides for water
resources development and restoration, primarily in the areas
of commercial navigation, flood and coastal storm damage
reduction risks, and ecosystem restoration.
It is through our Alaska District civil works program that
we are involved in addressing erosion problems that affect
Alaskan communities.
The Corps of Engineers has several civil works authorities
to address flooding and erosion problems. They include specific
Congressional authorizations, the Continuing Authorities
Program, the Planning Assistance to States Program, the Tribal
Partnership Program, the Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies
Authority, and Alaska-specific authorizations such as Section
117 of Public Law 108-447 of the Fiscal Year 2005 Consolidated
Appropriations Act. This relates to Alaska flood, erosion, and
ice damage. Each of these authorities has different
implementing rules and limitations.
In addressing erosion problems, the Corps works closely
with local, State, Federal, tribal, and private interests to
understand and incorporate the concerns represented by these
various stakeholders. The Corps weighs the concerns, balances
the needs, and examines the risks, costs and benefits to
determine Federal interest and to make technically,
environmentally, socially, and economically sound risk-informed
decisions.
I would like to highlight a few of the Alaska-specific
coastal erosion authorities.
A recent authority that has been useful in addressing
Alaska coastal erosion problems is Section 117 of the Fiscal
Year 2005 Appropriations Act, which authorizes the Secretary of
the Army to ``carry out, at full Federal expense, structural
and non-structural projects for storm damage prevention and
reduction, coastal erosion, and ice and glacial damage in
Alaska, including relocation of affected communities and
construction of replacement facilities.''
The Corps of Engineers has demonstrated some success with
the Section 117 authority as implemented under the Alaska
Coastal Erosion program. In June 2007, with funding provided by
Congress, the Alaska District awarded a $6.5 million
construction contract to build approximately 625 linear feet of
rock revetment to protect infrastructure at Shishmaref. The
interim erosion protection at Shishmaref has an estimated
project life of approximately 15 years, which will allow the
community sufficient time to develop and implement alternative
plans. An additional 2,500 feet at an estimated cost of $25
million is required to complete the interim protection for the
entire community.
Additionally, the Alaska District executed a Project
Cooperation Agreement with the City of Unalakleet in January
2007 for erosion protection, subject to the availability of
funds. Finally, the Alaksa District is also currently
negotiating a Project Cooperation Agreement with the city of
Kivalina for erosion protection.
In addition, under the Alaska Tribal Partnership Program,
the Alaska District is preparing the Alaska Baseline Erosion
Study. This will provide a systems approach for coordinating,
planning, and providing an overall assessment to help
prioritize shoreline erosion management efforts in Alaska. To
date, the study has identified 165 communities that are
experiencing erosion problems. The Alaska District has also
initiated the Alaska Erosion Data Collection study under this
program.
As noted in the June 2004 General Account Office report on
Alaska Native villages affected by flooding and erosion, it is
often difficult for the majority of Alaska's small and remote
communities to finance and meet the multiple criteria required
for Federal participation in solutions. The remoteness of many
of the areas, severe weather conditions, and the subsistence
economies of the communities are major contributing factors to
this limitation.
Perhaps the biggest challenges are the costs and risks
associated with implementing erosion control solutions in these
usually remote communities. These include high mobilization
costs, limited construction season, and the difficulty and
expense of transporting and obtaining adequate rock and other
construction materials. In April 2006, the Corps completed the
Alaska Village Erosion Technical Analysis Report--also known as
the AVETA study--which estimated costs for providing erosion
protection for seven villages.
In addition, in Alaska we lack adequate scientific data on
the factors that contribute to coastal erosion such as wave,
wind, tide, current, storm surge, and ice pack. The Alaska
Erosion Data Collection study should help provide some of this
important information.
The risks associated with coastal erosion challenges in
Alaska are great. Risk considerations include determining what
level of protection from erosion and flooding are acceptable,
deciding whether to relocate or remain, and balancing the
costs, social, cultural, and environmental impacts.
In summary, the Corps of Engineers has the technical
expertise to address solutions based on a systems approach and
to communicate and assist with risk informed decisionmaking
associated with the complex storm damage and erosion problems
in Alaska's coastal villages.
We are proud to work in collaboration with the many
Federal, State, and local entities to assist in recommending
and implementing solutions for the coastal erosion challenges
faced by the Alaskan communities.
Madam Chairman and Senator Stevens, I am honored to appear
before the Subcommittee today and thank you for the
opportunity. I look forward to any questions you may have.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you very much.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
Madam Chairman, now we are going to hear from John Madden,
who is the Director of the Division of Homeland Security and
Emergency Management for the Department of Military and
Veterans Affairs of the State of Alaska. He has extensive
experience in the State, and he has also had a distinguished
career with seven Federal agencies.
Thank you, Mr. Madden, for being with us. We are pleased to
have your statement.
STATEMENT OF JOHN W. MADDEN,\1\ DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF HOMELAND
SECURITY AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY AND
VETERANS AFFAIRS OF THE STATE OF ALASKA
Mr. Madden. Thank you, Senator Stevens and Madam Chairman,
for inviting me to present testimony on the State response to
storm damage and erosion in Alaska's coastal villages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Madden appears in the Appendix on
page 50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the past 30 years, Alaska has declared 226 State
disasters. Of these, 20 were further declared Federal disasters
by the President. The disasters included floods, storm surges,
extreme freezing, high winds, wildfires, structure fires,
earthquakes, volcanoes, and other damage to critical
infrastructure. About $436 million in State and Federal funds
have been spent to recover from these Alaskan disasters. More
than half of these disasters and two-thirds of the funds were
for recovery from floods, storm surges, and erosion disasters.
Since 1978, the State of Alaska has declared 23 disasters
due to damage from sea storms that have hit every coastal area
from Metlakatla, throughout the Southeast, the Gulf of Alaska,
the Aleutians, and the full extent of our western and northern
coasts, a distance greater than the entire U.S. coast from
Maine to Mexico and California to Canada.
According to the National Weather Service, an average of
five storms of hurricane force approach Alaska each year from
the Pacific and Arctic Oceans, and the Bering and Chukchi Seas.
In recent years, the ice advances southward from the Arctic
later and slower. This is an extremely important factor in the
storms' effects on coastal communities. Shore fast ice greatly
reduces the wave erosion action of the storms.
Both Alaskan and Federal statutes enable and authorize
immediate actions and immediate funding when disasters are
imminent, meaning likely to occur at any moment. When there is
a question of safety of life, there is no bureaucracy, only
swift and hopefully effective action. But where a possibility
exists for a future disaster, but at an uncertain time, neither
the Alaska Disaster Relief Act nor the Federal Stafford Act
authorizes funds to prevent the disasters, no matter how
certain the odds. Until the disaster can be clearly seen,
disaster relief funds--State or Federal--cannot be used.
In fiscal year 2007, Congress appropriated $100 million for
the Pre-Disaster Mitigation program for the entire Nation.
Under this program, a project is deemed ineligible if another
Federal agency has primary authority, even if that agency has
no funds appropriated for that purpose.
FEMA administers the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program for
long-term projects following a major disaster declaration. The
purpose is to reduce the loss of life and property in future
disasters by funding mitigation measures during the recovery
phase. Projects must provide a long-term solution and the
potential savings must be more than the cost of implementing
the project. Allocations are calculated as a percentage of the
costs of recent disasters. These funds are limited and are the
only means to address the full range of hazards facing the
State, including earthquakes, fires, floodings, and coastal
storms.
Since 1997, Alaska has received about $16 million to
mitigate the potential for damage from all future disasters,
far less than the cost of fully mitigating just a single
community against coastal erosion.
In July 2006, I testified before the Senate Commerce,
Science, and Transportation Committee and recommended that
unmanned aerial systems based in Alaska would greatly improve
science, safety, and security. With these communities at
increasing risk, the need is even stronger for these unmanned
aerial systems in Alaska to help improve weather and climate
predictions that are required for developing sound public
policy.
Based on these observations, I do recommend the deployment
and basing of unmanned aerial systems in Alaska for weather
observations, coastline documentation, and immediate damage
assessment following events. I recommend increased technology
and staffing resources by the National Weather Service,
particularly here in Alaska, to work with the State on
improving their climate models and integrating their weather
warnings with the emergency preparedness and response.
Last, I recommend increased funding for the Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program and the Pre-Disaster Mitigation
Program and greater latitude on their use for coastal erosion.
In conclusion, Alaska faces a spectrum of risks, threats,
and hazards disproportionate to our population, a point not
adequately measured or fully appreciated in the Federal grants
process. The problems of coastal erosion and flooding are and
will continue to be significant dangers to many Alaskan
communities. The solutions to these problems lay beyond the
existing capabilities of the communities and of the State.
Existing authorities covering disaster response and recovery do
not recognize changing or emerging conditions as an imminent
disaster.
Coastal erosion and the flooding problems associated with
them will place a greater number of Alaskans at a higher risk
at a faster pace.
This concludes my prepared remarks and I stand ready to
answer any questions the Subcommittee may have.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
Our next witness, Madam Chairman, is Susan Reinertson. She
is the Administrator of FEMA for Region X. She is responsible
for coordinating FEMA's mitigation, preparedness, and disaster
response and recovery activities in four States: Alaska, Idaho,
Oregon, Washington.
Thank you very much for coming to our hearing, Ms.
Reinertson.
STATEMENT OF SUSAN K. REINERTSON,\1\ REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR,
FEMA REGION X, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Ms. Reinertson. Thank you. Chairman Landrieu and Ranking
Member Stevens, I am Susan Reinertson, Regional Administrator
of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Region X. On behalf of FEMA and the
Department of Homeland Security, we appreciate the invitation
to appear today before the Subcommittee. It is a distinct honor
and privilege for me to be here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Reinertson appears in the
Appendix on page 55.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of FEMA Region X and, I am sure, all of FEMA, are
dedicated to meeting the needs of the people of Alaska within
the programs and authorities provided to us by the Congress and
the President.
I would like to acknowledge the leadership of our Alaska
State partners, Major General Craig Campbell and John Madden,
with whom we have forged a strong professional partnership that
ensures successful emergency management for the Alaskan
communities and citizens.
FEMA is the lead Federal agency responsible for
coordinating disaster response, recovery, and mitigation
efforts following disasters and emergencies declared by the
President, as authorized under the Stafford Act. Three programs
are made available to communities through our State partner
organizations to supplement the response activities and
recovery programs of the State include the Public Assistance
Program, which provides assistance for the restoration of
public and certain private nonprofit facilities damaged by an
event, and the reimbursement of the costs associated with
emergency protective measures and debris removal. The six
Alaskan Native villages most prone to erosion have received
$3.1 million in public assistance over the last 5 years as a
result of three federally declared disasters.
We also have the Individuals and Households Program, which
helps ensure that the essential needs of individuals and
families are met after disasters so that they can begin the
road to successful recovery.
And finally, there are three Mitigation Grant Programs
which, given the focus of this hearing, I will discuss in more
detail.
First, the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program was
authorized by Congress under the Disaster Mitigation Act of
2000 and is available through the State to fund State and local
mitigation projects and planning efforts. Funding for this
competitive grant program is not triggered by a presidential
disaster declaration. Rather, it is funded through the annual
appropriations process.
Examples of projects funded under the program include the
development of all-hazard mitigation plans, seismic
retrofitting of critical public buildings, and acquisition or
relocation of flood-prone properties located in the flood
plain. All projects must be cost-effective, technically
feasible, and are selected following a nationally competitive
peer-review process.
Since the inception of the program in 2003, Alaska has
received $1.9 million to address several local and State-wide
planning projects and seismic retrofits of schools in Anchorage
and Kodiak Island.
Second, we have the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, which
is available to States and communities following presidential
disaster declarations. The amount of assistance available under
this program is a percentage of FEMA's assistance made
available under the response and recovery programs.
Of the $18.5 million in Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
funds obligated in Alaska since the inception of the program,
$7.5 million or 40 percent has been spent on relocation
projects for Alaskan Native villages. Specifically, over $6.3
million in Federal funding was provided to relocate 11
structures in Alatna; $900,000 was provided for relocating 27
homes in Allakaket; and $200,000 was provided for relocating
and elevating homes and a city building in Alakanuk. For all of
these projects, the State of Alaska provided a 25 percent match
funding.
Third, the Flood Mitigation Assistance program is
authorized for mitigating structures insured by the National
Flood Insurance Program within a community participating in
that program. Currently, 32 boroughs, cities, towns, and Alaska
Native village municipalities participate. Eligible projects
for this program include the elevation, relocation, and
acquisition of flood-prone structures.
In 1998, the Flood Mitigation Assistance Program was able
to fund $600,000 to relocate nine private structures within
Shishmaref.
There are significant eligibility and funding challenges to
FEMA and the State developing successful mitigation projects,
including relocation, in Alaska Native villages. With respect
to eligibility, projects that receive FEMA grant funding must
demonstrate that the benefit of the project is the same or
greater than the cost. With the high costs in rural Alaska and
low population, developing a project or relocation effort with
a positive benefit-to-cost ratio is difficult.
In regard to funding challenges, our mitigation program's
funding is insufficient to comprehensively address the Alaska
Native villages erosion problem. Since the Hazard Mitigation
Grant Program's funding availability is based on declared
disaster losses, it would take a catastrophic disaster or
disasters for the State to receive the needed level of
mitigation funds. The Pre-Disaster Mitigation grant program is
funded nationally at $100 million for fiscal year 2007, with a
$3 million cap on each nationally selected project.
Nevertheless, FEMA will continue to work with the State of
Alaska to identify and provide technical assistance for
planning and development of cost-effective project for
consideration under all programs of the Stafford Act.
Please be assured if one or more communities experience
significant flooding and a major disaster is declared, the full
breadth of the Staff Act programs will be provided with the
greatest of coordination and allowable flexibility within the
scope of the law to ensure the long-term plans of the
communities are considered, to include the potential relocation
of certain structures and facilities.
In closing, I appreciate the opportunity to represent the
Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Department of
Homeland Security before the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Disaster
Recovery.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. Madam Chairman.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you. I appreciate you all keeping
it in the time frame and I do have a few questions.
General Peabody, you spoke about the civil works budget for
the country. Could you just repeat again what your budget is
for civil works for your division and what it is for the full
country every year?
General Peabody. Yes, ma'am.
The last 5 years, we have averaged roughly about $80
million a year for the----
Senator Landrieu. For your division.
General Peabody [continuing]. Pacific Ocean Division. I do
not have the exact figures off the tip of my tongue, but I
believe the last few years and the President's budget this year
is on the order of magnitude $4 to $5 billion a year for civil
works across the Nation.
Senator Landrieu. The reason I want that to be on the
record is that while these numbers seem impressive when you
throw them out, just to give you a relative number, the damage
for just these two storms for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita has
already cost the Federal Government--just these two storms, not
Hurricane Wilma, not Hurricane Andrew, not any of the other
hurricanes that hit the South, and I am sure that the
earthquakes and storms, as you pointed out, Mr. Madden, a whole
series that have hit Alaska, and it is one of the more
vulnerable States--is exceeding $150 billion, the damage that
the Federal Government has already contributed.
So what we are paying on the back end to put communities
back together is something that I have been trying to bring
that message to Washington and to the Nation, is that it is
such a relatively small amount of money that we are spending on
the front end. And no matter how great our plans are, without
some additional resources, we will not be making as much
progress as I think we could.
There is a baseline erosion Corps of Engineers report of
communities at risk, to determine the cost of continued
erosion, to determine the cost of relocation. This was done,
interestingly, before the storms of Hurricanes Katrina and
Rita, which really focused the Nation's attention on just the
devastation that can occur in a populated area, as well as
isolated areas along the coast.
In 2003, the report was requested or required. Do you know
what the status of that report is? Have you prioritized a list
of communities in your region that might need relocation aid,
those that are open to relocation or those that are interested
in securing themselves in place where they are?
General Peabody. Yes, Senator, there are actually two
reports that your question refers to. One is the Alaska Village
Erosion Technical Analysis (AVETA) report. That report focused
on seven or nine villages specifically that were, based on
discussion with local authorities, deemed to be at highest
risk.
That particular report is completed and submitted to the
Congress in April or the summer of 2006. I believe we completed
the report in April 2006. That estimated the cost--it did three
things. One was to identify how much time--rough order of
magnitude, it is all rough order of magnitude--about how much
time we thought the communities had before coastal erosion
would effectively make their communities uninhabitable.
Two, it told us about how much the cost would be to shore
up the communities.
And three, it told us about the cost to actually relocate
the communities.
Senator Landrieu. But that report was Alaska-specific.
General Peabody. That is correct, ma'am.
Senator Landrieu. That was not for the whole Nation.
General Peabody. That is correct.
The rough order of magnitude--and I have the details here.
But the rough order of magnitude for either--I will talk about
a semi-permanent solution. Because any solution is only as good
as what----
Rough order of magnitude for either relocation or shoring
up the communities ranged from about $50 to $125 million.
The other report you referred to is the Alaska Baseline
Study. That is a study of all Alaska Native villages. That was
generated by the GAO report of 2000 for--so far we have 165
communities that have self-identified as being at risk to
coastal erosion, whether from the coast or actually from--some
of these are close to rivers and have river erosion affecting
them, as well.
And we will complete that report in October of next year.
Senator Landrieu. Are you all using the new technologies
that--I think it is global spatial satellites--to determine
your actual sea levels and measurements?
The reason I ask is because, as Senator Stevens knows, one
of the shocking developments after the storms that we
experienced was that the Corps of Engineers and the people in
the region thought that the levees were a certain height but
found out, after more accurate measures, that they were three
to four feet lower than where they should have been due to lack
of accurate measuring.
Now with technology today, and I have introduced this to
Louisiana and I want to ask if you have it here, you can
literally get very quickly the levels of--I guess land levels
and rises. Are you all using that technology? Do you have it
available to you in the region?
General Peabody. Yes, we are using that technology--the
point you are getting to is actually a really important point.
This is absolutely essential. To make good informed decisions
and to spend the taxpayers' dollar in the most effective and
efficient way, we really need to have good hard scientific
data. In Alaska, we are data poor.
So the two studies I referred to, in my judgment, really
are starting us on a journey to get the data that we need to be
able to make these good well-informed judgments that are based
on science and sound technical knowledge.
Senator Landrieu. Well, I would really strongly suggest
that we pursue that in every region of the Corps because
Senator Stevens, without a doubt, the decisions we make could
be extremely costly to the citizens, to the taxpayers, and we
need to make them smartly.
Let me just ask, Mr. Madden, if I could--and I am sorry I
do not have this data--but you said in your statement that
Alaska had experienced an inordinate number of disasters, that
the State had declared disasters, and the Federal Government
indicated 20 or so, as you stated.
As your experience as a disaster leader for recovery, how
does Alaska rank with all the other States? Do you all ever
sort of rank how many disasters you have relative to other
States? And the intensity of those disasters. Could you, just
from your experience, say that Alaska would be the No. 1 State?
Or high up on the listing of both State declared and federally
declared?
Mr. Madden. We do make informal comparisons with the other
States, ma'am, and Alaska is probably within the top five or
six in the Nation for the number of State-declared disasters.
The nature of our disasters that have reached Federal level
for the widespread devastation, they are infrequent but they
are severe. We are the only State to ever get earthquakes above
9.0 on the Richter scale, and we have had three of them.
We are the only State that gets five hurricane force storms
every year, guaranteed.
So the number of disasters is probably in the top five or
six in the Nation. I think we are probably No. 1 in the Nation
for the range of disasters: Volcanos and earthquakes and floods
and fires and high winds and extreme freezing. So the spectrum
of these disasters is probably greater in this State than in
any other State.
Senator Landrieu. One more question. Do you find, and this
is not the subject of this hearing specifically but it is on
our minds as we struggle to rebuild in the Southern part of the
country, what is the--just a brief comment about the insurance
availability to people to recover their homes and businesses
after a catastrophic loss? Is there any insurance sold in the
State that is affordable that covers catastrophic loss? For a
residence, not necessarily businesses?
Mr. Madden. We have been checking most recently into the
seismic events as one of our threats out there. We are
experiencing within the State, I think now only one carrier
offers earthquake insurance. Other carriers have pulled out of
the market and they may have grandfathered in their policies
but are not writing new policies.
And on the flood insurance for individuals, so little of
the State outside of the developed areas have the right
documentation to understand if they are or are not in flood
plains. So without that documentation, insurers are reluctant
to even enter the market.
Senator Landrieu. One of the things that our Subcommittee
is going to do is to try to come up with a different paradigm
of recovering after a catastrophic disaster that entails more
than just government subsidies, that entails some sort of
partnership with the private sector and the government to
rebuild, whether the small villages like I saw in Shishmaref
yesterday, or whether they were larger communities like the
450,000 people in the city of New Orleans, which is my
hometown, that lost 80 percent of the city was lost to
flooding.
The whole country, I just want you to know, is really
struggling with this, from the East Coast to the South Coast of
the country. Here in Alaska, I would think it would be a
problem, as well.
Ms. Reinertson, I know that you commented, and FEMA has
generated, I have to say, a tremendous amount of criticism at
home not because of the people of good intentions. But the
Stafford Act has just been found very wanting to try to recover
from catastrophic disaster.
So the project work order sheets that have to be filled out
to rebuild every building, every classroom, respond to every
desk that has been destroyed or firehouse or police station.
The communities are really struggling to find the money to
rebuild them and them have FEMA reimburse them. If your
community is destroyed, you do not have the money to put up to
rebuild your schoolhouse.
Are you all having any internal discussions inside of FEMA
as to a way that we can get a better public work order process
within the ranks of FEMA? Has that come up at all in your
discussions this year as you looked at what is not working in
the southern part of the country?
Ms. Reinertson. As being the Regional Administrator for
Region X, I do not get involved in those discussions. I am
unaware of what has been happening at FEMA headquarters
regarding that issue.
Senator Landrieu. Because I just think that--and the
Senator knows this better than almost anyone--but the military,
when they go through exercises does lessons learned because all
battles are not the same. We want to learn from the battle so
your generals do not repeat mistakes in the next one.
I really hope that the other 10 regions are paying more
attention to what happened in our region because you could
learn a great deal about what is not working for the people as
we struggle to recover, in terms of bureaucracy and red tape
associated with the current Stafford Act.
So as part of what we are here to try to prevent the
disaster, mitigate against it and if it happens, to be better
responders. And I thank you for your comments.
Senator Stevens.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
General Peabody, you passed over Section 117 of the
Appropriations Bill so quickly, just so we will all remember
what you said, it authorized the Secretary of the Army to
``carry out, at full Federal expense, structural and non-
structural projects for storm damage prevention and reduction,
coastal erosion, and ice and glacial damage in Alaska,
including relocation of affected communities and construction
of replacement facilities.'' A very general authorization to go
on top of the Stafford Act.
It does not seem the Corps was impressed by that
authorization at all. Did you have any instructions at all from
your headquarters about how to react to that authorization?
General Peabody. Sir, we actually have used that
authorization, which the key component from our perspective is
that it provides 100 percent Federal funding in that the cost-
sharing aspect of it, which is a key ingredient to practically
every other authority that we have, is not a requirement. And
that is critical for most of the villages in Alaska because
they just do not have the resources to be able to do any of the
cost-sharing.
Senator Stevens. I know that, and the difficulty I have is
with a new paradigm that we cannot add money to the budget, as
has been requested by the President, you initiate the Corps of
Engineers project for this area, the Pacific Region. Did you
request any money in 2006 or 2007 pursuant to Section 117?
General Peabody. Did I, sir? No, sir, I did not.
Senator Stevens. Why not?
General Peabody. Sir, I am not asked to request money for
the Federal budget. The Corps of Engineers does that at the
headquarters with the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil
Works?
Senator Stevens. Well, don't they come to you and ask you
what your requirements are before they prepare their budget?
General Peabody. No, sir.
Senator Stevens. Well, I hate to tell you, back in my day,
in the Eisenhower Administration, they did. And the bureaus and
the local offices went to the regions, and the regions went to
their bureaus and the bureaus went to the assistant secretaries
and the assistant secretaries went to the Secretary and the
Secretary went to the OMB.
Now who is going to go to OMB and request money for the
authorization I got under Section 117 unless you do it?
General Peabody. Well, sir, we do make it known to the
Corps headquarters what the requirements are for Alaska.
Senator Stevens. But do you take into account the
authorization, the specific authorization that Congress gave us
for these storms on the West Coast? This was specifically
directed to the storm damage on the West Coast. We all knew
that.
General Peabody. Yes, sir.
Senator Stevens. But your agency has never requested any
money from headquarters to carry it out; right?
General Peabody. Not to my knowledge, sir. No, sir.
Senator Stevens. Well, maybe I better get the General in
charge of the Corps of Engineers and ask him why he did not.
But I have not seen any requests at all for money to carry it
out.
We are faced with the problem of trying to write that in
one of these infamous earmarks now to meet the needs of these
people unless someone authorizes it, someone recognizes the
authorization you already have.
General Peabody. Yes, sir.
Senator Stevens. That is sort of mind-boggling, to say the
least.
What about coordination with the State and the agencies we
have created like the Denali Commission? Have you instituted a
program of cooperation with the State, and particularly the
agency we created which is Federal/State in nature?
General Peabody. Yes, sir, we have. In fact, there are
three main areas where we have collaborated. One with the
Natural Resources Conservation Service, which has done
something----
Senator Stevens. I am only interested in this one subject--
--
General Peabody. Denali.
Senator Stevens [continuing]. Erosion damage. Do you have a
coordinating concept with regard to the State of Alaska and
particularly this Federal/State agency, Denali Commission, for
erosion damage on the West Coast?
General Peabody. Yes, sir, we do. With the Denali
Commission, we are involved and actively collaborating and
coordinating with them for the last 2 years. In fact, the
Denali Commission just gave us nine task orders recently to do
some work on providing barge landings and--designs for barge
landings and docks in communities.
Senator Stevens. Did any of those committees come up and
ask about the need, the dollars required from the Federal
Government to carry on your work?
General Peabody. For the total program, sir? Not to my
knowledge.
Senator Stevens. The West Coast. We are talking about that
erosion on the West Coast.
General Peabody. Yes, sir.
Senator Stevens. Did you come up with any specific numbers?
General Peabody. With the Denali Commission?
Senator Stevens. Working with the State and the Denali
Commission?
General Peabody. Well, Senator, the State has a committee
that we have our engineering division chief cochairs one of the
working groups on the coastal erosion on the West Coast with
the State.
Senator Stevens. What I am trying to point out, what you
have left is a void. It means those of us from Alaska have to
dream up these figures and ask Congress to appropriate money so
you can go ahead with the program. Who is going to ask for the
money? You have seen the damage. We know it is there. It has
been 3 years of damage.
Have you ever requested money from the Corps of Engineers
to meet the needs of Section 117?
General Peabody. Sir, we made clear to the Corps what the
requirements are after the different--for the different issues
on coastal erosion----
Senator Stevens. That is what I am asking.
General Peabody [continuing]. In Alaska.
Senator Stevens. Did you ask for money under Section 117?
General Peabody. Sir, I do not formally send up a memo
saying I need money under Section 117. But we make known the
requirements that we have. That then goes into the budget
process. And there are six or seven key parameters that are
used, again at an echelon above me, at the headquarters and in
the Secretary's office, to determine whether or not these will
compete at the national level. Those have to do with dam
safety, they have to do with economic benefit-cost ratios, and
so forth.
And frankly, sir, they do not compete because they do not
meet any of the criteria that the Federal policy establishes as
a priority to meet the budget requirements?
Senator Stevens. What is Section 117? There is a
declaration signed by the President that it is your job, that
the Secretary of the Army is to carry out this program with
regard to both prevention and reduction and erosion and ice and
glacial damage in Alaska because it was an emergency at the
time.
My great friend from Louisiana, we went down there. We
immediately put up money for the Corps of Engineers. There was
not an environmental impact statement. There was not a basic
study. But we did give you some money that one year in that
bill.
General Peabody. Yes, sir.
Senator Stevens. It was used for an environmental impact
statement. It was used for design analysis. It wasn't used for
an emergency basis.
General Peabody. Sir, those are requirements under the law
to execute the actual construction.
Senator Stevens. This is the law, to use the money,
including relocation of affected communities and construction
of replacement facilities. That is the law in 2005.
General Peabody. Yes, sir, and I agree with that. But the
environmental impact requirements, environmental assessments,
are also a part of the law that we must follow.
Senator Stevens. Why didn't they follow them in New
Orleans? They did not do a--we had damage up and down the West
Coast just like they had in New Orleans. But every time we get
money, we have to use it for an environmental impact statement.
You can see the damage. It takes a full year to get people in
there to start preventing the next year's damage.
General Peabody. Yes, sir, it does take----
Senator Stevens. And now the damage has already taken
place. That is what we saw yesterday. Three different stages of
damage in Shishmaref, the first initial money was washed away,
the second one was washed away. Now we hope the third one
succeeds. But it could have--if we moved in immediately, the
first time, and spent the money instead of spending it for
studies and gone in and done it on an emergency basis probably
the second and third one would not have been necessary.
General Peabody. Sir, we did execute emergency erosion
control at Kivalina. The problem with executing things on an
emergency basis is they are very temporary in nature.
Senator Stevens. I understand that, Colonel. But that did
not say Kivalina. It said the whole West Coast.
General Peabody. Yes, sir, but I am giving you an example
of where we have done an emergency basis execution on a
construction mission and it does not last. Those studies are
really key and central for us to be able to execute a shoreline
protection system that will have some duration.
Senator Stevens. You have got another authority called a
continuing authority program; right?
General Peabody. Yes, sir, we do.
Senator Stevens. Did you use the capability for each one of
those nine threatened cites, the continuing authority program?
Have you used it on the West Coast for those nine villages that
were identified both by the GAO and by your report, as being in
dire trouble?
General Peabody. Sir, we have----
Senator Stevens. Have any economists or anyone else looked
at the continuing authority program?
General Peabody. Sir, we have used the continuing authority
program. All of the studies, all of the work that we are doing
with the continuing authorities program currently is focused on
studies. And that is because the 2006 Appropriations Act
basically told the Corps of Engineers no new starts--you have
to finish what you have already started.
So if we had not started any of those projects, which we
had not at that time, we were essentially frozen in being able
to go forward.
Senator Stevens. I am not trying to beat you up, General. I
am just trying to say the programs----
[Laughter.]
General Peabody. I understand.
Senator Stevens. Have you identified any additional funds
for that Tribal program for these affected communities? Have
you delineated the needs for the Tribal Partnership Program for
those nine areas?
General Peabody. Sir, we have not. And I have probably done
a poor job of answering your question. We do identify the needs
and we do make clear to the headquarters all of the
requirements that we have based on coordination and
collaboration with local, State, and Federal authorities here
in Alaska, to include the Denali Commission.
When we send it up, however, again when that goes into the
budget process to determine what is going to be funded and what
is not going to be funded across the Pantheon of Federal
programs that are requirements, they do not compete based on
the rules that are currently part of the game.
Senator Stevens. I have a definite feeling if the Federal
Government had reacted in the first instance with the storms in
2005 the way we reacted in New Orleans, we would not be
spending money now to deal with the tertiary damage that has
taken place in 2006 and 2007 in these villages.
We did not move, and I do not know why because we gave you
a general authority to move, the Secretary. We are going to
have a little fun with the Secretary later this year in the
Appropriations Committee.
Let me move on. Mr. Madden, I am interested, after
listening yesterday at the State legislature's hearing. One of
the great problems I see is that we have Federal programs--and
FEMA is one of them--they have requirements for eligibility.
They have to have an approved mitigation plan in order to move
forward to mitigate damage.
As I take it, the problem is that these villages do not
have the money for that. Have you ever looked at trying to ask
the legislature to make money available to these villages so
they can get included in the Hazards Mitigation Program?
Mr. Madden. Not to the legislature, sir. We have been
trying to handle that within our direct resources. We have
teams that have gone out to several of the communities to help
them write it from scratch, develop a template that can be used
across a range of villages. We have used some of the Pre-
Disaster Mitigation Grant money for that, for them to
accomplish that.
Senator Stevens. Ms. Reinertson's statement indicates that
only two villages were prepared. Shishmaref and Kivalina are
working on a plan. But other than that, there is no plan. Am I
right? There is no pre-mitigation plans prepared yet in these
areas. And that is why we cannot deal with the mitigation
programs. Is that correct, Ms. Reinertson?
Ms. Reinertson. The mitigation plans, to my knowledge, are
in a draft form right now. We have been working with them and
helping them with the planning process.
Senator Stevens. But there were nine villages noted in the
GAO program and seven of the nine were in the Corps program.
And only two of them seemed to be having progress on the plans.
And until they have a plan, they cannot get your assistance. Am
I right?
Ms. Reinertson. Correct.
Mr. Madden. Sir, we have 15 communities that are in the
final stages of several of those mitigation plans, which are
the central first step. So we do have all of those communities
covered, plus several others.
Senator Stevens. Isn't there any way to waive that, for
people in dire emergency, and have suffered emergencies,
serious storms three times? Why do we have to wait to make
plans now for these villages that we know were damaged three
times by storms in the last 3 years? Don't you have authority
to waive that, Ms. Reinertson?
Ms. Reinertson. No, I do not have the authority.
Senator Stevens. It was waived in New Orleans. I saw it.
Every Federal agency went in there and started working. But
they did not do that here.
Ms. Reinertson. No, that is correct. The Stafford Act does
not allow us to waive for a natural process such as erosion.
Senator Stevens. That was declared a Presidential
declaration of disaster in the first storm. And the declaration
was available in New Orleans, the Presidential disaster
declaration.
Now why did we require more in Alaska to deal with
disasters than they did in New Orleans?
Ms. Reinertson. I do not know the answer to that question.
Senator Stevens. Well, I hope you will ask your people to
be prepared for that question when we get back to Washington,
will you?
Ms. Reinertson. Yes, sir.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you.
Mr. Madden, you testified, and this is following up on what
Senator Stevens said, that FEMA mitigation funds cannot be used
for flood studies, mapping, control or demolition. Is that
true? That is, I think, what you testified. And could you
comment on it?
And then, Ms. Reinertson, what do you think FEMA's position
should be about these restrictions? Is that what you testified
to?
Mr. Madden. Yes, ma'am, it is. And I drew those words
directly from the FEMA guidance from their brochures and
publications with the programming. This is a direct quote from
them as to what they can and cannot be used for.
Senator Landrieu. Do you agree?
Ms. Reinertson. I implement and execute the policies. The
policy questions are up in the headquarters.
These are great--the Pre-Disaster Mitigation and Hazard
Mitigation Grant programs are wonderful programs. But we are
limited by the eligibility and the funding that goes into them
as to how a disaster declaration can be used.
Senator Landrieu. You are not only limited by the amount of
money, which is clearly just a cursory review of the budget,
but it seems like you are limited by the language itself. If
you are ordered to mitigate and you get money, even if it is a
small amount, and you cannot use it to do flood studies,
mapping, or demolition in disasters, how do you begin the
process?
As General Peabody testified, that is one of the most
essential elements of mitigation, to figure out how high you
are, how high you need to be, before you can even make a plan
to either stay or move depending on what is decided. If you
cannot use the mitigation money for mapping maybe, Senator, we
need to either change the law or be more--do you want to
comment, Mr. Madden? Would it be helpful to you?
Mr. Madden. Well, I agree with the concept that you have to
understand before you can act. The State is very vigorously
pursuing digital mapping to document elevations and contours
for higher study. There has not been a strong Federal effort to
do that. So the State is trying to do that, mapping not only
for aviation but for navigation and these land use issues.
It is restrictive and the Federal law does prevent us from
doing the right thing. The right thing is helping the
communities. So even when we apply, our application will not
even get past the first range of review because of the
limitations of the program.
Senator Stevens. How do you explain the great reaction in
New Orleans? Although, even with that, it actually was
insufficient. It should have gone on for a lot longer and it
should have been more directed. They were not bound by the laws
you are talking about right now. Why should those laws not bind
the Federal agencies in New Orleans but totally prevent us in
Alaska from getting any reaction in those nine villages?
You were there yesterday, Ms. Reinertson. You saw
Shishmaref. You saw some damage, didn't you?
Ms. Reinertson. There are a whole lot of other programs
that can come into effect other than the Hazard Mitigation
Grant program. There is Flood Mitigation Assistance. The
National Flood Insurance Programs, of course, today have their
own eligibility issues and benefits.
But there are a lot of programs with different eligibility
issues that are more than a hazard mitigation grant program.
Senator Stevens. In New Orleans your agency appointed a
coordinator for all Federal programs to meet New Orleans'
needs. Did your agency ever think about appointing a
coordinator for the nine villages?
Ms. Reinertson. Not that I am aware of.
Senator Landrieu. That might be very helpful, but let me
just clarify for the record, Senator. As you know, when I
talked about the figure of $150 billion basically allocated for
the catastrophic disaster that occurred, please do not let the
record reflect that that money has actually been spent. It is
stuck in bureaucratic machinations, basically, just along the
same lines as we are talking.
And for the record, even though I requested, in our
delegation, to have some of the environmental impact statements
required by the law waived, it was denied. So we are not moving
forward with all the waivers that we asked for. The waivers
were clearly necessary then. They are obviously necessary now.
And we are dealing with the Stafford Act and it is wholly
inadequate for what we are attempting to do. I have said before
part of this is trying to help these villages and coastal
communities to prevent destruction. But the other aspect of it
is helping them recover once destruction comes.
And to use the analogy, it would be like us trying to
rebuild Europe after World War II with FEMA project work order
sheets, without maps that anybody either has or can read. It is
just a fool's errand is what it is.
And our constituents are depending on us to get a better
system for you, General Peabody, to request the money that you
need; for Congress to appropriate it so that we do not get
blamed when we ask for extra money, act like we do not know
what we are doing in our States when we do; and have a better
system.
And that is what this field hearing is about. And I intend,
Senator, to have field hearings around the country on this
issue because there are many coastal communities at risk,
Alaska being on the front line, but the Gulf Coast States also
being on the front line and many other communities in the
country.
But Mr. Madden, do you have any suggestions for us as we
move forward? Your testimony was full of some. Would you like
to spend a few minutes talking about a few?
Mr. Madden. Well, ma'am, my counterparts from the 50 States
and the territories and possessions all met in Oklahoma City
about 2 weeks ago. And we have been working to understand what
should have been in place before Hurricane Katrina and what
would have enabled a better response, and how that would have
affected it.
And my colleague, Jeff Smith, from Louisiana has done a
wonderful analysis of how those laws limited the reaction.
There will be ready, within the next 30 to 60 days, several
legislative proposals that will emerge from our collection of
State directors that look to not only streamlining the process
but to allow examination of these disasters and threats
beforehand so we can invest something before, instead of paying
great amounts after.
So there is communication amongst the States trying to find
the coalitions of constituencies dealing with these threats
similar to what happened in the 1970s and 1980s with fires
which know no boundaries. We have the storms which know no
coastline exclusively.
So I would expect that before the next legislative session
there will be a number of proposals that come from my
counterparts in the other States as we unite to improve our
recognition of how the Federal Government has helped and how
they have hindered the States in preparing.
Senator Stevens. I hope you look at that time, when you are
preparing these proposals, at the requirements of Federal law
that impose upon communities like Shishmaref the duty to have a
prepared mitigation plan. Unless they have it, they are not
going to get any assistance.
Now we may be able to cut through that. I am not sure. But
at least the State ought to be looking at all of these areas
that are threatened and help them to get a mitigation plan
prepared.
One of the things that bothers me after the trip yesterday
was the comments that were made by some of the people, the
local residents, in terms of the lack of ice. That the ice--
this one person told me, in the days gone by when there was a
storm, was a threat in and of itself because big chunks of ice
came up and hit the village. Now the ice is disappearing. At
the same time, it was a buffer to large waves and held down
some of the larger waves in some circumstances and was a
protection that is not there now for the storm walls that we
are putting up.
The question is what we should do in terms of having--
someone suggested some kind of a baffle outside of that rock
wall that is being put up to protect Shishmaref so that there
would be a baffle to the waves as they come up, which is what
the ice would have done if it was there.
Are you looking at how the State can help get prepared to
have plans that will get the assistance from FEMA if that
should develop, that the storms hit us again and there is no
protection?
Mr. Madden. Yes, sir. We are working on several different
levels on that. As an example, when the storm hit in Kivalina
on September 13 or 14, within about 18 hours I had two people
from the State on the ground. One was for the emergency
response, the immediate safety of the community and the
immediate needs of the people who had evacuated.
Accompanying him was our State hazard mitigation officer to
look at it for the longer term. So as that storm hit, he
immediately gathered the information that we could use and
share with our other Federal partners to get that plan done.
And also, that the mitigation plans that we are helping the
communities develop not be just single purpose. There are other
risks at Kivalina, in particular, and other coastal communities
about the permafrost and how buildings are built on them, and
whether that could be a risk in the future. We want to ensure
that the mitigation plans look at the entire community and all
of the risks.
And we are pushing, on a very fast track, 15 of the most
vulnerable communities we have on the Western Coast.
Senator Landrieu. Can I ask specifically, and I am so glad
that Senator Stevens pushed me, but he did not have to push too
hard, to get me to Shishmaref because I told him if I had not
seen it I would not have believed it. And I am not unfamiliar
with coastal communities. I represent a State with very small
villages, but not one as isolated as this.
But when a community--this particular village, I spoke to
the mayor and the community leaders that spent about an hour
with us walking through the village and seeing the rock walls,
the jetties and the levees, that the community was
contemplating a potential move. But one of the problems is if
they did, they could not--no one would guarantee, the State or
the Federal Government, the building of the airstrip which, of
course, they are very dependent upon for any kind of access.
Can you all comment about that? Are villages that are
given--are they given choices, real choices about relocating?
Or is the option you can stay where you are and take the storms
and the devastation that comes? Or you can move and not have an
airstrip and be completely isolated? Because that is not a very
good choice. And this might not be the only village in this
situation.
Is that an option? If they want to move, will somebody
build them an airstrip?
Mr. Madden. Each village will be unique on this issue as to
how close the airstrip is located to the community. There is a
commitment by the Federal Aviation Administration that they put
on record that if a community moves and the same airstrip is
usable, that they will build the necessary roads and contacts
between the new location and the existing airstrip. That is a
commitment that FAA said in the past recent years.
Senator Landrieu. That is in the law now? Is it just Alaska
that that commitment has been made to, so they will not build a
new airstrip but they will build a road to the old airstrip?
Mr. Madden. Yes, ma'am. And where the location will not be
served by the airstrip at the former location, that must enter
into the entire national program for airport improvement
programs. And in Alaska it takes, just for a 3,000 foot gravel
strip with minimum instrumentation it takes at least 3 years,
usually more than that. And that is after the location has been
decided and aligned with prevailing winds.
Senator Landrieu. Well, that obviously is a system that is
not going to work and needs some serious adjustment. And I am
sure it is not just communities in Alaska that are in this
situation, but Alaska is somewhat unique in its breadth and
isolation for the communities.
So when people say just move them, it involves cultural
considerations. But if the village could get past that and
decided for the most part they will move, their choices are
very limited about where you would move to and what kind of
infrastructure would allow you to stay together.
General Peabody. Ma'am, if I could comment on that, there
are some technical, from a constructability aspect also,
limitations. Most of the area where most of these villages are
located are basically coastal plains that are wetlands. That is
why we have the issue of permafrost. So when you do move, it
will require significant material to be brought in. It will
require significant investigation to make sure you can put your
village at a location that can survive and that will endure and
not just fall apart after you build it in 5 or 10 years.
So it is very complex and it is very difficult from a
technical standpoint to make sure that when you put the
airfield in, it will endure. The further you get back from the
coast, of course, the more that affects the cultural aspects of
their subsistence livelihood, as well.
Senator Stevens. Let me ask just one last question, Madam
Chairman.
When we went to New Orleans, we found that there were
Federal agencies, State agencies, there were regional agencies,
and they were all working and trying to do their best. The
President used his authority to appoint a coordinator. It was a
Coast Guard Admiral who did an admirable job. I think he tried
to get it done. There were too many people tying his hands
behind his back.
But we do not have that here. Yesterday, at the legislative
hearing, George Cannelos, the head of the Denali Commission,
suggested they would be willing to consider taking that on. I
am not so sure as we would like to see that happen.
But do you see a need to have in the law a provision that
someone will appoint a coordinator of all Federal agencies and
a person to work with the State agencies and local agencies in
the event of emergencies like this?
General Peabody. Sir, let me take a first pass before my
colleagues here. Sir, that would be an extremely useful
function because as one of your earlier questions to me
indicated, we do have to coordinate across many different
Federal, State, and local agencies to understand the details of
the problem and then come up with viable solutions that are
going to actually work over the long haul.
If you have a coordinator that can pull together not just
the Federal but I would also advocate for the State and the
local agencies as well, I think that could at least help
identify maybe quicker where some of the obstacles are so that
we could address or you could address with the Administration
appropriate solutions from a local policy and a statutory
aspect.
Senator Stevens. I would like to see that person have the
authority to go to a Federal court and get a waiver approved of
some of these restrictions that prevent immediate action in an
emergency. Do you see a problem with that?
General Peabody. Sir, we can take immediate action in
emergencies. The problem is once the----
Senator Stevens. You cannot waive for the environmental
impact statements. You cannot waive for the provisions and laws
you have just been talking about.
General Peabody. Sir, I think there is probably a
disagreement on the definition of an emergency. I believe your
definition of an emergency in Alaska is not one that is broadly
recognized in the Federal Government. And it is certainly not
one that I can point to either policy or statutory limitations
and say yes, that is an emergency.
Senator Stevens. If a village is about to be annihilated,
you do not think that is an emergency?
General Peabody. Well sir, it is. But there are constraints
in the law. For example, the advanced measures that we used in
Kivalina, the only reason we were able to execute that was
because there was public property that was threatened in the
form of the tanks.
Senator Stevens. I am in favor of defining a power for this
person we appoint in the event of a regional emergency to go to
a Federal court and get a waiver for specific restrictions for
a period of time to enable them to protect the people and the
property from further damage caused by that emergency.
Now somehow or another we have got to find some way to cut
through this. And I think certainly this is something that New
Orleans needed. I was there when they were starting to fight
between themselves as to who has the authority, someone else
has authority, you cannot do this, but before you do what you
have got to do, we have got to do this.
Now somehow there has to be some control, if this process
we are in is going to continue for a period of years, we are
going to see more of these emergencies. And I would not like to
see them end in the future like we have seen these nine
villages in the past.
General Peabody. Sir, that would be a useful function. I
would just caution that if we do bypass some of the constraints
and we do execute short-term or we do execute emergency
solutions, those emergency solutions are likely to be very
short-term and we still have to deal with the longer term
aspects of the problem. And that is all of the Pantheon of
factors that are contributing to this coastal erosion which
appears to be--I am not a scientist, I have not studied it
except as a citizen just like the rest of us here--but it
appears to be a long-term issue that is likely to continue for
some time.
I do not believe that this is really amenable, in my
judgment, to the emergency kind of solutions.
Senator Stevens. We have a disagreement there.
General Peabody. I am not sure if my colleagues want to
comment on this one.
Senator Stevens. I do not know either, but I think the
people that make judgments like that ought to go live in
Kivalina or Shishmaref for the winter.
[Applause.]
Senator Landrieu. I do not believe there are any further
questions for this panel, so thank you all very much. We really
appreciate your testimony.
Senator Stevens. Ms. Reinertson, you started to say
something and I interrupted you.
Ms. Reinertson. I was going to comment that what you are
suggesting is outside of my authority, but I just wanted to let
the Subcommittee know how committed we are, that we are working
with the local and State in a culture of preparedness and that
we are obviously going to be there in the event of a disaster.
If something happens, we are not going to wait for a piece of
paper to pass from here to Washington. We will move forward.
And we will help victims and forward lean and get things to the
people that we need to get them out of there.
We also work very closely, our mitigation division works
very closely with the local, with the Alaskan Native villages
and the State in prioritizing. Thanks to the post-Katrina
reforms, we now have an office in Alaska. FEMA has an office in
Alaska that never existed before, with a full-time manager,
with a full-time operational plan and a full-time Department of
Defense planner as well.
And we are working with the entire State of Alaska,
including the Alaskan Native villages, in lots of new efforts
since the post-Katrina Reform Act. There is a gap analysis that
is occurring that we are going to be starting on hurricane
safety because of hurricane season. It is a wonderful tool that
we are going to start. And it is very comprehensive that we are
going to be working with the local, State and our other Federal
partners.
So I just wanted to point out that there are so many great
things that happened since the post-Katrina Reform Act that we
are able to be in a better position to help in the event of an
emergency but also in building this culture of preparedness for
Alaska and the entire region so that we can build and
strengthen national preparedness.
Senator Landrieu. Well, that is good to hear.
What is the gap analysis that you are doing, just real
briefly, maybe a minute on that. And Mr. Madden, I would like
to recognize you on that.
Ms. Reinertson. We are going to be beginning at the start
of the hurricane season. It was developed in New York. It is a
tool that looks at what is out there, what is needed, who can
fill the gap. And if no one can fill the gaps, where do we go
to figure out how to fill those gaps. And it includes the
private industry, private non-profit, Federal, State and local
governments.
Senator Landrieu. But is that focus from right at the
aftermath of the event itself? Or is it a gap analysis for a
long-term sustainable either prevention or long-term
sustainable rebuilding?
Ms. Reinertson. It is a holistic look at preparedness,
which includes response, recovery, planning, and everything.
Senator Landrieu. John Madden.
Mr. Madden. It has been my honor to have served 38 years in
Federal service and 2 years ago to be selected by the State to
serve in this position.
Bringing that knowledge to bear suggests that having a
Federal coordinator is of two natures. One, it is very
important to coordinate the existing resources in those
activities. The State accomplished this with Federal partners
on a new innovative concept to protect the energy sector
against terrorist and natural threats.
The other part is that it is in the nature of Federal
agencies to control the outcome through controlling the
delegation of authority. So just as General Peabody said, with
national decisions at national level, no agency is going to
give up what they would call their own sovereignty for a region
unless it was really clearly directed on how that happens.
The State is very eager to align with those proper
agencies. And within the Federal community I have found no
better partners for the State than FEMA and the National
Weather Service, and in this last year with the Corps of
Engineers. Their eagerness to help us is there. Their
willingness is there. Their commitment is there. But the
limitations by their headquarters are extreme.
So if that could be broken, I think the State is very well
prepared to use its existing structures and the new Climate
Change Subcabinet and other needs to work with those Federal
agencies. But my concern is having someone authorized by title
but not granted the authority to act for those other agencies.
Senator Landrieu. Well, the State could not be blessed with
a more determined and able advocate than Senator Stevens to get
the headquarters to focus and to listen about what Alaska
needs. But I can just tell you, there is a long way that we
have to go.
Senator Stevens.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. I do not mean to be
offensive, but this is the third year now we have tried to find
a solution to these problems. And what I heard yesterday is it
appears that we are going to have another bad year. So I would
hope we can find a way to get Congress to listen to us, to give
us that authority to have an appointment.
As I said, the Denali Commission is in place. It may be a
place we turn to for temporary coordination. But I would like
to see some kind of a structure that exists on all of our
coasts, not just our coast, but the coastlines on the East and
West and the Gulf and everywhere, to have this in place before
these disasters take place.
I do thank you very much and thank you for going along with
us, Ms. Reinertson, and thank you for your testimony today.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you all for your service.
Senator Stevens. We will take a 5-minute recess.
[Recess.]
Senator Landrieu. If everybody could come in and take their
seats, we are going to begin.
Senator Stevens. Madam Chairman, on the second panel we are
going to hear first from Colleen Swan. Ms. Swan currently
serves as the Tribal Administrator for the Native Village of
Kivalina, a post she has held for 16 years. She is a career
Tribal Administrator and has worked to protect the well-being
of the community and has been very much engaged in the
discussions pertaining to the restoration project in Kivalina.
Thank you, Ms. Swan.
STATEMENT OF COLLEEN E. SWAN,\1\ TRIBAL ADMINISTRATOR, NATIVE
VILLAGE OF KIVALINA, ALASKA
Ms. Swan. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Subcommittee, for
inviting us to provide testimony on the situation in Kivalina.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Swan appears in the Appendix on
page 62.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Village of Kivalina is located on the southern tip of
an 8-mile long barrier reef. According to Earnest Burch, Jr.,
the village was officially established with the introduction of
a school that was built in 1905-06 on the southern tip of the
island, and the immigration of a reindeer herder from Barrow
who brought much needed reindeer meat to the village, and the
establishment of a mission.
The Kivallinigmiut, the Kivalina population, are the
original native inhabitants of the area that includes both the
Kivalina and Wulik Rivers. The Kivalina people originally lived
their lives in settlements located inland for most of the year
along the rivers. Their hunting habits determined their
movements in the Kivalina region, including hunting along the
coast for sea mammals. The construction of the school required
them to settle on the island in order for their children to
gain an education.
Erosion problems have always naturally occurred along the
Kivalina coast. According to a National Geodetic Survey Erosion
Impact Study conducted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, which began in 1953 and ended in 2003, the
island of Kivalina has lost approximately 27 acres on the
Chukchi Sea side of the island with eight acres accreted on the
Kivalina Lagoon, resulting in a net loss of 19 acres in the
study period. Naturally occurring erosion and accretion is
considered to be typical of barriers islands. The result of
this study confirms the stories that elders of the community
have told about the second and third ridges of the island
parallel to the existing village site that no longer exist due
to erosion.
The village began discussions in the 1950s about relocating
the village after minor flooding occurred that did not inundate
the village but the storms did over-top the uplands of the
island and threatened to flood homes located along the coast. A
vote was held in an election process that resulted in a split
decision that ended the effort to relocate the village almost
immediately.
In 1990, discussions to relocate the village began once
again to address overcrowding conditions caused by the
shrinking island and a growing population. Because of the
overcrowding due to lack of development space coupled with the
lack of water/sewer services, health conditions of the
community became a concern. Land erosion and global warming
were minor issues during the first years of the developing
village relocation project.
In 1998, an election was held by the City of Kivalina to
provide the people in the village an opportunity to select an
option to address the concerns raised during the 8 years of
discussions. In that election process, a site was selected that
was later determined by studies done by the Army Corps of
Engineers to be rich with permafrost and was deemed unsuitable
as a potential new village site. In response, in 2000, another
election was held by the city of Kivalina which resulted in the
selection of another site closer to the ocean. Global warming
remained a part of the discussion because of land erosion along
the Wulik River--that were beginning to emerge.
Once what the people thought was the final vote for a new
village site was made, global warming became an open issue.
Predictions were made of a potential for coastal flooding in
Alaska. Although no concrete evidence existed, and while
skeptics abound, the global warming discussion began to have
its effect on the Kivalina Relocation Project. Studies that
were thought to be near completion became insufficient to
address global warming and what is now perceived to be an
unsuitable site because of the unproven flood-prone designation
of the selected site. The Kivalina Relocation Project is now
hindered because of this discussion. The original master
schedule, as devised by the Army Corps of Engineers, planned
for the village move to begin in the summer of 2006.
In the summer of 2004, a laundry facility drain field
project was constructed by the Alaska Native Tribal Health
Consortium. This project required a certain amount of fill
material to cover the leach field. The material used to cover
the field was taken from an area adjacent to it behind the
Northwest Arctic Borough School District property despite
warnings from a local resident that this removal of beach
material would cause an erosion problem.
During the fall sea storm season in 2004, approximately 60
feet of land eroded, as predicted by the local resident. An
elder in the village observing the efforts of the local
volunteers to save the property from erosion made a comment of
how he had never seen sea levels that high as he was witnessing
it that day. In his book entitled ``The Inupiaq Eskimo Nations
of Northwest Alaska,'' Earnest Burch, Jr. states, ``oceans
begin to freeze in October until the time the ice leaves in
early July.'' That is no longer occurring.
The ocean ice that had traditionally kept sea storms under
some control to prevent waves from slamming into the land were
absent that year and have been absent during the last few
years. The fall sea storms of 2005 followed with the same
results.
In the summer of 2006, the Northwest Arctic Borough, with
funds from the Denali Commission and the State of Alaska,
constructed a project to protect life and property in Kivalina
with concertainers, or wire baskets, and fabric lining stapled
together at the seams. On the day that the celebration of the
completion of this project was scheduled, a minor sea storm
struck and immediately damaged the sea wall. The celebration
was cancelled and repair work began with funds left over from
the original project. A combination of several factors may have
contributed to the failure including poor engineering and
design work, elevated sea levels, lack of fall ice formation,
and annual fall sea storms.
I have to mention at this point that there was no
consultation with the residents of Kivalina. Neither was there
any consultation with the leadership in the community.
At the request of the Tribal Office staff of the federally
recognized tribe, the Native Village of Kivalina, the Army
Corps of Engineers designed a geotextile two cubic yard sack
erosion protection project after assessing the damage to the
sea wall. But before any funds could be found to pay for this
project, unusually early fall sea storms struck the village in
July. That project design was abandoned due to an early fall
sea storm season and lack of funding. The project design was
fashioned based on the current condition of the existing
seawll. The storm surge changed the condition significantly to
a point where the new design could not be used.
The undertow of the ocean surge has considerable strength.
Not only does the wave action slam the wall, causing damage
with each blow, but the undertow in turn draws the fill
material out from under the baskets, causing them to collapse.
To address this situation, when the Borough made the leftover
funds available, the project supervisor devised a plan to
restore some of the damaged baskets. But before any significant
progress could be made, an earlier than usual sea storm struck
again in August 2007 and destroyed the plans to salvage and
fill the wire mesh baskets with supersacks filled with gravel.
That plan was abandoned also due to more unusually early sea
storms.
With funds left over from the original sea wall project,
which is mostly depleted today, the Kivalina work crews have
managed to keep the sea wall from tumbling into the ocean. But
with the lack of support for their efforts from the usual slush
ice that once formed in October, all they have been able to do
is to throw super sacks at the problem. Each time a storm
strikes, more one-cubic yard super sacks are lost to the ocean.
As of Monday, October 8, 2007, the sea walls continues to
develop new problems, including a deepening ocean along the
shore. Another problem that we face is lack of funding needed
to prevent the loss of critical infrastructure, such as the
fuel storage facility for the power plant that serves the
community.
The Alaska District Army Corps of Engineers has developed a
plan and design for a rock revetment project for construction
in 2008 pending appropriation of funding from Congress.
Based on our situation here in Kivalina, and all of the
problems that seem to be associated with global warming, the
Native Village of Kivalina recommends the following: First,
inter-agency response, which includes the State of Alaska, the
Federal Government as part of their trust responsibility to
tribes, and other entities need to come together with the local
governing bodies of the village to devise a plan to address
erosion and relocation issues. More funds should be provided to
the local governing bodies, whose knowledge has been more
accurate due to the fact that the people live close to the
land, to provide for coordination of the project. Every
prediction made locally regarding the Kivalina situation by the
elders and local community members has come to pass.
Second, consideration should be made for the Army Corps of
Engineers to be designated new responsibilities to take the
lead in addressing the issues of relocating the village of
Kivalina in consultation with the Native Village of Kivalina as
part of their trust responsibilities to the tribe. No agency
has been identified to take the lead in the Kivalina Relocation
Project and no discussions have taken place on a continuous
basis. Because of the erosion problems that we are facing
today, the Relocation Project discussions have come to a stop.
Third, since no real studies have ever been done on
permafrost and being that Alaska is 70 percent wetland, study
plans need to be devised to monitor the permafrost condition in
Arctic Alaska. Teck Cominco Red Dog Mine has been monitoring
the temperature of the permafrost in the Red Dog mine area that
shows warming temperatures of the permafrost. With the land
slides now occurring inland, this leaves a question wide open
for the residents of Kivalina who wish to move inland to higher
ground as to just how safe any area is in Alaska.
And fourth, response to Kivalina's situation has been
piece-mealed so badly that no one seems to know what to do. An
inter-agency committee should be formed to address erosion in
Alaska given the fact that arctic conditions seem to be
deteriorating with rising sea levels and warmer temperatures.
According to a report made recently to the Alaska Climate
Impact Assessment Commission by the National Fish and Wildlife
Service's Jim Dau, there are more slumps, which are also called
sinkholes by others, than he has ever seen before. Being that
Alaska is 70 percent wetland, a committee would be appropriate
to address the many problems associated with the warming
climate.
Senator Stevens. Thank you, Ms. Swan.
Madam Chairman, we are now going to hear from Stanley Tom,
who is the Tribal Administrator for the Newtok Traditional
Council. Tom also serves as a Bureau of Indian Affairs Housing
Improvement Coordinator. He has held various other positions
within Newtok's local government, including terms as President
of the Traditional Council, member of the school board, and
General Manager of the Newtok Traditional Commission and Mayor
of the city.
Thank you very much.
STATEMENT OF STANLEY TOM,\1\ TRIBAL ADMINISTRATOR OF THE NEWTOK
TRADITIONAL COUNCIL, NATIVE VILLAGE OF NEWTOK, ALASKA
Mr. Tom. Thank you for inviting me here. I have some copies
of my testimony if you want to have a copy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Tom with attachments appears in
the Appendix on page 68.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Landrieu. Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Tom. I am Stanley Tom. I am the Tribal Administrator
for the Newtok Traditional Council.
My village is located in Western Alaska, about 92 air
miles, in the Bering and Chukchi Seas area. We are one of the
four villages identified as being in imminent threat from
flooding and erosion.
There is three things happening here in Newtok: Flooding,
erosion, and sinking of the village because we are sitting on
the permafrost. We are making plans to relocate our village.
The village protection is not an option because they did
try to stop the erosion with a protection and it did not work
out. There is no permanent cost-effective way to remain in the
current village right now.
My points today are the problem with the severe erosion
that cost my village and what my village has accomplished, we
are working with the Newtok Planning Group, and the challenges
we are facing with our work plan.
In the picture, you can see the erosion here. Back in 1983
we took a picture of the aerial. You can see how much we lost.
Back in 1996, it cut off the river and it still is causing
erosion.
We had hired ASCG to try to show the Federal and State
agency how much it was going to have--and we used a 1954 map to
indicate the erosion, and we had lost about 3,600 feet. We lost
the barge landing, the old dump site, and the nearest one that
will be impacted will be like within 3 to 4 years. We did use
between 2012 and 2017, but that is a conservative figure we
used.
We got this drill rig that fell off in the river. You can
see the picture there. Last year you can see the gap there. We
lost quite a bit of land just last year. And we had lost like
about 80 feet just this summer.
The new village site that we selected is out on Nelson
Island. It is nine miles from the village and it is on Nelson
Island that we selected. We call it Mertarvik.
Back in 1996, we had a land exchange and Gale Norton signed
an agreement and we own the surface and subsurface rights in
the new village site.
In 2004, we lost a lot of erosion. We lost quite a bit. You
can see the picture, the map of the village there. You can see
how much we lost. We are in a flood-prone area. This is a
really low land, and you can see the picture that the flooded
area before it happened. You can see that we are surrounded by
the water.
These houses, we have got three houses that are really bad.
They are in imminent danger and--the State gave us a piece of
equipment that we can purchase and I am going to try to move
these three houses away from this flood-prone area.
The YKC did a health assessment and our sanitation
condition in Newtok is grossly inadequate for public health
protection. Our kids are hospitalized, 20 percent of them are
going, they are hospitalized with a pneumonia in our villages
because we are lacking water in our village. We are still doing
honey bucket in the village. When we have a high water, that
honey bucket debris goes into our village area. It scatters.
Right now our barge landing is gone. We do not have the
barge landing right now. We are suspended delivering materials
to the village site, the existing site. The barge landing,
actually the fuel barge came into Newtok and they got stuck for
3 days. And now they are afraid to go into our river because
the river has no current.
The tank farms are obsolete. You can see the tank farms
here. They are corroding away. They are tilting. They are
really in a bad state. The Commission suspended us from getting
any funding in our existing village right now. They do not want
to upgrade anything, any facilities. Our power companies are
deteriorating. But they are trying to keep the generator
running.
We have a landfill problem, too. This river is drying up.
It is getting shallower. And our trash is piling up in the
village because it is across the river and it is a real big
problem.
Newtok Planning Group has been helping us since 2006. They
did help us to fill out EDA money, and that is the barge
landing for the new village site. DOT put in $200,000 so we
have $1 million to build a barge landing in the new village
site that we selected.
We have a Village Safe Water Preparedness Committee for the
land/water/sewer system in the new village site. You can see
the map there, this is a rough draft that they made for us.
The Commission gave us $30,000 to do a community layout to
pinpoint where the school will be, and the post office. We are
trying to build the community in the center, the public
facilities in the center of the village.
The Village Safe Water is doing a test water well right
now. We got the drill rig in the new village site and they are
drilling the new water source. They should start next week, so
they have the material there.
Corps of Engineers already did a geotech investigation in
the village site. They also drilled the barge landing, and the
roads in the new village site. They are now--we should begin
the test later on, when they get them done.
The DOT did put in a wind collection data. They are
collecting the wind direction right now.
The challenges are there is no agency right now leading our
relocation effort. There is no specific funding for the
relocation, too. We are like getting a few grants from here and
there but not specifically for the relocation. We need to get
this money as soon as we can because erosion is coming in
quickly.
Our new village site, we call it Mertarvik. It means
``getting water from the spring.''
We did build a barge landing, a temporary barge landing,
for other agencies that they can bring in materials. We have
three houses right now built, three houses right now in the
village site. We are done with it. We are almost done with
these three houses. So we are working hard to move our own
village as much as we can. Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Thank you, Mr. Tom. Our next witness is
Tony Weyiouanna. He is the Village Transportation Planner for
the Village of Shishmaref, where we were yesterday and provides
vital transportation links between isolated Shishmaref, and
other villages. We are pleased to have you with us, Mr.
Weyiouanna.
STATEMENT OF TONY A. WEYIOUANNA, SR.,\1\ KAWERAK TRANSPORTATION
PLANNER AND TECHNICAL STAFF ASSISTANT TO THE SHISHMAREF EROSION
AND RELOCATION COALITION, SHISHMAREF, ALASKA
Mr. Weyiouanna. Madam Chairman, Senator Stevens, first of
all, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to testify
before you today to voice my concerns regarding climate change,
global warming, and its effect on my people and home,
Shishmaref.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Weyiouanna with attachments
appears in the Appendix on page 86.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My name is Tony A. Weyiouanna, Sr., from Shishmaref,
Alaska. I am married to my wife, Fannie. We have four children,
three boys and one girl.
Currently, I am working for Kawerak Transportation Program,
providing technical assistance to the Shishmaref Erosion and
Relocation Coalition to move the community of Shishmaref onto a
safe site on the mainland selected by our community.
As a past time activity, my family owns a small kennel of
dogs for mushing along the coast of Shishmaref, reminiscing of
times gone by and enjoying the unique lifestyle of the people
of Shishmaref.
In Shishmaref, we have continued to live our subsistence
life style, passed on to us from generation to generation for
the past 4,000 years. The yearly spring hunt is our main season
of hunting for our winter supply of seal oil and dried wheat,
which is our main staple of our diet. The spring hunting season
of the past 20 years has been shorter due to the climatic
weather changes and global warming. Due to the unusually thin
ice this past spring, one of our young local hunters lost his
life, which has not occurred in our community in my lifetime.
Due to the tragedy, our hunters had to wait for the ice to
break up to use the boats for our hunting, which is a
relatively safer transportation mode for our hunting. By the
time hunters caught their catch, it was too hot to make the
drying and preservation of seal oil, resulting in families
losing a majority of their catch due to spoilage from the
unusually hot weather.
Climate change and global warming has caused extensive
flooding and erosion in my community, making my family and my
people feel unsafe on our island, especially in fall, due to
the eroding beachfront. Every year, we dread the coming of the
fall storms, hoping for a peaceful freeze. Help is desperately
needed for communities requesting financial assistance to
relocate and to protect communities from flooding and erosion.
We recommend the following projects to help move the
Shishmaref Relocation Project forward: One, that funding to the
Shishmaref Erosion and Relocation Coalition for administrative
capacity building, comprehensive relocation planning, and
funding of our office to ensure that the relocation of our
community is completed in the most cost effective, efficient,
and suited for the traditional values of our community.
Two, authorize and appropriate $30 million in the coming
year's appropriations budget for the complete construction of a
21-mile road from Tin Creek to Ear Mountain, a rock and gravel
source. The Alaska Department of Transportation has started the
process of the reconnaissance study for the road and has
targeted the fall of 2008 for the study completion.
Also, within this part of the project is getting the
airport wind study started and the development of the new
airport master plan for the new site.
Three, continue seawall funding to the Army Corps of
Engineers, who has identified an additional $25 million needed
to complete the recommended 3,000 feet of rip rap seawall.
Four, authorize and appropriate $5 million for the
construction of emergency evacuation shelter on the mainland at
Tin Creek for the community of Shishmaref.
Five, that Congress authorizes the National Park Service to
dedicate the public roadway easement for an access corridor
across the Bering Land Bridge to provide access to Ear
Mountain, the gravel source. An alternative solution is to move
the Bering Land Bridge corridor south on the other side of Ear
Mountain.
Six, a couple of other things I want to mention. One is
that the Native Village of Shishmaref is a federally recognized
tribe formed under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. The
Native Village of Shishmaref also seeks to improve the local
social, economic education of culture and political conditions
within our community.
Seven, in addition, Kawerak is the recognized regional non-
profit tribal entity established to serve the Native Villages
in the Bering Strait region and is currently compacting their
Federal funds directly from Washington and has the expertise to
provide assistance to Shishmaref.
Eight, we recommend that consideration be made to amend the
Denali Commission Charter to include a department with the
funding mechanism to take the lead in providing assistance to
communities needing relocation and flooding assistance. One
possibility is directing the Commission to work within an
agency such as the Corps of Engineers as a lead agency on the
Federal side and a State agency to assist, selected by the
governor.
Nine, we value the working relationships that we have
developed with the Congressional and State representatives
agencies and look forward to the continued progress of
relocating our community, with your continued support.
In closing, we are a federally recognized tribe asking for
your help to save our unique traditional culture of our
community. We ask that funding be allocated to move our
community. Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
Our last witness, Madam Chairman, is Steve Ivanoff from the
Village of Unalakleet. He is the Village Transportation
Planner. He is also the Recreation Director of the Bering
Straits School District and is a self-employed fisherman.
STATEMENT OF STEVE IVANOFF,\1\ VILLAGE TRANSPORTATION PLANNER,
UNALAKLEET, ALASKA
Mr. Ivanoff. Thank you, Senator. Welcome to our great
State, Senator Landrieu and staff members. Nice to have you
here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Ivanoff appears in the Appendix
on page 135.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am Steve Ivanoff from Unalakleet, lifelong resident, and
will be speaking to you today as a representative of the
Eastern Norton Sound, an area that has felt the effect of
increasing fall storms. Thank you for this opportunity to
testify on the flood and erosion problems we have along the
Western Alaskan coast. All of our villages in our Bering
Straits region are situated along the coast with a handful
experiencing erosion in and around the communities.
Unalakleet is 400 miles West of Anchorage. It is a location
that was built because of quick and easy access to the many
subsistence activities that it has to offer. It sits on a sand
spit between the river and Norton Sound and has been in
existence for over 2,000 years. The population is approaching
800 with Native population consisting of the Inupiat, Yupik,
and Athabascan Indians, of which my children are all three,
along with Irish, Russian, and Norwegian. Kind of like a
melting hub of the area.
It is classified as a regional sub-hub, serving mail and
freighting services for itself and four other villages. The
Bering Straits School District central offices are located in
Unalakleet, serving 15 villages. We have a sub-regional clinic
that provides service in Unalakleet and four other villages.
Commercial fishing was our primary source of income, but we are
now getting into the service providing arena.
We had a military Air Force Base in Unalakleet for over two
decades. We built a 6,000 foot runway, which is being renovated
right now, as we speak. And we were a site for White Alice
station and the FAA, and had many groups of environmental haz-
mat cleanups coming through our area and are in the process of
wrapping that up.
Flooding. The Norton Sound area went 29 years without a
flood, from 1974 until 2003. We then had three in a row, having
disaster declarations in 2003, 2004, and 2005. The next
village, 38 miles north of us, Shaktoolik, becomes an island
during these floods with no means of evacuation. They have a
population of roughly 250 residents and are all on watch during
these floods, hoping that the tides reverse before the ocean
consumes them.
Residents in well-developed States can jump into a car and
leave these flood-prone areas. They cannot. They have just got
to sit and wait. I had friends of mine that flew a plane the
next morning, after the water had subsided. And for five miles,
all they saw was water. Then off in the distance, in the
window, they saw Shaktoolik appear. It was completely
surrounded by water.
Our floods occur during the late evening, early morning
hours, when it is dark and too dangerous to navigate any type
of boats. They need an evacuation route, as their airport, too,
is flood-prone. I am not sure I included it in the photos, but
the last page has two photos of Shaktoolik.
The past problems we have had with the flood declarations
is that the time schedule to assess the damage does not fit our
freeze case. When it floods, it freezes as the flood is
occurring. So the ice builds up and we cannot assess the damage
until the springtime. We have asked for extensions and they
have given it to us, but it is just another hurdle for us to
have to go through.
Another one is they are late to award the funds. In the
flood of 2003, the repairs to the gabion wall did not happen
until--or did not finish until the day before the next storm in
2004.
They had notices out in the stores and the Post Offices for
residents to apply for $5,000 assistance for the flood. But
when you had 50 signs in the store, you just do not take your
time every day to go there. And the time flew by with the
residents not knowing that the signs were there and nobody in
our village got any of that funding that was available to them,
because we did not know of the print that was in a corner in
the Post Office and store.
Erosion. Erosion in our community has occurred in several
sections within the city boundaries. The greatest erosion
occurs at the mouth of the river. Protection was constructed in
2000, a gabion wall, by NRCS in the amount of $1 million. This
1,400-foot wall was funded by NRCS, and is shown in the
attached photos.
The timing of the construction of the wall could not have
come at a better time, protecting a church, a fish processing
plant, a store, a hotel, a restaurant, the Post Office, teacher
housing, school district storage fuel tanks, a small engines
repair shop, and several homes. This southern section of the
town is the heart of the village and would have seen
substantial damage without the wall.
We felt the gabion wall would have a 5-year life span and
give us enough time to work towards a permanent fix. The wire
coating is coming off and is now rusting and quickly
deteriorating. Repair work must be done following each storm
and back fill replaced, as in Kivalina.
The Corps of Engineers are in the final stages of a design
for a rip rap wall that would put armor rock along the full
length of the gabion wall. We have had several public meetings
reviewing the design and are very pleased with their
recommendation. The rip rap wall is the most feasible option
over a 50-year period, having the lowest maintenance cost. Once
the design is complete, we will seek funding for this project
and are hoping for your assistance.
The State DOT is completing an erosion design for a rip rap
wall along the beach adjacent to the DOT property and airport.
This project is along the Northern end of the community and
scheduled to go out to bid this winter.
DOT is also elevating the evacuation road and will complete
this project next summer. In the past storms of 2004 and 2005,
after the flood of 2003, our residents--our evacuation road
became completely submerged in the flood. So our residents
said, could we put markers on the road so when we leave the
village we will know where the road is. That is being taken
care of by DOT, but we had to wait several years for this to
happen and it should not have to take that long for an
evacuation road.
Our community water source is five miles north of the
village and the piping runs alongside of the beach. Erosion
threatened this line, so the Village Safe Water is working on a
design to construct a new line along the hillside, well away
from the beach. This is expected to start within 2 years.
In Unalakleet, we are fortunate to have hills a short
distance away that we are now migrating into. More of our
residents are now building homes in these hills, even if it
means packing their water, because it offers a long-term safer
area. Some of the homes have wells and septic systems, but not
all. We do need to build access roads to speed up the process
to encourage more development in the hills.
The rip rap wall will protect the heart of our village, as
it will protect our structures that are needed to function
until we can make the transition into the hillside.
Shaktoolik was a village situated eight miles east of the
village until the Bureau of Indian Affairs built a school near
the beach to cut down on mobilization costs, forcing the
residents to migrate to what is now called the old site. My
father was born in the site upriver. His father built 54-foot
schooners up there because of the timber. But they were in a
safe, flood-free area. The Bureau of Indian Affairs built the
school, forcing all the people to move down to the coast so
their kids can attend school.
Senator Landrieu. Why did they build the school there?
Mr. Ivanoff. To cut down on mobilization costs. The site
was eight miles upriver and the Bureau of Indian Affairs built
the school, even though there were no homes there, forcing the
village to move down.
Following the flood of 1974, the village moved two miles
further north to higher ground, where it is now located. The
natural barrier that had protected them for nearly 30 years has
eroded from the three floods and is no longer sufficient to
provide for their safety.
St. Michael, 54 miles south of Unalakleet, has also had
erosion and may need to move several homes in the near future.
Fortunately for them, higher ground is a short distance away.
There are funds available for reactive measures, but not
nearly enough for proactive measures, as you had stated. In the
news, we hear about the funds of the Gravina Bridge being in
limbo. I recommend we funnel these and direct other necessary
funds towards flooding and erosion. How can anyone argue with
providing safety for our residents that are in harms way?
A number of Alaska Native Villages that are either coastal
communities or situated along rivers, as Newtok, or streams
continue to experience significant loss of land and property
and significant threat to life. These events are increasing not
only in number but also in severity. Some of these villages do
not have the internal capacity and funds to handle the
additional burden of interacting with the various State and
Federal agencies.
I believe the State needs to get more involved and send
their administrators to the most affected communities to see
firsthand the dire situations we face. The State DOT has made
some improvements for roads and airport protection, but I feel
the State needs to get more involved with our erosion problems
along residential areas.
One problem I have with the DOT matrix system for roads is
that it does not give enough merit to life and safety flood
issues. This should be above and beyond all other needs. The
projects, such as an evacuation road in Shaktoolik, does not
score well under their system. Yes, they are small in
population, but our Federal Government can take some credit for
putting them in harms way with the forced location of the
1930s.
I have served on the Denali Transportation Committee since
it was formed 2 years ago and am very pleased with their work.
We had the committee travel to our villages this spring. That
gave them an understanding about the threats that we have to
live with. For them to walk along the massive piles of Yukon
logs that are washed up against the homes in Shaktoolik was
definitely an eye opener.
Those are the photos on the last page that I gave you.
We are also pleased with the emissions bill in Congress
that could direct assistance for this in the future, and would
be willing to speak in support of it.
The Federal and State agencies need to assess the flood and
erosions in the communities that have immediate needs. We
support the GAO recommendation that a Federal agency be
appointed to lead a work group consisting of various Federal
and State agencies to address the flood and erosion issues in
rural Alaska. Here we are still waiting for that to happen.
We also recommend that rural Alaskans be on the work group
to make recommendations to Congress and the State of Alaska to
streamline the process so that projects can be constructed
sooner rather than later. We, in our region, know the
communities in dire situations and are available to make
recommendations for site visits and assessments. This work
group could be within the Denali Commission and led by the
Corps of Engineers because of their expertise and understanding
of the issues at hand.
If there is a work group now, we have not heard of it
because we have not been invited to any of these and we are one
of the nine villages mentioned in the GAO report. We have heard
of meetings that are being held here in Anchorage but there has
been no correspondence with Unalakleet.
We appreciate our Washington delegation and their staff
making trips to our problematic areas. We now need to get the
State administrators to educate themselves in this area. Do we
have an obligation to provide for the safety and protection of
our people living under these conditions? They have fallen
victim to circumstances that no one saw coming so quickly. Just
as we heard of the warnings prior to the hurricanes in New
Orleans, this is the warning we are giving, like the canary in
the mine or the elephant in the tsunami. This is a warning, and
we are trying to get that message out.
I appreciate the discussion on Section 117, Senator. Our
design for the erosion wall in Unalakleet is nearly complete
and we are told now it is up to us to try to look for funds for
the project. We do not really have the resources to interact,
to go to Washington, DC and lobby for this project. How can--we
heard of them beating up the earmark process in DC. If this is
our only means and ways of acquiring a project such as this, it
is hard for us because the process under the discussion that I
heard earlier, Senator, does not allow for them to go to you to
advocate for us for that project. But I appreciate the
discussion you had there.
Global warming and the wildlife is endangered. We heard of
polar bears. We heard of walruses. And I am sure there is going
to be funds directed to address those issues. But we have whole
tribes that have been there for thousands of years that are in
danger. I mean, we could lose a whole tribe in a storm of a 10
percent higher magnitude than what we had in 2005.
In the developed States, they are fortunate. They have the
option--that is the key word, option--they have an option to
leave their community in the event of a storm. Some of our
villages, like Kivalina, Shishmaref, or Shaktoolik, they do not
have that option.
Senator Landrieu, I appreciate your comments on Senator
Stevens at the beginning. And you are right. If I had someone
that I would like to go to bat for me, it would be him.
In conclusion, I invite you to visit our areas and see the
threats we face. Come to Unalakleet. You have already been to
Shishmaref. I promise we will make it a pleasant trip for you
and one that would be worthwhile. Thank you very much.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you all for your testimony. It
occurred to me that is an extraordinary amount of coastline and
the significant challenges to not only these villages but the
other coastal communities in Alaska. It occurs to me that much
stronger master planning by Senator Stevens' heroic efforts to
bring specific earmarks and dollars and new authorizations have
been, over time, somewhat successful. But when you look at the
challenges, particularly those brought on by our awareness and
understanding of the immediate threat of global warming and the
sea-wide temperature changes and ice melting, it seems to me
that we probably have to have a paradigm shift.
What could the State of Alaska be doing more to assist you,
assuming that whatever we do is going to be in combination with
Federal, State and local and using faith-based and private
sector, as well.
But my question is, specifically, if each of you would take
a minute, what could the State of Alaska be doing more to
either help that you could suggest to us? And then I'm going to
ask you what you all thought about the Denali Commission.
Go ahead, Ms. Swan.
Ms. Swan. I work with the Native Village of Kivalina. My
experience with the State has been almost--well, we had almost
no communication with the State because they work with the
Borough governments and a lot of the decisions that are made
are made outside the village and without much input from the
local governing bodies. In particular, the seawall that was
built was then developed without consultation with any of the
leaders in Kivalina.
The State needs to communicate directly with the local
communities who have the knowledge base to make better
decisions than what have been made for years.
Senator Landrieu. Mr. Tom.
Ms. Swan. As for the Denali Commission----
Senator Landrieu. I am sorry, let them answer as to the
State. Just the State, if the State could do more to help in
your situation, what would it be? Would it be technical
assistance or coordination or consultation, more money? In
terms of the coastal erosion issues, what could the State do
more to help?
Mr. Tom. I would like to see the Denali Commission help us
out. They have more funding available. And the State is trying
to help us right now, but still, it is not enough. There is no
specific relocation funding and that is a big problem right
now.
Mr. Weyiouanna. With respect to the State guidelines for
assistance, they are more targeted to helping recognize city
governments. Most of our local governments within our
community, the most effective ones, are the federally
recognized tribes. We need to figure out how to work more
closely with the State, especially on flooding and erosion,
fire disaster, and earthquake disaster. We need one agency that
could provide all the assistance in getting funding for the
communities to help with the problems they have due to
disaster. We need some kind of funding mechanism on the State
side, whether or not it is just State funds or in combination
with the Federal funding. We need some kind of coordinating
agency to take the lead.
Mr. Ivanoff. As Mr. Weyiouanna stated, the State does not
recognize the tribes officially. And most of us do work with
the tribes or for the tribes. I do not know if I am going to
get reimbursed for this trip. I am here on my own dime right
now, but I will do paperwork to try to submit it. The State
does not have any kind of funds to allow participants to come
to forums such as this.
Senator Landrieu. Well, let me ask my question this way,
and maybe the Senator can help clarify for me. Does the State
of Alaska have any kind of coordinating council for coastal
communities that are not tribes or natives? Because there are
many coastal communities of those kind. Is there any kind of
coastal State agency that tries to help with those coastal-
related issues? You have the Corps at the Federal level.
No coastal places, does the State of Alaska have a coastal
agency?
Mr. Weyiouanna. Madam Senator, the State has--we have
worked with Christie Miller in the past. But it is under DCCED
but they are not very active as far as reaching out and
educating themselves as far as saying we need to get the
administrators out to the communities to get that communication
going. I do not know who in the State----
Senator Landrieu. Well, let me ask you this and then I will
turn it over to Senator Stevens. Are you all clear representing
the villages that you are representing, and I understand there
are more than just the four that you all are testifying on
behalf of here.
But if you had a relocation plan, if your village says this
is not going to work, we are going to have to relocate, do you
have an agency to take your plan to talk with them about the
actual reality of what it would take to relocate? Any one
agency or do you have to go to a variety of agencies?
Start with you, Ms. Swan. Is there any agency that you
could go to?
Ms. Swan. The Native Village of Kivalina has been working
mostly with the Army Corps of Engineers. Obviously, they have a
trust responsibility. I am not aware of any other agency within
the State.
We have had very little communication with the State about
our issues in Kivalina.
Senator Landrieu. Has Kivalina decided to stay or relocate?
Ms. Swan. The people wanted to move, yes.
Senator Landrieu. And right now there is no Federal agency
for you to coordinate that move with?
Ms. Swan. No.
Senator Landrieu. How many are planning to move?
Ms. Swan. About 380.
Senator Landrieu. How about you, Mr. Tom?
Mr. Tom. There is 433. The State census says 350 but it is
outdated.
Senator Landrieu. And it is how many?
Mr. Tom. About 430.
Senator Landrieu. And you decided to move?
Mr. Tom. Yes, we have decided. We are already processing
our own relocation effort without the help of the Federal and
State agencies. We are not moved but we are lacking specific
grants for the relocation effort.
Senator Landrieu. Mr. Weyiouanna, have you decided to stay
or move?
Mr. Weyiouanna. In 2002, the community of Shishmaref had a
community-wide vote sponsored by the City of Shishmaref asking
the question whether you would like to move or not. The
majority of the voters voted to move. Then on December 12,
2006, the community had a public meeting, reaffirmed the
selection of Tin Creek as the relocation site.
Mr. Ivanoff. In Unalakleet, it is kind of like a voluntary
move. We have people migrating into the hills. Like I said,
there is at least a dozen homes up on the hillside now and I
have three brothers building homes up there next year. And they
are doing it out of their own pocket, their own dime, no
coordination with the State.
The Corps of Engineers has been the most active agency that
has been involved with the flood issues. They have made many
trips out to Unalakleet, and I have hosted them many times. The
State has not been involved in the process in the past. I am
hoping they can become part of it in the future because it
would be nice that this erosion project in Unalakleet does not
have to be 100 percent funded by the Federal Government. It
would be nice if the State could kick in a few million to help
with the process.
Senator Landrieu. Well, I am going to turn it over now to
Senator Stevens. I think this question is going to become more
and more real to many communities throughout the United States.
We are going through those questions now. What communities are
going to stay, what communities need to move. This is happening
in many coastal areas.
But it is important that when those decisions are made,
which is very tough and can be very traumatic to decide the
course for a village or a community to move, there should be a
master plan that people can count on for 5 years or 10 years.
But otherwise, we are at risk of losing these villages just
by lack of funding and lack of organized effort that is laid
out in the future.
Mr. Ivanoff. If I may, Madam Chairman, Senator Stevens, I
mean.
One of the villages I work with is Shaktoolik, and they
are--like I said, they become an island. They need an
evacuation road. And like I said, their natural barrier between
them and the ocean has seriously eroded in the last three
storms. And they are in the process--mindset, of discussions of
relocation.
And with this continued trend, they have no choice. They
have to relocate because they do not have the resources and the
State is not involved in working with them to figure out a
long-term solution. It is kind of like the federally recognized
tribe is the only agency right now that we are working with.
Senator Landrieu. Senator Stevens.
Senator Stevens. Thank you, Senator Landrieu.
If you look at what you have just given us, I have gone
over it. You want, for Unalakleet, $1 million a year until the
move is finished. You have asked for $30 million plus $25
million plus another $5 million for the move, so $61 million.
Was that your figures, Mr. Weyiouanna?
Mr. Weyiouanna. I think so. Sounds right.
Mr. Ivanoff. You can send it my way.
Mr. Weyiouanna. I was just looking at it.
Senator Stevens. $61.1 million just for this year is what
you have asked for, as I understand it.
Mr. Weyiouanna. Yes.
Senator Stevens. The entire budget for the Denali
Commission this year was $100 million. The request for next
year is $64 million, $60-some-odd million. Your one village
request is for the full amount of funding we have been able to
get for the whole State.
The problem we have, and Madam Chairman, my friend from
Louisiana has really put her finger on it. And that is there
has been no coordination within the State of priorities in this
request to move. Some of them, as you pointed out, Shaktoolik
is absolutely isolated now. They should get priority over
everyone else because they are in absolute danger, as I
understand it, from another storm.
Mr. Weyiouanna, you are far ahead of some of the others,
but very clearly the prospects of each getting--for each of
these nine villages--somewhere near $70 million in the next
year is next to impossible.
The question is how do we stage this money so we get some
money and start putting it where it is absolutely necessary and
start the process, the long-term process, of relocation of
these villages.
Where will we be able to include all of the coastal
villages, as I understand it several others have come into the
category of being endangered now because of the last storm. It
does seem to me we are going to have to have a State-wide
constant evaluating the problems and trying to allocate
resources from both the State and Federal Government to the
areas that need it first and most.
It is not there yet, but that is one reason we are holding
the hearing. I know that is one reason Representative Samuels
held his hearing yesterday. We are going to have to get
together and find some way to coordinate the Federal and State
efforts with the individual villages that are in need of help.
Mr. Weyiouanna, you are going ahead very quickly, but I am
not sure that your village is the one that has to move this
year, is what I am saying. That is one of the problems. If we
get money, where should it go first? And who is going to
allocate it? Who is going to coordinate it with the Federal and
State agencies to make sure that we are--this is a very
difficult problem. You all ought to be involved in the basic
decision of where the money is allocated and how it is to be
spent.
I really do not have the answers yet. We hope we can get
the answers out of these hearings. I intend to talk to
Representative Samuels about his hearings yesterday and see if
we can work out a Federal-State coordinating group within the
legislative process if we work together with him on that.
As much as I really commend all of you for what you are
doing, I think--I do not know which village it is, but the ones
that were outlined by the Government Accounting Office as being
the most threatened, seemed to be the most threatened. But that
list is 3 years old now. And I do think we have to have a new
evaluation of those villages that have just come into this
category of endangered and make sure that we have
representation from them and conversations we are going to have
in the next few months, how to start dealing with these
problems.
If you have any suggestions, I think you have given us some
in your statements. I do not want to be offensive, but each
village is proceeding on the basis that they are going to come
first. And the demands of each one of them are roughly about
the same amount, somewhere near $70 million for this year
alone. That is impossible. Unless we have the request from the
Federal agencies today, the new rules apply in Congress. We are
not permitted to come forward and say you want to earmark
money. In this case, it would be over $100 million for the
villages alone. It is not possible under our procedures now.
Senator Landrieu. Can I ask, do the villages--have you all
ever met together?
Mr. Ivanoff. Never.
Senator Landrieu. If you come up with some sort of planning
process. The reason I say this is we were not doing a very good
job in Louisiana with planning, I will have to admit. And this
storm did not catch us by surprise. But it was much worse, not
just the hurricane, but actually the Corps of Engineers, I used
to say their legacy was a city underwater and it was a terrible
tragedy when 80 percent of the city went under either four to
20 feet of water and we lost 250,000 homes between Louisiana
and Mississippi. Mississippi from the storm surge, but ours
from the massive flood that flooded an area greater than New
Orleans.
Now we are doing a lot of planning and our cities are
working together. We have a group called charettes. And every
town, big and small, all over the Gulf Coast, is in some
measure undertaking this discussion about what is going to
happen and what are they going to do in 10 or 20 or 30 years?
Are they going to move parts of their town? Are they going to
build 15 feet up?
And the towns are meeting together and planners have come
in from literally all over the world to try to help us. And
perhaps that model could be used here.
The Federal Government is not paying for all of this, let
me say. The State is responsible, local--we have parishes. We
have boroughs, counties, and parishes. The parish level is
dealing with the State. It is not just the Federal Government.
But these charettes are planning for the people to make the
decisions themselves and try to, as Senator Stevens says, to
come up with cost-effective solutions. Because our taxpayers
all over the country are demanding that we come up with not the
most expensive but cost-effective that respects culture and the
communities that we are dealing with.
So perhaps you can give some advice to the villages to
start working together. Like Senator Stevens says, if you can
help decide, even suggest, who should move first, who should
move second, etc., kind of a triage or priority decision.
Senator Stevens. Senator, I am going to meet with the
governor tomorrow. We have got to wind this up because we are
both due at another meeting. But the next time I will be home
will be the week of Thanksgiving. I am going to tell you right
now, I am going to try to get the governor to agree to call a
meeting here in Anchorage on November 19 and meet for a couple
of days, November 19 and 20, to get representatives from each
one of the villages that is affected. I am going to ask the
Corps of Engineers to come and join us and FEMA and the State
agencies. And let's see if we cannot get together and develop
some priorities and develop some basic requests that we can
take back to Congress. We will be out of session by then and we
will be going back into session maybe in December.
But in any event, we are going to have to find some
mechanism to get the Office of Management Budget on the Federal
level to recognize that there is an emergency up here and get
us some emergency assistance for the 2008 period.
I noticed today that I am going to ask for that meeting
here starting on the morning of November 19, Monday and Tuesday
before Thanksgiving. I am sure the Chairman will help get some
representation and get letters out to Federal agencies so they
will come and be here. It is not exactly a great week to travel
just before Thanksgiving, but we will do it Monday and Tuesday
so people can get back home in time for Thanksgiving.
But I do think we have to get some emergency coordination.
We have to figure out who should we get the money for? If we
get money this year, where is it going to go? And who is going
to allocate it? Who is going to supervise it? Who is going to
coordinate the Federal and State agencies to see that it is
done. It is apparently required because of the storms that have
already come. And if we have another storm before then, only
God knows what we can do.
The problem with meeting is we do not have any preparation
for immediate assistance after a disaster right now and I think
the Federal agencies do their best to respond.
This is getting to the point now that I feel that there are
18 villages before the year is out that have similar
requirements and we need to get prepared and get it planned and
try to work out what can be done. These villages are working on
the basis of what you want to have done. Our problem is what
can we put together to assist you, what is possible within the
time frame ahead.
I will not forget you at that time.
Thank you, Senator Landrieu, for coming. This is a hearing,
similar to what Representative Samuels had yesterday, I think
we can put together something if we can find a way to work
between the Federal agencies and the State agencies to get some
answers to the requests.
Senator Landrieu. I want to support Senator Stevens in
every way. I am not sure that I can be here personally at that
time, I will check my calendar to see. But I will give the full
support of my subcommittee and will urge the full Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs Committee to make this a
priority.
I want to say, I do not keep meaning to refer to Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita, but it was a real wake up call. Not to
frighten you, but we lost 2,000 people who drowned in that
storm. Some of them drowned in their homes. We had children
drown in the arms of their parents and senior citizens that
could not swim and drowned in their living rooms.
It is clear that it is an emergency. And I just hate to see
that happen to communities here.
And we could evacuate. But the City of New Orleans
evacuated, outside of first responders, every living person
over the course of 2 weeks, every day out of every hospital,
every senior citizen out of every nursing home. We did not
evacuate, I guess you know, when we should have, 100,000 out of
450,000 were left in the city. But over the course of the next
2 weeks, with the help of the Corps and the Coast Guard, every
single person was evacuated.
And today, 2 years later, out of a city of 450,000 only
200,000 people are back. And 2,100 people basically died in
that situation.
So we have a lot of emergencies around the country, and
Senator Stevens, I do not think I know of one that really
understands what our people are faced with here. And the
amounts of resources and coordination that must be brought to
bear.
So Senator Stevens and I will stand up against the
bureaucracy as well as we can.
I want to thank the Loussac Library and thank all of the
Federal and State witnesses for coming today.
Senator Stevens. Mr. Tom.
Mr. Tom. Newtok has less media attention and we decided to
move. And no other State Senators ever visit my village. If you
are able to come to Newtok and see for yourselves, see how we
are in a hard condition where everything is deteriorating.
Senator Stevens. I understand. I have been to six of the
nine but I have not been to your village yet. I will do my
best, see if we can work that out when I come back.
Mr. Tom. Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Thank you all very much.
[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]