[Senate Hearing 112-78]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-78
AMERICA'S NATURAL DISASTER PREPAREDNESS: ARE FEDERAL INVESTMENTS PAYING
OFF?
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 3, 2011
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
68-067 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas,
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts Ranking
BARBARA BOXER, California OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine
BILL NELSON, Florida JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota ROY BLUNT, Missouri
TOM UDALL, New Mexico JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
MARK WARNER, Virginia PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania
MARK BEGICH, Alaska MARCO RUBIO, Florida
KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire
Ellen L. Doneski, Staff Director
James Reid, Deputy Staff Director
Bruce H. Andrews, General Counsel
Brian M. Hendricks, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel
Todd Bertoson, Republican Deputy Staff Director
Rebecca Seidel, Republican Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on May 3, 2011...................................... 1
Statement of Senator Rockefeller................................. 1
Prepared statement........................................... 1
Statement of Senator Hutchison................................... 15
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Statement of Senator Klobuchar................................... 23
Statement of Senator Boxer....................................... 25
Prepared statement........................................... 26
Statement of Senator Nelson...................................... 33
Prepared statement........................................... 33
Witnesses
William H. Hooke, Ph.D., Senior Policy Fellow and Director,
American Meteorological Society................................ 2
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Robert Ryan, Senior Meteorologist, ABC7/WJLA-TV.................. 5
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Anne S. Kiremidjian, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Stanford University on Behalf of the
American Society of Civil Engineers............................ 9
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Professor Clint Dawson, Joe J. King Professor of Aerospace
Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, Department of Aerospace
Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, Institute for
Computational Engineering and Sciences, The University of Texas
at Austin...................................................... 16
Prepared statement........................................... 18
Appendix
Hon. Tom Udall, U.S. Senator from New Mexico, prepared statement. 39
Hon. Mark Warner, U.S. Senator from Virginia, prepared statement. 39
Response to written questions submitted to William H. Hooke,
Ph.D. by:
Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV.................................. 40
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 41
Hon. Roger F. Wicker......................................... 42
Response to written questions submitted to Robert Ryan by:
Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV.................................. 43
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 44
Hon. Roger F. Wicker......................................... 46
Response to written questions submitted to Anne S. Kiremidjian,
Ph.D. by:
Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV.................................. 47
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 50
Hon. Roger F. Wicker......................................... 52
Response to written questions submitted to Professor Clint Dawson
by:
Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV.................................. 55
Hon. Roger F. Wicker......................................... 56
AMERICA'S NATURAL DISASTER
PREPAREDNESS: ARE FEDERAL
INVESTMENTS PAYING OFF?
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 3, 2011
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:33 p.m. in room
SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John D.
Rockefeller IV, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA
The Chairman. I'm going to put my absolutely brilliant
opening statement in the record, which pains me greatly. But,
we have a vote at 3:20, and the whole idea of doing statements
and then going to you and then going to vote, then coming back,
doesn't make much sense. And what does make sense is to have
all of you say what you're going to say. And then we'll
probably, at the end of that time, have to go vote. And then
we'll question you when we get back, if you can put up with
that situation.
[The prepared statement of Senator Rockefeller follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV,
U.S. Senator from West Virginia
Good afternoon. I want to welcome our distinguished panel of
witnesses. Thank you for testifying before the Committee. And a special
welcome to Bob Ryan, who so many in the Washington, D.C. region depend
on for their weather news. Some may not know that his forecasts and
alerts are critical to many in West Virginia's Eastern Panhandle. Thank
you for being here today.
We are here today to examine our Nation's ability to prepare and
respond to natural disasters. The weather-provoked tragedies and
terrible loss of life just days ago make it clear that this hearing
could not come at a more important time.
Two months ago, the world watched as a series of earthquakes and a
massive tsunami roiled Japan: toppling cities, overturning buildings
and killing thousands of people. It was a tragedy of epic proportions.
And now, an ocean away, America is experiencing its own destruction
and devastation because of natural disasters. Tornadoes and severe
storms have rocked the American South and Midwest. In Alabama, the
death toll has jumped to more than 200, and continues to climb, as
families and first responders search rubble and razed towns for missing
loved ones.
At least 15 people have been killed in Georgia and 34 in
Mississippi. It has been the deadliest outbreak of tornadoes in nearly
40 years. We've seen whole neighborhoods ruined, homes flattened, cars
flipped onto their sides, tractor-trailers twisting in the air like rag
dolls. The destruction is devastating, and the death toll, rising.
I want to extend my deepest condolences to friends and family
who've lost loved ones to these disasters--and my deepest thanks to
those who are working around-the-clock to respond to them. The
destruction and loss of life has been absolutely heartbreaking.
These events underscore just how important it is to be prepared for
disaster when it strikes, and to mitigate damage, destruction and loss
of life. They underscore how important it is to make the necessary
strategic investments now to save lives and property in the future. I
have one major question for our witnesses today: how can our Nation
best respond to, prepare for, and mitigate the effects of natural
disasters--such as earthquakes, flash floods, tornadoes, hurricanes and
wildfires--when they strike?
I find it extremely alarming that the American Society of Civil
Engineers gave our Nation's infrastructure--our levees, bridges and
roads--a ``D'' grade in 2009. We must do better.
Right now, this Committee has several bills under consideration
that would help reduce our Nation's risk from natural disasters.
We know improved building codes can help reduce damage and
fatalities when disasters strike. That is one of the aims of Senator
Nelson's bill, the National Hurricane Research Initiative Act of 2011
and Senator Boxer's bill, the Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of
2011.
We also know that when the unthinkable occurs, first responders
must be able to communicate--seamlessly, across cities and states--with
one another. That's what my bill, the Public Safety Spectrum and
Wireless Innovation Act, will do.
And we know that agencies, like NOAA, which provide early warnings,
weather prediction and forecasting, need support and resources to do
their jobs. That's why I will continue to fight reckless attempts to
slash funding for the important services they provide.
Natural disasters cannot be avoided, but their damages can be
mitigated, and we must do everything we can toward that end.
I want to again thank our witnesses for being here today. I look
forward to learning your views on the state of our Nation's disaster
preparedness and what more we can do to prepare going forward.
The Chairman. Dr. William Hooke--we welcome you--Senior
Policy Fellow and Director of the American Meteorological
Society; Bob Ryan, Senior Meteorologist, ABC WJLA, covering
five West Virginia counties--and you do warn us; and Dr. Anne
Kiremidjian, who is Professor of the Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering at Stanford University; and Dr.
Clinton Dawson, Professor, Institute of Computational
Engineering and Science at the University of Texas at Austin.
And you all are extraordinary in what you know. And,
without, sort of, getting into it, let's get into you.
So, Dr. Hooke, why don't we start with you. Give your
testimony, please.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM H. HOOKE, Ph.D.,
SENOR POLICY FELLOW AND DIRECTOR,
AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY
Dr. Hooke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Today we grieve for those who suffered loss because of
violent weather in recent weeks. And we can best honor their
loss and suffering by working together to reduce the risks of
further tragedy in coming years. So, thank you for convening
this conversation on this topic. And thank you for letting us
take part.
Now, because of its size and location, the United States
bears a unique degree of risk from natural hazards. We suffer
from as many winter storms as Russia or China. We have as many
hurricanes as China or Japan. And our coasts are exposed not
just to these storms, but also to earthquakes and tsunamis.
Dust bowls and wildfires have shaped our history. And as we
know too well, 70 percent of the world's tornados, and some 90
percent of the truly damaging ones, occur on our soil.
Also, because of our global reach, disasters a world away
calls for a U.S. response. So, if you think of the earthquakes
in Haiti and Chili, the tsunami in Japan, the floods in
Pakistan, people are waiting to see what the U.S. will do.
Our current disaster preparedness, though good, and though
improving, remains far from ideal. Warnings are more accurate
and timely, but, in that last mile, where they struggle to
reach those who are actually in harm's way, they are all too
often lost or garbled or misunderstood. Compromises in land use
and building codes mean that our homes aren't always as safe as
we might hope. Eighty-five percent of the small businesses that
close their doors because of disaster never reopen. And the
dollar loss from property--the dollar amount of property loss
and business disruption is growing faster than GDP. Virtually
every disaster quickly becomes a public health emergency.
We can do better if we take the following steps. Number
one, we must maintain our essential warning systems. That means
funding for the day-to-day operations of those systems, but
also funding for modernization. And it also means funding
continuity from year to year. These are programs that cannot be
shut down for a year and then restarted. The biggest gap right
now is the--NOAA's JPSS satellite system, which needs an
additional $800 million this Fiscal Year in order to avoid an
unacceptable gap in satellite coverage beginning no later than
2017. That gap will throw back our warning capability to what
we had 20 years ago.
It's not just enough to bring meteorology and engineering
to the problem, we also have to bring social science. Pushing
that warning the last mile, we need to hear from those who
study communication in a disciplined way. We need to hear from
sociologists.
Another example: The title of this hearing asks the
question, ``Are investments paying off?'' And the answer is,
``We think so, but we don't know how much.'' If they were
really investments, we would have a much better idea of the
return on those investments. That requires that we invest a
little bit in economic analysis that we're not doing.
When it comes to natural disasters, we should also do
better at learning from experience. We do this in aviation.
When the wing falls off the airplane, we noodle around the
wreckage site until we see what happens, and we go and we fix
it. We lack an agency like the NTSB to perform that function
for natural hazards. And the result is that we rebuild as
before. Because we do that, we condemn future generations to a
great deal of unnecessary pain and suffering.
All of this requires that government and the private sector
work in partnership, they work collaboratively and effectively
at all levels: NOAA with the aerospace firms that build those
satellites and ground systems; the weather service with the
broadcasters. I actually think that one's going quite well. At
the local level, the private sector and local government need
to work together to prepare communities. The Academy just
issued a report on that subject, which is in your notes. We
need to bring in the insurance industry to provide incentives
for better land use and building codes. And finally, we need to
support wonderful private-sector efforts like the Business
Civic Leadership Council of the Chamber of Commerce and their
work in hazard mitigation and disaster relief.
We--as we're blowing up levees in the Midwest, we need to
explore no-adverse-impact policies for flood and other hazards.
And we also need to track our progress and keep score.
I've got three concluding points and then I'm done. First,
the Department of Commerce is a suitable agency home for many
of these notions. Second, we shouldn't look at this just
domestically. These measures can build international goodwill
and international markets for U.S. products and services. And
finally, we should not forget the impact of these measures on
jobs, protecting jobs that Americans already hold by protecting
their communities and their homes in the face of natural
hazards, and creating new jobs to serve those emerging
international markets.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senators.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Hooke follows:]
Prepared Statement of William H. Hooke, Ph.D., Senior Policy Fellow and
Director, American Meteorological Society
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senators, Ladies and Gentlemen.
Today we grieve for those who were injured, lost their lives,
families, homes, or jobs because of violent weather in recent days and
weeks. We can never make them whole. But we can best honor their loss
and suffering by working together to reduce risks of further tragedy in
coming years. So thank you for taking time--in the midst of so many
competing claims on your attention--to convene this conversation on
disaster preparedness.
The United States, because of its size and its location, arguably
bears a unique degree of risk from natural hazards. We suffer as many
winter storms as Russia or China. As many hurricanes as China or Japan.
Our coasts are exposed not just to storms but to earthquakes and
tsunamis. Dust bowls and wildfire have shaped our history. And, as this
past week reminds us, 70 percent of the world's tornadoes, and some 90
percent of the truly damaging tornadoes, occur on our soil.
In addition, because of our global reach, disasters a world away
call for a U.S. response: earthquakes in Haiti and Chile, a tsunami in
Japan, floods in Pakistan.
Our current disaster preparedness, though improving, remains far
from ideal. Warnings are more accurate and timely, but too often are
lost, or garbled, or misunderstood, in that ``last mile,'' where they
struggle to reach those actually in harm's way. Compromises in land use
and building codes mean our homes aren't always the unassailable
fortresses we might hope. 85 percent of the small businesses who close
their doors as a result of disaster never reopen. The dollar amount of
property loss and business disruption is growing faster than GDP. And
virtually every disaster very quickly also becomes a public health
emergency.
We can and should do better. We need to:
Step up funding and maintain the year-to-year continuity of
funding, for day-to-day operations, and continuing
modernization of, essential warning systems. Today, most
specifically and urgently, some $800M in additional funding is
needed for NOAA's Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS), in this
fiscal year (FY 2011), to avoid an unacceptable gap in
satellite coverage beginning no later than 2017.\1\ To avoid a
repetition of this oversight in future years, it would help if
the Office of Science and Technology Policy would develop a
policy with respect to long-term observations of and study of
the Earth. We need this, because we will need to make short-
term observations forever; and we need this because the Earth,
the atmosphere, and the oceans vary on time scales of decades
and centuries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See, e.g., http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/
story.jsp?id=news/asd/2011/04/07/07.
xml&channel=space.
Bring to bear not just meteorology and engineering, but also
social science. Pushing that warning message the last mile?
Helping those in danger to save themselves? Here's where we
need advice from communication scientists and sociologists. The
title of this hearing asks the question: Are investments paying
off? We think so, but we don't know how much. Toward this end,
more economic analysis of benefits and value would sure be
useful. And more funding support for the supporting social
science (amounting to no more than ``sales tax'' on the much
larger engineering and natural-science outlays) is needed to
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
build our capacity for such analysis.
Learn from experience. We do this in aviation. The National
Transportation Safety Board plays a key role. Absent a similar
agency to study loss of life, property, and economic activity
to natural hazards, we do the opposite of learn from
experience; we ``rebuild as before.'' \2\ This condemns future
generations to pain and suffering down the road.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Eosco, Gina M., William H. Hooke, 2006: Coping With Hurricanes.
Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 87, 751-753.
Exercise public-private partnerships: To build America's
disaster preparedness requires that government and the private
sector collaborate effectively at all levels: (1) NOAA with the
aerospace firms who build NOAA satellites and ground systems;
(2) NWS with the broadcasters and private firms who deliver
weather warnings (this is actually working rather well); \3\
(3) at the local level to build community disaster resilience;
\4\ (4) bringing in insurers to provide incentives for better
land use and building codes; and finally (5) with respect to
private-sector role in hazard mitigation and disaster relief,
as so well exemplified by organizations such as the Business
Civic Leadership Council of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Fair Weather: Effective partnerships in weather and climate
services NAS/NRC BASC (2003) http://www.nap.edu/
openbook.php?isbn=0309087465.
\4\ Building Community Disaster Resilience through Private-Public
Collaboration, NAS/NRC BESR (2010) http://www.nap.edu/
catalog.php?record_id=13028.
Explore No-Adverse Impact Policies for flood \5\ and other
hazards,\6\ as propounded by the Association of State
Floodplain Managers and the newly-formed Natural Hazard
Mitigation Association. (This is timely given the legal battle
developing on whether to blow up a two-mile section of levees
on the Missouri side of the Mississippi River to reduce the
threat of flooding on the Illinois side.) \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ As suggested by the Association of State Floodplain Managers:
http://www.floods.org/
index.asp?menuID=460&firstlevelmenuID=187&siteID=1.
\6\ Natural Hazard Mitigation Association: http://www.nhma.info/.
\7\ http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/mayor-orders-evacuation-
of-ill-town-as-river-water
-bubbles-up-behind-levee-rain-adds-to-woes/2011/05/01/
AFOexTQF_story.html.
Track progress/keep score. Over a decade ago, an NAS/NRC
study recommended that the Department of Commerce maintain
statistics on U.S. losses to natural hazards.\8\ We give
priority to what we measure. That proposal should be
implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The Impacts of Natural Disasters: A framework for loss
estimation. NAS/NRC CGER (1999) http://www.nap.edu/
openbook.php?isbn=0309063949&page=27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three concluding points:
First, as we consider these and similar policy options, we might
contemplate the U.S. Department of Commerce as a suitable agency home.
The Department already has many of the needed pieces in place. Second,
in looking at the benefits of these measures we should keep in mind
that they each embody potential for building international goodwill and
international markets for U.S. products and services. And finally, we
should not forget the impact of each of these measures on jobs--the
preservation of jobs and our domestic economy in the face of natural
hazards, and the creation of jobs to serve those emerging international
markets.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senators, Ladies and Gentlemen.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Ryan, we welcome you.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT RYAN, SENIOR METEOROLOGIST, ABC7/WJLA-TV
Mr. Ryan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the
opportunity--there we are----
The Chairman. You're meant to know that, Mr. Ryan.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you. Usually, it's done for me, so--
[Laughter.]
Mr. Ryan. But, this is a nonunion shop, so I think----
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present
some views on the topic of Federal investments and disaster
preparedness.
I'm speaking, first of all, only for myself and not my
employer, Albritton Communications.
I've served as President of the American Meteorological
Society, a distinct pleasure, as well as on two National
Research Council committees, which wrote two reports to NOAA
and the National Weather Service on effective partnerships, the
Fair Weather report, which has advanced quite a bit of the
entire enterprise, as well as the recent report, Completing the
Forecast, characterizing and communicating uncertainty for
better decisionmaking using weather and climate forecasts.
The short answer, I believe, is most definitely yes.
Federal investments in disaster preparedness in paying--are
paying off. And as we have so recently seen, the United
States--and as Bill mentioned--has more severe weather and more
weather-related disasters than any other country. As example,
90 percent of the strong and life-threatening tornados in the
world occur in the United States. The science of meteorology
has made remarkable advances in the last 50 years, thanks, in
large part, due to the Federal investment in knowing that
better forecasts and advanced warning before weather
emergencies are of tremendous public and economic benefit to
all of us.
And indeed, I would argue that if we all agree that one of
the fundamental purposes of government is protection of the
life and property of its citizens, few organizations do that
each and every day more than our Nation's weather services,
both public--NOAA and the National Weather Service--and
private-sector companies and local broadcasters.
Many may ask: After all the investments that we have made
in advancing the science of weather and weather forecasting--
satellites, Doppler radars, supercomputers--how could so many
lives be lost in the terrible tornado outbreak of last week?
More than 90 percent of last week's tornados were warned on
with an average lead time of 25 minutes--something impossible,
years ago. But, more than--we had more than EF--11 EF4 tornados
and 2 EF5 tornados in a single day, more than any day in
history. And without proper protection in storm cellars,
reinforced safe rooms, or protected areas in basements, it was
impossible to survive tornados with winds of 160 to more than
200 miles an hour.
Jeff Masters, who is at the University of Michigan and has
written a blog, estimated that if we had the same outbreak 50
years ago, before Doppler and before all of the investments,
the loss of life would have been in the thousands from that
event.
The current weather forecasting warning communications
system is a shared enterprise. Sometimes the entire mix--
Federal, public, private, nongovernmental organizations,
emergency management, the community, and the media--they're
called ``the weather enterprise'' sometimes some of us refer to
it. And indeed, there are such early warnings and communication
of these warnings and alerts to the public through every means,
from NOAA Weather Radio to radio, new digital medium, and
especially local news broadcasts, which were on the air
continuously last week, tracking tornados with both National
Weather Service and local TV station Dopplers. That allowed so
many people as possible to survive what is probably once-in-a-
100-year natural disaster. The system worked. And the shared
partnership of Federal employees at the National Weather
Service, local government officials, and emergency managers,
and, critically, the broadcast community and local broadcast
meteorologists, helped more than 99 percent of our fellow
citizens in the path of killer tornados survive what everyone
hopes is certainly a once-in-a-lifetime experience.
Today's forecasts are really an end-to-end process that
every more--the ever more accurate weather forecasts and
climate forecasts--the communication of the forecast
information to the public and other users.
And finally, the decisionmaking using that information by
the public and users. If we have a 100-percent accurate weather
forecast which may not be effectively communicated and then
results in a poor or bad decision, we have failed. The 100-
percent-correct forecast is of little use if the wrong weather
or climate-related decision is made. Effective communication is
as essential as the correct weather forecast. And in the case
of weather emergencies, the media and over-the-air broadcasters
play a vital role in communication of weather forecasts and
warnings.
My fellow broadcasters in Mississippi, Georgia, Texas, West
Virginia, and Alabama, in the last few weeks, were on the air
continuously to keep the public informed, communicating the
warnings from our colleagues at the National Weather Service,
helping the community watching and listening, to make the best
life-saving decisions.
The last--however, the last stop on our end-to-end weather
forecast process is the decision by the public end user in
weather emergencies. And that's what I do. The local
broadcaster, the local broadcast meteorologist, known in the
community they serve, are still using traditional methods of
communicating via over-the-air live radio, television
broadcasts during local newscasts, and continuously, as we saw
last week, during weather disasters, is the trusted source for
the public to make a decision.
And just to wrap up, my Albritton colleague, James Spann,
in Alabama, during this terrible, terrible outbreak, was on the
air using all of the assets at his command, from the public
radar to spotters and over-the-air continuously. And he has
received hundreds and hundreds of thank-yous for those efforts
in pinpointing the terrible outbreak of tornados, helping
people make the proper decision that saved their lives. And
that is where we are all heading.
Yes, the system is working. The way we communicate weather
information and forecasts is expanding every day. The Federal
investment in our weather enterprise is vital. Efforts to stop
funding the new Joint Polar Satellite System, as we have just
heard, will degrade our ability to adequately forecast and warn
of the next potential weather disaster.
Certainly, we do need to bring social science expertise
into our shared enterprise and learn how to better--how we can
better use these expertise, in every new and old media, to
better communicate what we know and what actions should be
taken, and better help the public make the best life-saving
decision, rather than life-risking decision, in the face of the
next weather emergency.
With continuing Federal support for the core structure of
this country's great weather enterprise, what we have
accomplished together in the advance of the service of the
science I love to the public, the country, and the world will
continue, and continue to be a shining example of how
government meets its key role of the protection of the lives
and property of its citizens.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'd be happy----
The Chairman. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Ryan.--to answer questions later.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ryan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert Ryan, Senior Meteorologist, ABC7/WJLA-TV
Thank you, Chairman Rockefeller, for the opportunity to present my
thoughts on the importance of accurate weather forecasting, information
and services during emergencies. Examining the current state of how
Federal agencies and Federal investments in weather and climate
research, forecasting and communication are doing, is extremely timely
after the tragic tornado outbreak last week. I have had a brief time to
prepare this document so I will present my thoughts as a number of
items.
1. The science of meteorology has made tremendous progress in
the last 50 years in understanding, observing and forecasting
weather events from the next 10 minutes to storms that may be
days away to general patterns weeks and months away.
2. The investment in the hardware to observe weather and
climate from traditional ground instruments to satellites and
Doppler radars, coupled with the investment in fundamental
research and understanding of weather and climate along with
the investment in so-called super computers to make every more
accurate forecasts has saved lives and been of tremendous
economic benefit to the country.
3. The United States has more severe weather than any other
country, 1200 tornadoes, 5000 floods, 10,000 thunderstorms each
year and 14 Billion dollars in weather related losses.
4. The organization that might be called a ``Weather
Enterprise'' of public, private and academic sectors has worked
cooperatively with shared goals of creating an integrated
weather and climate information, forecast and communication
system that serves all sectors well. This shared observational,
forecast, communication ``enterprise'' with Federal agencies as
the lead, is unique to the United States and a great example to
other countries of true government--private sector partnerships
that benefit all citizens.
5. All providers and users of weather information whether to
the public or to private sector clients or research
institutions, depend on the Federal Government to be the open
source and backbone of the information, data, model outputs,
warnings and forecasts we all use. No meteorologist can make an
accurate forecast, or deliver timely warnings to clients or
emergency managers or the public without the core information,
warnings, model data etc. openly provided by the National
Weather Service, NOAA, NASA, FAA, EPA and other Federal
agencies. This partnership with NOAA and NWS being the lead
Federal agencies of open operational weather information and
data is vital and must continue for effective communication of
warnings by traditional and new media to the public.
6. Federal weather warning systems now in place such as NOAA
Weather Radio are vital to broadcasters being able to
communicate weather warnings to the public.
7. Cooperation between the National Weather Service and
broadcasters during weather emergencies has been excellent.
Federal agencies such as NOAA and the National Weather Service
regularly reach out to broadcasters through workshops, various
professional conferences and joint meetings with the emergency
management community to solicit feedback and exchange ideas and
information.
8. The recent tragic tornado outbreak (April 27, 2011)
generated almost 300 tornadoes. About 90 percent of these
tornadoes were correctly warned on. The average warning lead-
time was 24 minutes but EF4-EF5 tornadoes, with winds speeds of
200 mph or higher are almost unsurviveable above ground.
Preliminary estimates are that there may have been 4 or 5 EF4
or EF5 tornadoes on April 27, including the tornado that moved
directly through Tuscaloosa, Alabama, a metropolitan area of
more than 100,000.
9. The weather/climate prediction should be thought of as an
end-to-end process. That is the actual forecast and or warning,
the communication of the forecast and warning and the decision
made by the user of that forecast or warning. If a 100 percent
correct forecast has been made and communicated, but the wrong
decision has been made the forecast/warning process has failed.
A tragic example this link: http://news.yahoo.com/s//nm/
20110430/us_nm/us_usa_wea
ther_shelter.
Suggestions for Improvements to Federal Services and Programs
10. Items to improvements in Federal programs to support
``timely and accurate forecast'' include immediately restoring
funding for the joint polar satellite system (JPSS) program.
Some may argue that loss of polar orbiting data will not
degrade our current weather/climate observing and forecasting
skill . . . but, what if they are wrong! Polar and
geostationary weather satellites are an integral and critical
core element of providing very accurate weather forecasts and
life saving planning and decisionmaking for weather and other
natural disasters from tornadoes and hurricanes to fires,
drought, dangerous air quality and oil spills.
11. Integration of social science expertise into our core
physical science institutions of observing, forecasting and
communicating weather forecasts and warnings can help improve
the critical decisionmaking element of the end-to-end forecast
process mentioned in item 9 above. Each of us feels we can
improve communication to better help weather forecast/warning
decisionmakers, including the general public, make better
decisions especially during rare life threatening extreme
weather events such as the recent tornado outbreak. The core
weather enterprise Federal agency NOAA's National Weather
Service employs one social scientist-an economist. More
understanding of how the public interprets and acts on weather
warnings and statements about imminent natural disasters is
needed. The use of customer satisfaction surveys (CSS) as
required of Federal agencies to show approval or
``satisfaction'' with forecast products is useful. But
fundamental research of how forecasts from color coded warnings
to simple descriptions to the needed wording for correct
decisionmaking before potential weather disasters, such as
Katrina, snow storms, blizzards and tornadoes is very much
needed. The next significant improvement in the value of
weather forecasts will come from better communication and
decisionmaking as much as continued advance in the accuracy of
the actual forecast.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present some
thoughts I hope are helpful to you and the Committee. All of us in the
weather and climate community feel the Federal investments are paying
off. But as we know forecasting the weather will never be 100 percent
accurate, we can and will work cooperatively to effectively communicate
with the public and strive for 100 percent accurate forecasts and also
100 percent best decisionmaking.
The Chairman. Absolutely.
Dr. Anne Kiremidjian.
STATEMENT OF ANNE S. KIREMIDJIAN, Ph.D., PROFESSOR,
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING,
STANFORD UNIVERSITY ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN
SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS
Dr. Kiremidjian. Mr.--thank you--Mr. Chairman, members of
the Committee, it is an honor for me to be here today and
representing the American Society of Civil Engineers.
I've been a Professor at Stanford for 38 years,
specializing in earthquake engineering, and most of my research
has been in earthquake hazard and risk analysis and development
of wireless structural monitoring systems. Therefore, my
comments will be focused primarily on earthquakes, but they
easily apply to many of the other hazards.
The question that you had put in front of us is whether our
investments in earthquake hazard and other natural disasters
have--are worth it--have been paying off. The short answer,
just like Mr. Ryan said, is yes. And the public is a lot safer
today because of all the activities that the National
Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program has been involved in.
We have made great strides in understanding the
geosciences, the behavior of our buildings and other
infrastructure when subjected to severe earthquakes, how people
and economies are affected by earthquakes, and how we should
mitigate and upgrade our structures to prevent and minimize
future disasters. However, we are not there yet, not even
close; the reason being that, with every earthquake, we see and
learn how much we don't know. To continue--we continue to be
humbled by every single earthquake event. And we find something
new and different that we didn't know before.
The last earthquake, in Japan, the earthquake of March 11
of this year, has indeed shown us what a truly devastating
event can do to a very large community. Our laboratory tests,
our sophisticated numerical models, cannot replicate, cannot
produce, and cannot teach us what such a large earthquake can
do. What we can do, however, we can prepare to take
measurements and study these events, which enable us to greatly
improve and enhance our models and technologies in order to
apply them in a systematic way and enable us to prevent future
losses.
Europe has also played a very important role in mitigation
activities. I happened to be involved in a study, in 2005,
where we looked at the effect of mitigation and how our--a
dollar--each dollar that we spend is paying off. The study was
conducted by the National Institute of Building Sciences. There
were several conclusions, but the key one, the--probably the
most important one, was that, for every dollar spent in
mitigation, we are saving $4 of--in future losses.
With recent budget cuts, and with states and communities
getting deeper in debt, we have seen major reduction and in--
sadly enough, in many places, outright elimination of
mitigation programs. The result will be devastating. If
future--if we reduce our research in mitigation budgets, we
will not be benefiting from the current advances, and we will
be putting our communities at even greater risk.
Moreover, we need to invest funds specifically to study the
great Tohoku earthquake of March 11. This is the first time
that a magnitude-9 earthquake has hit a country that has a
building and infrastructure that's very similar to ours, that
has design practices that are very similar to ours, that has a
general social and economic environments similar to ours, and
where we are seeing, for the first time, and have evidences and
measurements from the largest tsunami we have observed. Some of
the tsunami waves were as high as 37.8 meters, close to--almost
100 feet, if not higher.
The lessons to be learned are enormous. Unprecedented. I
should mention that, after the 1995 Kobe, Japan, earthquake,
Japan invested more than a billion dollars in all kinds of
instrumentation. The data has been gathered, waiting to be
analyzed. It is our duty to participate in these activities. We
are fortunate to have forged excellent alliances with our
Japanese colleagues. And this gives us an opportunity to really
study and test and improve our models, our mitigation
practices, and understand what we need to do to prevent future
disasters.
You might ask, after spending all this money over the
years, ``Why are our structures and our communities still at
high risk?'' There are at least two answers. And I will bring
the two most important answers why.
The first one is, our infrastructure--all of our
structures--a majority of them, probably about 80 percent of
them--were built prior to current design practices. Moreover,
we have allowed our infrastructure to greatly deteriorate,
making the problem even worse.
The second problem is that earthquake engineering and
earthquake-related sciences is relatively young. We have been
working on this problem for the last 30 years, but with every
earthquake, we have learned more and more.
In order for us to start addressing some of the questions,
we need to continue in a systematic manner. Let me give you one
example. After the 1994 Northridge earthquake, what we observed
was that, particularly, businesses required their facilities to
continue functioning in a manner where their business will not
be interrupted. Our design practices up until then had been to
design strictly for life safety. We didn't worry how much
damage there was to the structure, as long as the structure
didn't collapse and kill people. And indeed, we have done very
well in that respect, looking at the number of casualties. What
we have--what we understand now is that, in order to have
economic viability, we need to have business continuation. And
our critical infrastructure needs to function immediately after
an earthquake.
ASCE has been at the center in the design and development
of all of these mitigation activities.
And I see that I'm out of time. I will just conclude by
saying something that we have said over and over again. We
cannot prevent earthquakes from happening. However, what we can
do--through our research, through our mitigation activities, we
can greatly reduce the consequences from such events and
prevent them from becoming a disaster.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Senators.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Kiremidjian follows:]
Prepared Statement of Anne S. Kiremidjian, Ph.D., Professor, Department
of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University on Behalf
of the American Society of Civil Engineers
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee: I am Anne Kiremidjian
and I am testifying on behalf of the American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE). During my forty years of involvement with ASCE, I
have served as Chair of various committees and most recently as Chair
of the Executive Committee on Disaster Reduction and Management (CDRM)
and Chair of the Executive Committee of the Technical Council on
Lifeline Earthquake Engineering (TCLEE). As professor of structural
engineering at Stanford, I have been the direct beneficiary of the
funding to the National Science Foundation (NSF), U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
and the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA). These
organizations have supported my research, educational and business
endeavors. In addition, I have served on the board of directors,
institutional boards and external advisory board to the various
research centers and consortia on earthquake engineering research. Over
the years I have also actively participated in committees and workshops
that have set the standard for research and development related to
earthquake engineering and disaster mitigation.
My research focus over the past thirty-eight years has been on the
development of earthquake hazard and risk assessment methodologies, and
wireless structural monitoring sensors and systems for rapid structural
damage assessment from normal loads and extreme loads such as those
from large earthquakes. My research has been greatly enhanced by the
numerous first-hand observations and investigations of the damage,
social and economic consequences following major earthquakes around the
world.
Founded in 1852, ASCE is our Nation's oldest civil engineering
organization representing more than 140,000 civil engineers in private
practice, government, industry and academia. ASCE is a 501(c)(3)
nonprofit educational and professional society. Research in civil
engineering aims to advance the quality of life of individuals and our
society by building innovative structures and infrastructure and by
providing essential service with minimal adverse effect on the
environment by applying the principles of sustainable development and
disaster resilience.
ASCE is pleased to offer this testimony before the U.S. Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on the hearing:
``America's Natural Disaster Preparedness: Are Federal Investments
Paying Off?''
Have Our Federal Dollars Been Paid Off?
Since the establishment of the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction
Program in 1977, we have made tremendous strides toward our
understanding of the earthquake phenomenon, its effects on the built
environment, and on the social and economic systems that may be
affected by the occurrence of a major earthquake. To site a few
examples, the ground shaking maps produced by USGS are extensively used
in building and other infrastructure design and assessment; the three
earthquake engineering centers (the Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research Center (PEER), the Multi-hazard Center on Earthquake
Engineering Research (MCEER), and the Mid-America Research Center (MAE)
have each focused on development of models and technologies for their
respective geographic regions of interest; they have changed the design
paradigm from the traditional code-based prescriptive approach to a
performance based approach where the design of building and other
infrastructure is expected to achieve performance goals geared toward
not only life safety but also toward functionality and rapid recovery
after an earthquake event; Over the past 10 years, the Network for
Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES) has performed the systematic
testing of scaled structures and structural components enabling
validation of theoretical models; hospitals and schools are being
upgraded or completely reconstructed to meet higher performance as a
result of our increased understanding of the needs following a major
earthquake; local governments perform periodic emergency response
drills in the attempt to identify gaps in their emergency plans;
tsunami evacuation routes have been identified and marked to aid in the
event of a tsunami; technologies such as base isolation systems,
various damping and energy dissipative devices to reduce damage to
structures, wireless structural monitoring sensing systems, nano-level
and bio-inspired sensing devices for more robust damage detection, and
remote sensing techniques are being developed for rapid information
retrieval, damage assessment and control of structures; similarly rapid
mapping dissemination following an event are now made available after
every earthquake in California, as the shake maps produced by USGS, and
can be used by local and state governments in their early stages of
planning for the response and recovery operations, the multi-hazard
loss estimation software tool HAZ-US developed by FEMA is also being
used by state, local and the government to estimate potential losses
for scenario events; and so on. By no means is this intended to be a
comprehensive list and I am sure to have missed some key developments
and innovations in this brief summary.
In a 2005 study supported by FEMA and the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, the Multihazard Mitigation Council (MMC) of the
National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) conducted a study
``Natural Hazards Mitigation Saves: An Independent Study to Assess the
Future Savings from Mitigation Activities'' (http://www.fema.gov). One
of the main conclusions from this study was that, for every dollar
spent by FEMA in mitigation activities during the period from 1993 to
2003, society saved $4 on the average. Moreover, the mitigation
activities ``resulted in significant benefits to society as whole'' and
``represented significant potential savings to the Federal treasury in
terms of future increased tax revenues and reduced hazard-related
expenditures.'' Mitigation is indeed one of the most effective ways of
reducing the consequences of large earthquakes and other natural
occurrences and potentially preventing them from becoming disasters.
The Tohoku, Japan earthquake of March 11, 2011, combined with the
tsunami and damage to the Fukushima Daichi Nuclear Power plant resulted
in perhaps one of the worst natural disaster we have seen during our
lifetimes. Preliminary estimates of the total losses are approximately
$600B (S&P) of which $300B are attributed to the earthquake shaking and
the tsunami. The tsunami waves were estimated to range from 9 m to 37.9
m in height causing the majority of building and other infrastructure
destruction with 13,591 confirmed deaths, 4,916 injuries and 14,497
missing. Early damage reports, however, are indicating that structures
built to meet current design criteria performed overall very well.
Damage has been primarily to older buildings and other infrastructure
that were built with much less stringent seismic design criteria. Like
the United States, and perhaps even more so, Japan has had a long
tradition to invest in earthquake research and development. We have
also been the beneficiary of the extensive funding by the Japanese
government following the 1995 Kobe, Japan earthquake which spent more
than $100M in seismic instrumentation both for ground motion and
building performance monitoring and more than $500M to build the
world's largest shake table enabling full scale testing of structures
subjected to earthquake motions. Perhaps it is premature to make a
conclusion based on these early observations, but one might say that
the advances made toward current design practices are paying off.
Can We Prevent Future Natural Disasters?
No.
Why Not?
An earthquake does not become a disaster if it occurs in an
unpopulated area. It becomes a disaster when it affects densely built
and populated communities that are not prepared to cope with the forces
of strong and great earthquakes. Here are some of the reasons why we
find it difficult to prevent future disasters from earthquakes:
We are still in the process of understanding the true
effects of strong earthquakes--ground shaking, ground
deformations and tsunamis--because large earthquakes such as
the Tohoku, Japan earthquake of March 11, 2011, occur rarely,
we have not been able to obtain direct information on their
consequences;
The performance of various ground conditions, structures and
infrastructure components is only now beginning to be
understood with much remaining to be investigated and
evaluated;
Many technologies that can prove to be useful in disaster
response and recovery are only in the form of prototypes,
untested in real situations;
Majority of structures and infrastructure systems were built
before current design methods were developed;
Our structures, lifelines and transportation systems are old
and deteriorating;
Many earthquake prone areas in the U.S. did not adopt
seismic design until recently--e.g. Oregon adopted seismic
requirements in 1994;
Great earthquakes affect vast geographic regions--e.g., a
repeat of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake would affect all
cities and towns spanning a 400+ km segment from San Juan
Bautista to Eureka; an earthquake of moment magnitude 9 on the
Cascadia subduction zone will affect all communities along the
Oregon and Washington coastline;
Critical facilities are being upgraded (e.g, hospitals,
police and fire stations) but local and state governments lack
the resources to address the problems more aggressively;
Key industrial facilities are potentially vulnerable but at
present it is up to the owners to evaluate their performance--
failure of these facilities can have a serious economic impact
on a community and the rest of the country;
Local and state governments lack the resources to evaluate
their earthquake risk in order to develop and implement
disaster mitigation policies--e.g., the State of Oregon had
undertaken a plan to identify vertical evacuation structures
for tsunami refuge; these activities have stopped due to budget
cuts.
Funds are needed for fundamental and applied research that
encompasses the geosciences, geotechnical engineering, structural and
infrastructure engineering, social and economic sciences, and policy
decisionmaking. Recent strong earthquakes have shown that we are only
now beginning to understand the phenomenon and its consequences. As an
emerging field it requires extensive research and development that can
only be achieved through the dedicated efforts of its professionals
with appropriate funding. Community resilience to major earthquakes can
only be achieved through the implementation of findings from the
research and development and through appropriate mitigation and
preparedness actions.
Where Are the Greatest Gaps?
A comprehensive approach for earthquake related research and
development that takes further steps toward community resilience is
laid out in the 2009-2013 NEHRP Strategic Plan. In addition, the
National Research Council of the National Academies (NRC 2011) has
released a study that recommends a road map of national needs in
research, knowledge transfer, implementation, and outreach that will
provide the tools needed to implement the NEHRP Strategic Plan (Poland,
2011). Key areas that need extensive investigation include:
Worldwide monitoring and data gathering and interpretive
tools:
Instrumentation for assessing the energy release and
variation of intensity of strong shaking of earthquakes;
Instrumentation of buildings and other infrastructure
components;
Methods and tools for data assessment and interpretation
leading to useful information.
Framework for resilience in terms of performance goals that
consider communities as systems of structures, lifelines,
people, economics and governments, and their interdependencies.
Social science research to quantify the role of
improvisation and adaptation, how decisions are made at all
levels and the need for rehabilitation.
Development of Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering
(PBEE) design tools to enable rapid and widespread adaptation
of advanced design methods.
Development of new technologies and adaptation of existing
technologies for pre-disaster assessment and for rapid response
and post disaster evaluation.
The recent earthquakes of February 22 and 25, 2011, in
Christchurch, New Zealand, and the great magnitude 9 earthquake of
March 11, 2011, in Tohoku, Japan present an unprecedented opportunity
to study their effects to communities, geographic exposure and design
practices that are the closest to those in the U.S. The extensive
instrumentation placed by Japan prior to the earthquake has provided a
wealth of new information that needs to be investigated in
collaboration with our Japanese colleagues. The social, economic and
policy implications from the earthquake and tsunami are unlike any
other event we have seen during our short history of earthquake
research. It is imperative that funds be allocated to study these
earthquakes and use the lessons to greatly enhance the resilience of
our communities to large earthquakes.
Summary
In conclusion, ASCE plays critical role in the research,
implementation and policies for earthquake hazard and risk mitigation
leading to resilient communities. The activities can be achieved
through continued support of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction
Program by focusing on the specific goals mapped in the Program's
Strategic Plan. Funding for research on the Tohoku 2011 earthquake
presents a unique and long-awaited opportunity to study the effects of
a truly great earthquake on a community that most resembles our.
Thank you for the opportunity to present our views. I would be
happy to answer questions you might have and to provide the Committee
with further information.
References
PEER 2011--Tohoku Pacific Ocean Earthquake and Tsunami, Quick
observations from the PEER/EERI/GEER/Tsunami Field Investigation Team,
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley California,
March, 2011; http://peer.berke
ley.edu/news/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Tohoku-short-interim-
report.pdf.
S&P--http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gmH-
wyCANUy4g
3kyZDiZm-Eg7KEw?docId=CNG.12890d5f3796f0ec93e813fed2f0c8c5.701.
NRC 2011--Achieving National Disaster Resilience through Local,
Regional and National Activities. Advisory Committee on Earthquake
Hazard Reduction. www.nehrp.gov, February 2010.
Strategic Plan for the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction
Program, Fiscal Years 2009-2013. Interagency Coordinating Committee of
NEHRP. www.nehrp.gov, October 2008.
``Natural Hazards Mitigation Saves: An Independent Study to Assess
the Future Savings from Mitigation Activities'' (http://www.fema.gov).
The Chairman. Thank you.
I call on Senator Hutchison.
STATEMENT OF HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS
Senator Hutchison. Yes, I just wanted to introduce the
witness that I invited.
Dr. Dawson is a Professor for the Institute for
Computational Engineering and Sciences at my alma mater, the
University of Texas at Austin. And if I might say, we are also
the alma mater of the Vice Admiral who led the assault on Osama
bin Laden. He is a University of Texas graduate. So, there are
two proud Longhorns in the room.
[Laughter.]
Senator Hutchison. I'd just like to point that out.
And I would like to introduce Dr. Dawson. We're glad you're
here.
[The prepared statement of Senator Hutchison follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison, U.S. Senator from
Texas
Thank you, Chairman Rockefeller, for holding this important hearing
on the effectiveness of Federal investments in disaster preparedness.
Before we examine this important issue, I would like to express my
sincere condolences to the victims of the recent natural disasters that
have devastated both the Southeast and my home state of Texas.
Just last week tornadoes wreaked havoc on the Southeast, destroying
communities and resulting in over 350 fatalities, the destruction of
10,000 homes, and an estimated $2 to $5 billion in property damage.
In Texas, brave men and women have battled wildfires that that have
destroyed over 2 million acres, 900 structures, and resulted in the
loss of life of two firefighters. I continue to strongly urge the
Administration to grant the State of Texas' request for a Federal
disaster declaration for the Texas counties that have suffered damage
from these wildfires.
Both of these tragedies underscore the importance of Federal
investments in disaster preparedness and response.
The World Bank and the United States Geological Survey have
estimated that economic losses worldwide from natural disasters in the
1990s could have been reduced by $280 billion if an additional $40
billion had been spent in preventative measures. Therefore, it is
vitally important that we spend our Federal research dollars wisely in
order to reduce both loss of life and economic damages resulting from
the natural disasters that can have devastating impacts on our Nation.
Many of our past investments have proven that increased research
into natural disasters can save lives and reduce property damage.
Today, we will hear testimony from Dr. Clint Dawson of the Institute
for Computational Engineering and Sciences at the University of Texas
at Austin. Dr. Dawson will testify about his experience using
``Ranger,'' the most powerful computer in the National Science
Foundation's network of academic high-performance computers, to develop
storm surge models to aid in the evacuation during Hurricane Ike.
Dr. Dawson's use of this supercomputer helped save thousands of
lives and we need to continue to ensure that our scientists and first
responders have access to the best tools possible to help protect both
life and property.
I also look to hearing from our other witnesses to examine the most
effective way to spend our Federal research dollars to both predict and
prepare for future natural disasters.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing.
STATEMENT OF PROFESSOR CLINT DAWSON, JOE J. KING
PROFESSOR OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING AND
ENGINEERING MECHANICS, DEPARTMENT OF AEROSPACE
ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING MECHANICS, INSTITUTE
FOR COMPUTATIONAL ENGINEERING AND SCIENCES,
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN
Dr. Dawson. Thank you, Senator Hutchison.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the members of the Committee,
for the opportunity to speak with you today.
My research efforts are focused primarily on modeling and
simulation of processes in the coastal ocean. The primary
sources of Federal funding for this work are the National
Science Foundation, the Department of Defense, and the
Department of Homeland Security. And my group collaborates with
a number of researchers at other universities, government
laboratories, and state agencies. We utilize the computational
resources of the National Science Foundation Teragrid and the
Texas Advanced Computing Center, or TACC, at UT Austin. We have
partnerships with the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration, and we use NOAA products and data extensively
in our research.
One of the main applications of interest of this research
is the predictive simulation of storm surges due to hurricanes
and tropical storms. By predictive simulation, I am referring
to the development of computer models which can be used in
real-time to forecast storm surge as hurricanes approach land,
to study the impacts of historical hurricanes and attempt to
reproduce actual measurements which were taken during the
storm, and to study future scenarios, for reasons which I will
discuss below.
The computer model that we have developed is called ADCIRC,
which stands for Advanced Circulation Model. For hurricane
storm surge simulations, this model takes input from various
sources and computes water levels and currents driven by
hurricane-force winds and waves. It's been used to study
hurricanes for over a decade. It was used extensively in
forensic studies of Katrina, as part of the Interagency
Performance Evaluation Task Force, or IPET study.
As I mentioned, predictive simulation of storm surge can
fall into three categories: forecasts, forensic studies, and
future scenarios. Let me elaborate. In forecast mode, our model
uses supercomputers, such as the Ranger computer at UT Austin,
to generate a high-resolution forecast, typically within an
hour. For a storm approaching Texas or Louisiana, this data is
transmitted to the state operations center and the Texas
Governor's Division of Emergency Management, which is
responsible for emergency response, evacuation, search and
rescue, and other operations.
In forensic mode, the ADCIRC model is used to analyze
historical hurricanes. Here we attempt to match the output of
the model with measured data, as was done for Hurricane
Katrina. The hindcast studies help validate the predictive
capabilities of the model, help to build understanding of
complex physical processes which occur during hurricanes, help
to quantify the vulnerability of coastal regions to storm
surge, and can be used to understand the successes or failures
of various protection systems.
Hurricane Ike is an interesting example of where new
physical insight was gained through hindcasting. Ike produced
a--what we call a ``storm surge forerunner'' of about 6 feet
along the upper Texas coast 24 hours before landfall. A similar
phenomenon was documented during the Galveston hurricanes of
1900 and 1915. Ike was very similar, in track and intensity, to
these hurricanes. Our forecast model was able to reproduce this
surge. And now that it's discovered, future forecasts of
similar storms will be able to predict this surge and to alert
the public to the possible danger.
Finally, ADCIRC is run under various hypothetical scenarios
to facilitate the planning and design of future protection
systems and to help quantify risk in low-lying areas. Future
protection systems include soft options, such as wetland
restoration and restrictions on land-use practices, and hard
options, such as the construction of seawalls, levees, and
storm gates.
Are Federal investments paying off? Government funding of
fundamental research in coastal ocean modeling can reap
tremendous benefits by enabling economic activity, promoting
healthy and sustainable coastal environments, improving the
safety and well-being of coastal populations, and protecting
critical infrastructure located on the coast. There are several
future research directions which are critical to advancing the
science, and government funding of the computational
infrastructure available, for example, through the NSF
Teragrid, and basic research funding in computational science
and engineering, has paved a path toward revolutionizing the
modeling of storm surge, and we are already reaping benefits in
this area. As I mentioned, we are now able to do high-
resolution predictions within the time-frame required by
emergency managers. This would have been impossible 5 years
ago.
Overall, however, in my experience, Federal funding for
coastal ocean modeling research has been piecemeal across
different agencies and focused more on the short term rather
than long term. I would welcome any effort to promote longer-
term, focused, sustained funding of research in this area.
With respect to storm-surge forecasting, it's my opinion
that future forecast models should be performed at the highest
fidelity possible, given the computational resources available
and the uncertainties inherent in any forecast.
There's still basic research to be done to improve our
understanding of winds, waves, and currents, and their
interactions with coastal features and coastal structures. The
ability of natural and manmade systems to withstand and
possibly mitigate surge is not well understood, nor is the
long-term impact of hurricanes on coastal ecosystems,
geomorphology, and energy, communication, and transportation
infrastructure.
All of these challenges are best met through knowledge and
experience gained by theoretical research, experiments and
computation in collaboration that involve multidisciplinary
teams of investigators with connections to government
laboratories, state and Federal agencies, and private industry.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Dawson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Professor Clint Dawson, Joe J. King Professor of
Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, Department of
Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, Institute for
Computational Engineering and Sciences, The University of Texas at
Austin
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee for the
opportunity to speak with you today.
My name is Clint Dawson. I am a Professor at the University of
Texas at Austin (UT Austin). I am also the head of a research group
called the Computational Hydraulics Group which is housed in the
Institute for Computational Engineering and Sciences at UT Austin. Our
research efforts are focused primarily on modeling and simulation of
processes in the coastal ocean. The primary sources of Federal funding
for this work are the National Science Foundation, the Department of
Defense and the Department of Homeland Security. My group collaborates
with a number of researchers at other universities, government
laboratories and state agencies. These include the University of Notre
Dame, the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers Engineer Research and Development Center, and the State of
Texas Division of Emergency Management. We utilize the computational
resources of the National Science Foundation Teragrid, and the Texas
Advanced Computing Center (TACC) at UT Austin. My collaborators have
partnerships with the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) and we use NOAA products and data extensively in
our research.
One of the main applications of interest of this research is the
predictive simulation of storm surges due to hurricanes and tropical
storms. By ``predictive simulation'' I am referring to the development
of computer models which can be used in real-time to forecast storm
surge as hurricanes approach land, to study the impacts of historical
hurricanes and attempt to reproduce actual measurements which were
taken during the storm, and to study future scenarios for reasons which
I will discuss below. The computer model we have developed is called
ADCIRC, which stands for Advanced Circulation model. For hurricane
storm surge simulations, ADCIRC takes inputs from various sources and
computes water levels and currents driven by hurricane force winds and
waves. ADCIRC has been used to study hurricanes for over a decade.
ADCIRC was used extensively in forensic studies of Katrina as part of
the Interagency Performance Evaluation Task Force (IPET) study. ADCIRC
was able to match the data from this storm incredibly well,
particularly high-water marks, which are measurements of maximum water
level taken at various locations. Since 2005, the amount of data
collected during Gulf storm events has increased substantially, and
ADCIRC has been used to study several major storms, including Rita,
Gustav and Ike.
As I mentioned, predictive simulation of storm surge can fall into
three categories: forecasts, forensic studies, and future scenarios.
Let me elaborate.
In forecast mode, the ADCIRC model uses supercomputers such as the
Ranger computer at TACC to generate a high resolution forecast
typically within an hour. These forecast simulations utilize the
information coming from the National Hurricane Center, and are
automated so that each time the hurricane forecast is updated, new
storm surge predictions are generated. For a storm approaching Texas or
Louisiana, this data is transmitted to the State Operations Center in
the Texas Governor's Division of Emergency Management, which is
responsible for emergency response, evacuation, search and rescue, and
other operations. We work closely in this regard with Dr. Gordon Wells,
who analyzes the results of forecast models to assist decisionmakers in
the State Operations Center.
In forensic mode, the ADCIRC model is used to analyze historical
hurricanes. Here we attempt to match the output of the model with
measured data, as was done for Hurricane Katrina. These hindcast
studies help validate the predictive capabilities of the model, help to
build understanding of complex physical processes which occur during
hurricanes, help to quantify the vulnerability of coastal regions to
storm surge, and can be used to understand the success or failure of
various protection systems. Hurricane Ike is a very interesting example
where new physical insight has been gained through hindcasting. Ike
produced a storm surge ``forerunner'' of about 6 feet along the upper
Texas coast 24 hours before landfall. A similar phenomenon was
documented during the Galveston hurricanes of 1900 and 1915. Hurricane
Ike was very similar in track and intensity to these hurricanes. The
forecast models used as Ike approached landfall did not predict this
surge, it was only after careful hindcasting using the ADCIRC model
that the cause was discovered. Now that this phenomenon is understood,
future forecasts of similar storms will be able to predict forerunner
surge and alert the public to the possible danger.
Finally, ADCIRC is run under various hypothetical scenarios to
facilitate the planning and design of future protection systems and to
help quantify risk in low-lying areas of the coast. These studies are
used to develop Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRMS), for
example, which determine eligibility for Federal flood insurance.
Future protection systems include ``soft'' options, such as wetlands
restoration and restrictions on land use practices, and ``hard''
options, such as the construction of seawalls, levees and storm gates.
ADCIRC has been used to model the effectiveness of all of the new
levees which are currently under construction in Louisiana. In the
aftermath of Hurricane Ike, many different options are being considered
for protecting the Houston-Galveston region. One option is the so-
called ``Ike Dike,'' which was proposed by Prof. William Merrill at
Texas A&M University at Galveston. Other options which have been
proposed include building gates which would protect the Houston Ship
Channel, designating large parts of the coastal region around Galveston
and Bolivar as a National Seashore and Recreational Area, building
oyster reefs offshore near critical infrastructure, just to name a few.
We are working with the Severe Storm Prediction, Education, and
Evacuation from Disasters (SSPEED) Center at Rice University to study
these various protection systems, using high fidelity numerical
simulations and hypothetical hurricane scenarios.
Are Federal Investments Paying Off? Government funding of
fundamental research in coastal ocean modeling can reap tremendous
benefits by enhancing economic activity, promoting healthy and
sustainable coastal environments, improving the safety and well-being
of coastal populations, and protecting critical infrastructure located
on the coast. There are several future research directions which are
critical to advancing the science. Government funding of the
computational infrastructure available through the NSF Teragrid, and
basic research funding in computational science and engineering has
paved a path toward revolutionizing the modeling of storm surge, and we
are already reaping benefits in this area. As I mentioned above, we are
now able to do high resolution storm surge predictions within the time-
frame required by emergency managers. This would have been impossible 5
years ago. Overall however, in my experience Federal funding for
coastal ocean modeling research has been piecemeal across different
agencies and focused more on short term projects rather than long term
priorities. I would welcome any effort to promote longer-term, focused,
sustained funding of research in this area.
With respect to storm surge forecasting, the standard hydrodynamic
model which has been used throughout the United States has been the
Sea, Lake and Overland Surge from Hurricanes (SLOSH) model which is run
at the National Hurricane Center. SLOSH was developed many years ago.
Currently, NOAA is re-evaluating SLOSH along with other computer
models, including ADCIRC, to determine which model or models to use for
future storm surge forecasting. It is my opinion that future forecast
models should be performed at the highest fidelity possible given the
computational resources available and the uncertainties inherent in any
hurricane forecast. We must attempt to quantify these uncertainties
where possible. It is also important that we work closely with
emergency management personnel to understand the type of information
that is needed and to develop ways in which risk can best be conveyed
to the public.
There is still basic research to be done to improve our
understanding of winds, waves and currents and their interaction with
coastal features and coastal structures. The ability of natural and
man-made systems to withstand and possibly mitigate surge is not well
understood, nor is the long-term impact of hurricanes on coastal
ecosystems, geomorphology, and energy, communication and transportation
infrastructure. The coastal population and economic activity along the
coast continue to grow and expand, and policies for managing coastal
development are required sooner rather than later. If recent history is
any indication, no coastal protection system will be completely fail-
safe over the long term, and in the event of disaster the resilience of
coastal communities will determine their future. All of these
challenges are best met through knowledge and experience gained by
theoretical research, experiments and computation, in collaborations
that involve multidisciplinary teams of investigators, with connections
to government laboratories, state and Federal agencies and private
industry.
The Chairman. Thank you. We'll start on the questions.
It's such a profound subject. And one of the things that
interests me most is how little people know about it and,
actually, how little people think about it.
Dr. Hooke, you made an interesting observation, in your
testimony, that 85 percent of businesses that are affected by a
disaster close their doors and don't reopen it. Now, a lot of
things come to mind. Americans tend to think of earthquakes,
like--Japan really kicked that off, obviously--but, we tend to
think of the absolute calamities. And the research that's being
done on that is incredibly important. But, I'm thinking about
85 percent. That would not be an earthquake; that would be some
kind of other flooding, or whatever, event.
The--what I'm really trying to get at is, How can you
prepare? Or do we have to say, at some point, that you can't
prepare? I think I heard on the news yesterday, somewhere, that
in Iowa they've just blasted down a whole bunch of levees which
they put up for the purposes of defending against flooding.
Senator Boxer. Missouri.
Voice. Missouri.
The Chairman. Missouri. And so, the--you know, hundreds of
thousands of acres are getting flooded. And that's kind of what
I'm talking about, that we cope as best as we can. We see
images of people piling sandbags on sandbags.
The question, Doctor, that you mentioned, about the
structure of buildings--I mean, that's--the Japanese are really
good at that because they have something like 3,000 earthquakes
a day; obviously, most of them very small. We aren't good at
that. I think, Mr. Ryan, in my own state, we've had so many
floods I can't even count them. And houses get washed away up
and down various rivers. And people don't leave. They might
leave temporarily, but they always come back. And they do
rebuild. Hence, back to your small business.
What is the psychology, what is the practicality of how we
can defend against these things which we--even if we can
predict them--because, even if we can predict them, what use is
it unless we can abate their effect, which, it occurs to me
that we're not very good at? I've thrown a bunch of things at
you.
Dr. Hooke. You sure have.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Hooke. OK? And I went into science because baseball
wasn't my strength. So--anyway. Thank you for those insights.
And I think you're absolutely correct.
So, here's the starting point. The starting point is that
we have some very humble objectives. We want to live a little
better. We'd like a nice quality of life. You know, we aspire
to a good life for our kids, and so on. But, we are trying to
do this on a planet that does its business through extreme
events. So, when Anne talked about earthquakes, you know, you
can go to your science class and learn about continental drift.
And you find, in some parts of the world, that hurricanes are
providing about a third of the total yearly rainfall. And so,
these severe events make up what is really the planet average.
And yet, what we do is, we see these events as somehow
suspensions of the natural order. So, you know, I have 100
straight days where the sun shining or there's a little bit of
rain or something, and then all of a sudden the heavens open.
So, we're not very good at rare high-consequence events.
The 85 percent of the small businesses that don't reopen
after they close their doors, they have a variety of causes.
Their business may be OK. It may be on dry ground. The business
may have survived. But, their whole customer base disappeared.
So, you have a restaurant that specializes in Asian cuisine,
but suddenly everybody is spending their money at Home Depot.
So, it's very complicated. Alternatively, all the customers
could still be there. They could be whole, but your business
was in the flood plain, some--you know, down by the river. And
so, it's fairly complex.
Another example, if you think about the homes we build, you
can look at mobile homes or manufactured homes, and they're
especially vulnerable. But, they're the only way to
homeownership for large fractions of people. And for, you know,
100 years of the life of a building, the job of the walls is to
keep the roof up. And for maybe a day out of that 100 years,
the job of the walls is to hold the roof down. And we don't put
in the hurricane straps or whatever we need.
That's a long answer, but you ask a complicated question.
The Chairman. Well, I also ran out of time.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. So, Senator Hutchison.
Senator Hutchison. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have introduced, in the last two sessions, weather
modification legislation; not to do it, but to start doing
research to determine if there is a benefit to trying to modify
the ferocity of tornados and hurricanes, if it can be done. And
if it is done, does it affect other areas? I think that we
should have the research to start determining that.
My question is, probably to Dr. Hooke or Dr. Dawson, do you
think that this is an area we should pursue? Can it be done
computationally with any degree of accuracy? And how would you
pursue trying to determine a way to mitigate the enormous
damage we're seeing now, which seems to me so different from
the past?
I grew up in Galveston County. So, I've seen the
hurricanes. But, we never had hurricanes like Katrina or these
Alabama tornados. The damage just seems to be so much more, and
the ferocity seems to be so much more, in the last 10 years
than it was in the previous era.
So, with that, would research help? Could it be done with
computers? And where would you go from here, in your judgment?
Dr. Hooke. If we could. I'd like to begin by suggesting
that Bob Ryan be brought into this conversation, because, in
his graduate work, he actually worked for one of the leading
lights in weather modification, up----
Senator Hutchison. Wonderful.
Dr. Hooke. Let him tell you that story.
Mr. Ryan. Bernie Vonnegut was--had discovered the use of
silver iodide. And before him, Vince Schaefer had done the
first weather modification experiments at--under Irving
Langmuir, at Schenectady.
Senator Hutchison. Great. I'd like to hear from anyone who
has an opinion.
Mr. Ryan. And one of the things, I think, to address that
is that I think all research meteorologists would agree that
the more we can understand what is going on, and the more we
understand the process that initiates, let's say, hurricanes,
and how these go through lifecycles--and tornados, the better
understanding we can have of the fundamental science--and I
would dare say that, before we can really have an intimate and
detailed understanding of the lifecyle of some of these even
very small-scale but extreme events, that we're not in a
position to then say, ``Let's try and do something to
mitigate.'' We have to do everything, I think, first, that we
can do to create an environment where people take action. And
it's interesting, the convergence of the structure issue for
earthquakes and also, as Bill mentioned, for tornados. Forty-
four percent of the fatalities in tornados occur with people
who live in mobile homes. So, there is that, to that issue of,
How can we ensure that the structures that people are living
in, and certainly given the economic times, are able--and we
have communities where these people can seek a secure shelter
for whatever natural disaster comes, whether it be an
earthquake or a tornado or a flood.
But--the basic science has made tremendous advances, but
there are still many, many unanswered questions. And I think
the more that we can understand the evolution and the lifecycle
and the details of what's going on, then, at some point in the
future, we may be in a position to begin to take--and try to
interfere a little bit and at least mitigate the maximum impact
on population centers.
Dr. Hooke. If I could say just a word about your second
point, which had to do with the growing severity, apparently,
of events of this sort.
So, really, we're ratcheting up, slowly, day by day, our
vulnerability to events all over this country, whether it's
mudslides off Mt. Ranier or hurricanes on the Gulf Coast or
tornados in between. And what's happening is, nobody wakes up
in the morning saying, ``I think I'm going to increase the
vulnerability of my city or my county or my state to these
events.'' But, what--we make decisions in favor of business
development, of needs for today. And we may be compromised at
the tenth-of-a-percent level. And we go home every one of these
days saying, ``That was a pretty good day.'' But, the
accumulated burden of all the slight compromises, not intent or
people looking the wrong way or anything of that sort, that
adds up, over the time scale for the return of these events, to
tremendous vulnerability--levees that are not built well in New
Orleans or, as Anne was saying, infrastructure that was 30
years old or 70 years old. You know, it's that kind of effect.
Senator Hutchison. Doctor?
Dr. Dawson. I would just add one thing. With respect to
hurricanes, people focus a lot on the intensity of the
hurricane. But, in the last few hurricanes that have been the
most destructive, such as Katrina and Ike, those were not very
intense hurricanes when they actually made landfall. So, we
need to understand that the storm surge associated with the
hurricane may have absolutely nothing to do with the intensity
of the hurricane. It has a lot more to do with the size of the
storm and how long it has been churning and the--you know, the
radius of the storm and so forth.
So, with respect to hurricanes, I just want to caution
people to--you know, to step back a second and realize that
it's not just the intensity of the storm that matters, but the
size of the storm, and other factors, that contribute to the
actual flood.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Klobuchar.
STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you, all of you.
I just returned from the Grand Forks area, where we share a
border with North Dakota, and barely missed visiting the Mayor
of Oslo, Minnesota, population 345, in a boat, because of the
fact that their entire town is ring-diked, and that's the only
way they survived the floods.
Just a few things. I've been amazed at the help of weather
forecasts and water-level forecasts and the difference it has
made in flood preparation in Fargo and Moorhead. Literally,
Saint Paul, Minnesota, decisions were made this time, because
we've had so much flooding, how high the sandbags have to be,
how big the wall needs to be, completely based on these
forecasts that change daily. And they are completely dependent
on them. It made a huge difference in reducing damage, reducing
the loss of life. So, I'm a big fan of what the weather bureau
is doing.
Same with the tornados. We had one town this summer,
Wadena, Minnesota, a mile wide of complete decimation, a public
high school, where the bleachers were found two blocks away.
It's like a bomb had gone off in it. Not one person died in
that town. This was all neighborhoods. They got the warnings.
The sirens went off, I think, 25 minutes ahead of time. A pool
with 40 kids with only high school life guards, the neighbors
were able to pick up all the kids, and the five that were left
that their parents hadn't come, the high school kids brought
them across the street to a basement. All of this was because
of emergency warning systems. Clearly, we had better basements
and more basements than they did, sadly, in the South. But, it
made such a difference.
And then, finally, some unique things we're doing with
floods now. Literally 24/7, there are cameras on the flooded
areas in towns all over our state so citizens can actually
watch the river so they make prudent decisions. They can
actually make their own decisions. They see where the river is.
They're watching it, at certain points, on the Web, live, at
every minute. These are even small towns, they're doing this,
as well as the power of the broadcasts, where, in Fargo and
Moorhead, they actually break in live every single day leading
up to the flood moment, for an hour in the morning, so that the
citizens get full report on radio and TV.
So, I guess my first question would be of you, Mr. Ryan,
from your perspective of a private partner in disaster
preparedness, Where do we excel? Where do we fall short in
communicating severe weather to the communities?
Mr. Ryan. Well, thank you very much, Senator. And I--you
know, I think it's--for those of us--Bill and myself, who have
been in the field of meteorology for a bit, it is satisfying to
be able to see the advances in the science and the application
and now the real utility in life-saving events, and having it
not only be a benefit to the public, but to the economy, too.
I think, as you point out, we're using, now, modern
technology, things like live webcams, to help people make the
best decision. And I think that's the area that is probably
most exciting, going forward. And when we talk about the storm
surge or earthquakes or a tornado outbreak like last week,
we're really thinking of a--still a small area, even though it
impacts hundreds of thousands of people, but that also are
still very rare events. And how can we best communicate these
perhaps once-in-a-lifetime events that people have never
experienced before correctly so that they still make the best
decision?
We saw that in Katrina. There was a tragic example of a
family that had a storm cellar, in Alabama--invited their
neighbors into the storm cellar when the warning was out, and
the neighbors said, ``No, we'll ride this out.'' They did not
ride it out. The family that went into the storm cellar
survived. Once-in-a-lifetime event. And so, we have, I think,
as an enterprise, a job to do involving probably bringing in
the social sciences and social science expertise in how people
make decisions and how we can best communicate some of these
rare events graphically, using some of the new communication
technologies and, of course, the broadcasts, to help people
make the best decision.
Ultimately, as I mentioned, we can have a 100-percent
accurate forecast and a bad decision. The forecast has failed.
Senator Klobuchar. Right. And then, Dr. Hooke, you talked
about some of the investment in studying some of these past
disasters. I can tell you, Austin, Minnesota, had some bad
floods. They employed flood mitigation, got a grant, moved
hundreds of houses. One guy decided to stay. He wouldn't take
the deal. He's the house that got flooded when those Iowa
floods came. And so, I'm a big believer. And it is very
difficult for the cities to make these decisions, but it saves
so much money in the long term. Could you talk a little bit
about the mitigation issue?
Dr. Hooke. OK. And I also think that Anne talked quite a
bit about that----
Senator Klobuchar. OK.
Dr. Hooke.--as well. So----
Senator Klobuchar. She can answer.
Dr. Hooke.--why don't we go ahead and talk about the
earthquake issue, because it's quite related to the weather and
flooding issue.
Dr. Kiremidjian. Thank you. Earthquake mitigation has been
taking place systematically. But, we have to recognize that it
is a very expensive process. Let me give you the example of
Stanford University. We've been upgrading and replacing and
repairing our buildings for, now, more that 20 years, at the
cost of $200 million a year. Mitigation strategy--there are no
specific mitigation policies for earthquakes that are in place.
There was one policy that was in place in San Francisco and in
Los Angeles to identify all unreinforced masonry structures.
And there were provisions made for owners to upgrade and
retrofit those structures. And I think we have succeeded in
that effort. But, to upgrade all the remaining structures and
the infrastructure that is out there----
Senator Klobuchar. If I could--I think what I'm talking
about is a little different. I'm talking about houses in the
Midwest that are just moved or they are----
Dr. Kiremidjian. Yes.
Senator Klobuchar. But, they are----
Dr. Kiremidjian. Yes. I'm sorry, I don't have experience
with that. So, maybe I'll divert the question to----
Senator Klobuchar. I know. That's what I mean. It's a lot
less expensive. These are houses, maybe----
Dr. Hooke. When you rebuild----
Senator Klobuchar.--$50-$100,000 homes----
Dr. Kiremidjian. Yes.
Senator Klobuchar.--that are simply moved to a different
part of town. They're put on the back of a truck. And it's just
a lot cheaper. And they have beautiful parks, then----
Dr. Kiremidjian. Right.
Senator Klobuchar.--on the river. And it's expected to
actually flood on those parts instead of losing all these
homes----
Dr. Kiremidjian. Right.
Senator Klobuchar.--loss of life, those kinds of things.
So, I believe you about the earthquakes, but I----
Dr. Kiremidjian. Right. We can't move the buildings for
earthquakes. It won't help.
Dr. Hooke. Well----
Senator Klobuchar.--the towns on the river need to look at
more across the country.
Dr. Hooke. In both cases, it's a matter of culture and
values, though, isn't it? So, if we want a big house, and we
want kind of a showcase, and we like some of the jazzy
features, we go for that. Or maybe, we're thinking about the
safety of the kids and whether we're putting our kids to bed in
the flood plain at night, or--you know, call yourself a parent
and doing things like that--not so good. But, we can change
that culture.
One way to do it--and I was kind of encouraged on this by
my staff, and I didn't follow it, to my regret, now, in the
notes here--was talk a little bit about STEM education and
earth sciences for kids in public school, because they're a
great way into each household and developing this culture and
this set of values.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, to all of you.
The Chairman. Senator Boxer.
Mr. Ryan. So often the children and the students take home
important messages for their parents. And we've had a number of
examples where the young people have made the proper decision
for their family, and ended up saving lives. Education is
certainly important.
STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Thank you----
The Chairman. Senator Boxer.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, so much.
Thank you for holding this hearing. And I'm proud that
you're--you've joined with me and Senator Cantwell to sponsor
the Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011, which will
reauthorize, for 5 years, some very important programs that
deal with national earthquake hazard reductions and windstorm
impact reductions.
And I'll put the rest of my statement in the record, if I
might. And I'd just summarize here. Is that OK?
[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Barbara Boxer, U.S. Senator from California
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this important hearing today to
examine Federal efforts to prepare for natural disasters and the Boxer-
Cantwell-Rockefeller Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011.
My state is no stranger to natural disasters. Californians
understand that it is a matter of when--not if--the next major
earthquake will strike.
According to the U.S. Geological Survey, there is a 99 percent
chance that California will suffer a magnitude 6.7 earthquake within
the next 30 years.
This is comparable in size to the earthquakes that struck San
Francisco in 1989 and Los Angeles in 1994. Together these earthquakes
killed 120 people and caused tens of billions of dollars in damage.
The horrific March 11 earthquake in Japan is a stark reminder to my
state of the potential for destruction and the importance of
preparedness.
But, no part of this Nation is immune from the devastation caused
by natural disasters. Tornados, hurricanes, earthquakes, and wildfires
are a constant threat to human life.
Just last week, at least 342 people were tragically killed when a
record number of tornados ravaged several southern states.
To address these threats, we must invest in programs that minimize
risks and mitigate damages so our communities can better withstand
these types of natural disasters.
That is why I am proud to sponsor the Natural Hazards Risk
Reduction Act of 2011.
This legislation will provide a 5-year reauthorization of the
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) and the National
Windstorm Impact Reduction Program (NWIRP).
These programs are designed to mitigate earthquake and windstorm
hazards through research, development, technology transfer, and
outreach activities.
The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program develops
earthquake research, seismic building codes, and increases awareness of
the threat of earthquakes.
The National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program works to improve
knowledge and awareness of windstorms, and develop wind-resilient
designs that can be incorporated in the construction of buildings and
infrastructure.
This is a wise investment of Federal funds. Not only does it save
lives, but the Congressional Budget Office estimates that for every
dollar invested in disaster mitigation, three are saved by reducing
future damages.
I want to thank our distinguished panel for joining us today,
including Dr. Anne Kiremidjian, a Professor with the Department of
Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University who will
testify on earthquake hazards and risk mitigation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Boxer. Mr. Chairman, I came to the House of
Representatives in 1983, and since that time, California has
experienced 31 significant earthquakes. Significant
earthquakes. And, out of those, nine had deaths associate with
them. The most deaths, I think people know, were Loma Prieta,
in northern California, and Northridge, in southern California.
Between the two, 123 deaths. So, when we talk about hazards, we
talk clearly about saving lives. And we see we lost 342 people
in the South; there are still people missing. No part of this
Nation is immune from devastation of one kind or the other.
But, I am going to just focus in on earthquakes with the
good doctor from Stanford and ask you this. Earthquake early
warning systems, this is something that I--you know, I'm
hoping, in my lifetime, to see. I know that we're testing and
evaluating them right now. Could you give us a report as to how
soon we could expect those to be deployed in a larger scale?
Dr. Kiremidjian. I think the technology is being worked on
right now. We have made advances. We have to remember that
earthquake warning will help, primarily, lives--save lives.
They will not help with preventing damage to infrastructure. In
that respect, they are really important. How far along we are?
I think we are getting closer every day.
Senator Boxer. Give me an idea of what you're looking at.
We're looking at years to have this? Are we looking at months
to have this? Are we looking at a decade to have this? What do
you see?
Dr. Kiremidjian. My estimate, from whatever I know, I would
say 3 to 5; at most, 10 years.
Senator Boxer. OK. That's good news.
Let me ask you this question. And I don't mean to put you
on the spot, but I'm going to. We have two nuclear powerplants
in our state----
Dr. Kiremidjian. Right.
Senator Boxer.--that are located on or adjacent to fault
lines that are very dangerous. And, you know, after looking at
the--what happened in Japan, these two plants are up for
reauthorization. Just as a scientist, without any agenda--you
know, for me, I'm looking at it.
One of my plants, Mr. Chairman, has 7 million people living
within 50 miles, which is the area that----
Dr. Kiremidjian. Diablo Canyon.
Senator Boxer.--evacuated in Japan. And the other has a
half a million people.
So, do you have concerns about these plants?
Dr. Kiremidjian. I would say that those plants have been
evaluated and reevaluated and reevaluated. What would concern
me is that they are such complicated systems that there's
always some chance of something going wrong. And it can be due
to the earthquake, but it can be also due to human error.
How do we prevent that? We have to be vigilant. We have to
study the systems continuously. My understanding is that--and
actually, one of my very first consulting jobs was on the
Diablo Nuclear Power Plant, after finding the existence of the
Hosgri Faults----
Senator Boxer. Yes.
Dr. Kiremidjian.--some 7 kilometers away from it. And we
did look at the type of ground motions that we might expect. We
have learned a lot more. And, based on my understanding--I
haven't kept up with it all these years--but, based on my
understanding, those plants are being reevaluated every 2 or 3
years. From earthquake safety point of view, I think the
structures--the containment structure has been designed very
appropriately, and I don't expect to see any damage. What would
worry----
Senator Boxer. Well, is----
Dr. Kiremidjian.--me are other things.
Senator Boxer. Wait a second.
Dr. Kiremidjian. Yes.
Senator Boxer. You're right. They were designed to
withstand a certain earthquake----
Dr. Kiremidjian. They were----
Senator Boxer.--size.
Dr. Kiremidjian. Yes.
Senator Boxer. But, they were not designed to protect
against larger earthquakes, which are now predicted. So, I
think--could we follow up? Can I follow up with you on these?
Because, I think----
Dr. Kiremidjian. Absolutely.
Senator Boxer.--it's very serious. Because, when you say
they've been evaluated, they have not done the 3D evaluation
that needs to be done. They are now agreed, finally, to do
that, when the state said they would not allow NRC to reissue
the license. So, can we follow up on this? Because, I--this is
very--I mean, when we talk about this, we're talking about
millions of people.
Dr. Kiremidjian. Correct.
Senator Boxer. And that's my concern. I mean, whether the--
if the building is still standing there is one thing. It's what
happens to the radiation.
Dr. Kiremidjian. Right. That's--I was just about to say
that the----
Senator Boxer. And the tsunami----
Dr. Kiremidjian.--building would stand, but what happens to
all the systems within the building--the cooling system, the
backup generators.
Senator Boxer. Right.
Dr. Kiremidjian. One of the reasons why the Daiichi Nuclear
Power Plant suffered the damage was because their backup
generators were damaged.
Senator Boxer. Exactly.
Dr. Kiremidjian. And so, we need to look at the entire
system and all of its components and how they work together.
And that evaluation, I believe, needs to be done----
Senator Boxer. Good.
Dr. Kiremidjian.--again in a much more detail.
Senator Boxer. Well, I'm glad you said that. And also, the
tsunami threat, particularly for----
Dr. Kiremidjian. Yes.
Senator Boxer.--San Onofre.
Thank you so much. And I look forward to getting our
legislation moving. Because, for every dollar we spend, we save
three.
Dr. Kiremidjian. Four.
Senator Boxer. So, good investment. Four?
Dr. Kiremidjian. Right. Well----
Senator Boxer. Wow.
Dr. Kiremidjian.--we save three.
The Chairman. Well, I have to actually----
Senator Boxer. OK.
Dr. Kiremidjian. After we take the one out.
The Chairman. I beg forgiveness----
Senator Boxer. Very good.
The Chairman. We have to be in our seats at 3:30 for a
highly symbolic and important vote. If you're willing to wait--
yes--we'll come back.
Voice. Sure. All right.
The Chairman. OK?
Voice. It's a deal.
The Chairman. So, this hearing is temporarily recessed.
[Recess.]
The Chairman. We will resume our hearing. And it--I'm
sorry, the vagaries of the Senate, which are many--some good,
many bad--are in operation this afternoon. So, this cannot be
very long. And I say that with sorrow, because you are all so
good and because the subject is so important and complex.
I don't think most people know that the Commerce Committee
has a whole subcommittee and group of experts who deal with
exactly what we're talking about, and--you know, the whole
question of funding and what will NOAA have, what will the
National Weather Service have. All of these are so important.
I want to ask a--what will sound like a controversial
question, but I'm just plain curious. The question of global
warming has its place. I happen to believe in the science of
global warming, and I do believe that part of our problems are
created by people. And--but, I don't know to what level that
reaches. For example, I can't imagine that it creates an
earthquake or, you know, the shifting of plates and things of
that sort. But, I'm just curious if carbon emissions, at some
point, create havoc with, for example, weather patterns or the
shifting of, I don't know, heat sections from here to there, or
whatever. Who would like to answer that?
Mr. Ryan. Kevin Trenberth, who is a eminent researcher at
NCAR, points out--and I think it's fair to say that--and we
tend to think of--for those of us in the meteorological field--
that weather and climate are separate. They are not. You know,
we love to say that weather is what you get and climate is what
you expect. But, the two are integrally linked. And indeed, if,
as the overwhelming number of climate scientists, scientists
working in this field, believe that we are seeing the very
distinct footprints of man's influence on the climate, then
there is part of climate change. And I really, when I talk to
the general public, prefer to talk about climate change,
because it involves many more things than just global warming--
changes in land use, changes in ocean acidification.
So, there is part of--Kevin believes--part of the global
change, climate change, in weather events. If the amount of
water vapor--moisture--in the atmosphere is increasing in a
warmer world, then that increases the probability of more
severe or high precipitation events which could lead to more--a
higher probability of localized flooding.
The Chairman. In that that has taken place measurably, are
there--have there been incidents which you can tie, at least
cerebrally, to, you know, carbon emissions?
Mr. Ryan. I think--I don't think anyone would be
comfortable saying that there is one weather event that we can
pin on man's influence on the climate. However, in the
instances where we're dealing with storm surges and with
inundation in a world, let's say, 50 to 100 years from now, I
think it's fair to say that the probabilities of more coastal
communities being at increased risk for having a once-in-a-
lifetime inundation and flood is probably increasing. And the
probabilities--we all deal with probabilities--and certainty--
unfortunately, the certainty may be there when we're out at 50
to 100 years. The climate doesn't respond to us turning off our
lights all at once. It takes a long time to adjust to
significant changes in long-term patterns, which may be changes
in Earth orbits, the makeup of the atmosphere. It will take a
long time to respond to anything that we do to change in, let's
say, a positive way in mitigation, rather than it adapting to a
changing world.
The Chairman. I thank----
Dr. Hooke. Mr.----
The Chairman.--you. I want to ask one more question.
Dr. Hooke. Mr. Chairman, if I could----
The Chairman. I'm sorry.
Dr. Hooke.--just add to that, because I think it's a very
important question, and----
The Chairman. I do, too.
Dr. Hooke.--Bob gave a good answer. But, it--we talked, a
little bit ago, about how climate is an average of cycles of
flood and drought. So, the Earth is doing its business through
these extremes. And what we call the average is very difficult
to actually measure or compute, given that there are cycles of
hot and cold, and wet and dry, and so on. So, if you think
about sort of a four-star kind of restaurant guide to climate
science, and you give four stars to things that everybody
agrees on, and fewer stars to things that people have trouble
with, everybody would give four stars to the idea that
greenhouse gases are going up and four stars to the idea that,
on the average, that creates a little warming. But, when it
comes--and everybody would say, ``We know that this warming
will have some effect on storm tracks, storm intensity, storm
duration--all those aspects.'' But, then when it comes to what
kind of effect that would be, that's where the real uncertainty
is.
The Chairman. Understood.
I'm pushing a bill very hard--in fact, it's my number-one
priority--and I'm curious as to your reaction to it, because I
think it would be favorable. It strikes me that--just the four
of you, it's sort of like you work together anyway. You phone
call each other every day and exchange information. And I'm
sure that's not true. But, that's the appearance of it. In
other words, there's a kind of a common path that you all are
walking.
We--9/11 is coming up, the tenth anniversary, very shortly.
And, you know, it was made famous in--at Kuwait, when the Army
and the Navy and--you know, nobody could communicate with each
other, because they all had different communication wavelengths
and sets. And it turns out that 10 years--almost 10 years after
9/11, first responders, from firefighters to police officers to
sheriffs to hospital folks--you know, everybody who is involved
with trying to protect the public--they're in the same
situation. States do it state by state, and some don't do a
very good job at it. They take little nuggets of a piece of
spectrum and apply it to something, and it's not efficient.
Now, my bill would--our bill would make 10 megahertz, which
is referred to as the ``D block,'' of spectrum available, on an
interesting basis. Users of spectrum, on a voluntary basis,
could return to the government the spectrum that they are not
using. This would not be mandatory, but it would be voluntary.
It works much better if it's voluntary. And, from that, you get
the White House and others--figure between 28 and 31 billion
dollars.
Now, what you can do is use that for a variety of purposes.
One is, you can--we will definitely have, and it's in our bill,
a spectrum auction so that people can buy back or buy those
pieces of spectrum that they want. And then the question would
be, What would be the priority? The main priority, from my
point of view, would be to have a entirely nationwide single
interoperable wireless broadband communications network in
which, yes, everybody would have to have new hand-held sets--
they would be different; they would cost several thousand
dollars. But, everybody, absolutely everybody in the national
safety network would be on exactly the same wavelength.
I can't think of going into 9/11--the 9/11 Commission
charged us to do this--without having done that. And it can be
done for, some would say, $10-, $11-, $12 billion. But, you
see, if you're going to get 28 to 31, you've got some margin.
You need to put some research into that. You need to do some
upgrading of technology, as it happens, for that. And then you
can also probably use $9- or $10 billion of that for deficit
reduction. Originally, that was what everybody wanted to do,
just get it all and then use it all for deficit reduction.
But, the 9/11 compulsion and moral obligation is
overwhelming. And so, some of us are pushing very, very hard
for this purpose. All mayors, all police officers, all public
safety officials, all Governors--you know, everybody is for it.
It doesn't mean it'll pass, but it's--the President's strongly
for it, the FCC is for it--was a little bit skeptical at first,
but is now very much for it. So, in other words, all the pieces
are in place.
And what I'm obviously rather blatantly doing is asking you
whether you think it's a good idea.
Mr. Ryan. Why is everybody looking at the broadcaster?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Ryan. I think communication, which I had talked about,
is critically important, going forward--how we make decisions,
how we can help the emergency managers better communicate and
better prepare for these extreme emergencies, whether they be
natural or manmade. And anything that, I think, allows for a
wide and effective communication across multi-agencies that
will then better serve the public, I think would certainly be
supported.
On the other hand, we who are an integral part of
communication in weather emergencies or other extreme events
feel that we have, certainly, our public obligation, as holders
of the--part of the public spectrum, too, to then serve the
public. And, as we saw in the example that I cited, of last
week, with broadcast meteorologists being on the air sometimes
15 hours straight, and those are the last stop, if you will.
Those are the people that still, in this day and age of hand-
held devices and mobile devices and multi-frequency and laptops
and so forth, still turn on the TV to see the person that is in
their community, that they know and trust, to help them make a
decision.
So, I think it has to be--certainly, I agree with you 100
percent, but we still communicate best one-to-one and help each
other make decisions. And the current system is still an
integral part of what would be a great step forward in
coordination, if you will, of communication of emergencies and
emergency information. But----
The Chairman. Mr. Ryan, I mentioned, I thought rather
forcefully, the use of the word ``voluntary''----
[Laughter.]
The Chairman.--and that really is the key to it.
Mr. Ryan. Yes.
The Chairman. In other words, you really do have, in
states, when the--for example, West Virginia and Ohio can't
talk to each other.
Mr. Ryan. Right.
The Chairman. It's embarrassing. But, the state has a
system, and it's a--little bits of spectrum here and there. And
it's not fully functional. It's not subject to the larger
national approach. So, I'm going to put you down as a yes.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Hooke. I was going to say, it's----
The Chairman. The networks have no problem with this.
Dr. Hooke. It's easier, from my perspective, to be
enthusiastic about this. As long as I can remember, everyone in
the hazards community--and I think Anne's going to----
Dr. Kiremidjian. Yes.
Dr. Hooke.--say something similar--is--this has come up in
every kind of disaster, that people have looked at the
emergency response and it's like a Tower of Babel out there;
you've just got people who cannot reach each other, there's no
set of protocols, and so on. And it's important, I think, that
the Senate take some step to start a national exploration of--
you know, the chances of getting something as complicated as
that correct the first time are slim, but if you put it into
place, you can quickly refine it and improve it, and it would
be wonderful to be better off 10 years from now than we are
today with regard to this issue.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Dr. Hooke. And so, put me down for a yes.
The Chairman. I will do that.
Dr. Kiremidjian. I think Bill articulated it very well. And
I will just add that I'm surprised that we haven't done
anything yet, that we're still talking about doing it. I was
under the impression that we are already doing that.
The Chairman. We're not.
Dr. Kiremidjian. I am shocked and disappointed. But, I'm
glad to see that you're pushing for it.
The Chairman. Good.
Dr. Dawson.
Dr. Dawson. Well, I work with people, indirectly, through
the state operations center at--in the Texas Governor's
Division of Emergency Management. And I'm sure that they would
support this. For example, as you mentioned, West Virginia and
Virginia can't talk to each other. Well, neither can Texas and
Louisiana. And in a hurricane situation, it's--that has been
quite disastrous.
The Chairman. I have a very unhappy Senator from the State
of Florida who is looking at--I am--that I've gone almost 8
minutes over my time. But, I now yield, dutifully, to him.
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator Nelson. Do I look unhappy, Mr. Chairman?
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. You never do.
Senator Nelson. Well, may I enter a opening statement for
the record, please?
The Chairman. Absolutely. It's--it is entered.
[The prepared statement of Senator Nelson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bill Nelson, U.S. Senator from Florida
Mr. Chairman, I am glad that we are discussing a concern that is so
important to the folks of my State of Florida and throughout the
country: the possible devastation that natural disasters such as
hurricanes, tornadoes, and earthquakes can leave. And tragically, we
have witnessed some of devastation play out over the past weeks with
the deadly tornadoes throughout Alabama and the south, the March 2011
earthquake in Japan, and the approaching the 2011 hurricane season,
where scientists predict 16 named tropical storms, 9 of which to become
hurricanes.
Damage from natural disasters is certainly not new to Floridians.
On September 1926, the Great Miami Hurricane was an indication of
things to come. Two years later, a category four hurricane caused Lake
Okeechobee to flood its banks killing 2,500 out of South Florida's
50,000 residents. In August 1992, Hurricane Andrew struck South Florida
causing an estimated $26 billion in damage to the United States. In
August of 2005, we all know the destruction Hurricane Katrina caused
through Gulf Coast region, causing more than $91 billion in economic
losses, forcing more than 770,000 people from their homes, and killing
an estimated 1,833 people.
The sheer magnitude of this loss is staggering and underscores the
need for increased funding for hurricane research and improved
forecasting. But hurricanes and natural disasters do not just affect
those living along the coasts. These extreme events have national
consequences from increased fuel prices to severe inland flooding.
Improvements in track and intensity forecasts mean better
preparedness for coastal and inland communities, saving lives and
reducing devastating impacts. Accurate, timely, and detailed
information is essential for emergency managers to make decisions and
disseminate information to the public. And the issues that we are
discussing today clearly call for prudent investments that will protect
lives and prevent economic devastation, reducing our vulnerability to
hurricanes.
One way to protect lives and prevent economic destruction is
through improved coordination and investment in hurricane research. A
bill before this committee that I introduced, the National Hurricane
Research Initiative Act of 2011, will dramatically expand the scope of
fundamental research on hurricanes, enhancing data collection and
analysis in critical research areas, and translating of research
results into improved forecasts and planning. When fully implemented,
the National Hurricane Research Initiative will improve our
understanding and prediction of hurricanes and other tropical cyclones,
including, storm tracking and prediction, storm surge modeling, and
inland flood modeling. This research will expand our understanding of
the impacts of hurricanes on and response of society and help us to
develop infrastructure that is resilient to the forces associated with
hurricanes. We never know when the next natural disaster will strike.
This type of research is urgently needed, and that research needs to be
well coordinated.
But, even with possible legislation like the National Hurricane
Research Initiative and the Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011
introduced by Senator Boxer, there remain areas left unaddressed. For
example, one significant area is that NOAA needs $800 million for its
JPSS, the Joint Polar Satellite System. JPSS is an elaborate satellite
system used to track environmental conditions, and collect and data on
weather, oceans, land. It allows forecasters and scientists to generate
and compile data into complex models to predict and prepare. JPSS
provides consistency in collecting data and developing complex
predictive models and investment in such systems are integral in our
natural disaster preparedness. A lapse in JPSS monitoring could risk
missed forecasting signs for severe weather and natural disasters
including hurricanes and tornadoes, something I and the rest of the
American people do not want to have happen.
I'd like to thank the witnesses for being here today. I look
forward to your testimony and valuable commentary regarding these
important concerns.
Senator Nelson. And before I get to the subject matter of,
``Is Federal investment paying off?'' I want to say to Mr.
Ryan, your profession--before we had a lot of Federal
investment on national disaster preparedness, your profession
was key. For example, remember the name Brian Norcross, in a
Miami TV station, that stayed on the air when we were so
unprepared for the monster hurricane, Hurricane Andrew, that
hit south Miami Dade County, a relatively unpopulated part? Had
it turned 1 degree to the north and hit downtown Miami or the
area in between Miami and Fort Lauderdale, it would have been a
$50-$75 billion insurance-loss hurricane. As it turned out--and
this is 1992 dollars--it was a--almost a $20 billion insurance-
loss hurricane. It would have taken down every insurance
company, financially, that it was in the path. And then, of
course--and this is just to say to Mr. Ryan, that his
profession--no telling how many lives were saved because of
Brian Norcross staying on the air and telling people what to do
when we were basically unprepared.
You know, hurricanes are a way of life in Florida. And when
I grew up as a kid, it was an excuse to get out of school.
Later, when I was a bachelor, it was an excuse to have a party.
Now, since we've had so many people that have moved to Florida
and the coast is so urbanized, now it is--for a monster, it is
unmitigated disaster in economic loss and loss of life.
So, turning to the question, ``Are we better prepared,
federally, to meet these kind of disasters?'' I think the
answer is clearly yes. But, I think it happens to be on who is
running an organization like FEMA or NOAA and so forth. And
fortunately, right now we have a couple of good ones that are
running those organizations.
But, there are some troubling signs. For example, NOAA
needs about $800 million for a satellite called the JPSS--Joint
Polar Satellite System, something like that, JPSS--which would
complement the existing array of weather satellites that we
have up. And yet, how in the world are we going to get $800
million? And yet, they need it now.
Or, what about the troubled life of a satellite called
Triana that has now been made over into a satellite called
DSCOVR and needs to be launched that will tell us about the
solar explosions? There are nuclear explosions on the surface
of the sun. And if we don't have a warning from a satellite--
and we've got military satellites out there now that'll give us
a warning, but they're just about at their end of life--and we
can't give a sufficient warning before all of those cosmic rays
hit the Earth or hit our satellites in orbit around the Earth
so that they can get into the safe position to protect against
that radiation, we can suddenly go blind. And yet, to try to
get that satellite up is another one that we've been struggling
with. And I hope we're on a path now, because the Air Force
realizes that it is so important, to get that satellite into
orbit.
And it orbits, Mr. Chairman, in a place that is called, the
``LaGrange Point.'' It's at the point that the Earth's
gravitational pull, between Earth and sun, stops and the sun's
gravitational pull starts, so that it sits right there. And
another thing that it'll do, it'll have a camera back--since it
sits in a fixed position between the sun and the Earth, it'll
have a camera looking right back at Earth. This is a second
instrument on the satellite. And we will see our Earth as it
completely goes through its 24-hour turn every day. We'll be
able to look at our planet from approximately a million miles
away, seeing this incredible planet that we have.
So, any of you, would you please comment on the necessity
for these kinds of satellites.
Dr. Hooke. Well, that's a wonderful speech, and I'm
strongly supportive. In fact, I was hoping, when the Chair was
talking about $30 billion which showed up out of nowhere, that
perhaps $800 million of that might be spared for this one
particular satellite.
I said something about that in my opening remarks. And I'd
like to reemphasize it. The whole process of developing
warnings for weather that represents a threat is kind of a
multi-day process. And it's not enough, even in the case of a
tornado, when you're tracking it on the radar and you've got
the 20 minutes of warning that Bob talked about. If people
weren't prepared that morning--``This is a dangerous day. I
need to pay attention to what the radar is going to be showing
later in the day''--they're not going to be prepared.
Similarly, they won't be prepared in the morning if they didn't
see some hint of it, you know, a day earlier.
And the fact of the matter is that the polar orbiting
satellite provided about a 4- or 5-day head start on seeing
this system that caused us so much trouble last week. And each
day--and this is the important part of taking those satellite
data and putting them into the models--if you put them in the
models and, 5 days out, it says, ``Gee, it looks like Wednesday
is going to be a bad day,'' but then, 4 days out, it says,
``Oh, call that whole thing off. Wednesday looks OK,'' and
then, 3 days out, it says, ``Whoops, we were wrong. Wednesday's
back in the picture,'' people don't know how to be prepared.
And what's vital about that polar satellite system is that
it makes the difference, in terms of these models. And we've
seen this not only in the U.S. models, but also in the European
models, and being able to provide that consistency, day in and
day out, as that hazardous period, that interval that's going
to be dangerous, approaches. So, I think you really hit the
mark with that comment.
Mr. Ryan. And if--Senator, if I might add, as you--Brian
Norcross, of course, did, really, a lifetime of work in the few
days that he was on and literally saved lives and was so well
recognized. And yet, Andrew was just one hurricane that struck
the United States that year. That was the only one. So, we
cannot be complacent about, ``Oh, the predictions and the
outlooks for X number of hurricanes.'' All it does is take one.
And Bill has been working--has done a lot of work on the
improvement and the advance of the science in being able to
narrow the landfall. That is certainly a continuing issue. A
continuing research is landfall and trying to narrow the
probability of landfall--landfalling hurricanes. As you well
know, the economic value of being able to decrease the
envelope, if you will, of landfall can have--be paid off in
millions and millions of dollars in unnecessary evacuations.
So, when we look at the cost of some of these systems, and
turning on or turning off systems, and where we have made--and
the progress we've made in the fundamental understanding of,
one, hurricanes, but also the ability to predict ever more
accurately the path and the probabilities of landfall, the
economic value of that and the advances that we've made far,
far outweighs, by many, many times, the risk that we are taking
by terminating a program and then trying to restart it in 2 or
3 years when we find out we've lost something.
Senator Nelson. Mr. Chairman, if I could just make the
final observation----
The Chairman. Well, then I'll have to say something first,
because it won't be final.
[Laughter.]
Senator Nelson. No, I'm talking about me making my final
observation.
The Chairman. Well, I know, but I've got to go do a bunch
of things. I was hoping, if you could--if you had questions,
that you could stay and just do this.
Can I just make one observation?
Senator Nelson. Sure, sure.
The Chairman. And that is that, really, actually, we
haven't even been very square with you. The point of this
hearing is, in fact, to put, in terms of lives of people and
destruction, mass destruction of land, and hopes and futures
and all the rest of it, in the context of what we are now going
through, which is our budget. And the only budget which exists
is--has been passed, vigorously, by the House. And, with the
exception of Social Security, it would take every--just out of
the discretionary part of the budget--it would cut government
by 50 percent--money, people, the whole works. That's why we're
doing this, in part: to hear you explain why--as well as
Senator Nelson--why you need to have certain things in order to
save lives and to give people an orderly hope for their own
futures, much less you all having a sense, as a scientific
community of practitioners and researchers, a good feeling
about your future.
I mean we are at such a critical, drastic point. And the
whole question of defaulting on our national debt and all of
that is staring us in the face, and we're having to make
decisions, and we want to hear from people from people like you
about what happens if, for example, this solar satellite
doesn't exist. And I think both of you have spoken to that. So,
that's just a little bit of context.
And you've been very, very helpful in that.
And if I have your permission, Senator Nelson--Senator
Nelson and I are very good friends, and we give each other a
very hard time--may I turn this all over to you?
Senator Nelson. Are you sure that you want to?
The Chairman. Absolutely.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. I trust you fervently.
Senator Nelson. [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It has been a pleasure
to be here.
Senator Nelson. I just want to make the observation that,
whereas we have been able to be so sophisticated in our
computer modeling and doing a lot of the things, that you all
just described, which save a lot of lives and save a lot of
money, nevertheless the insurance industry is still set in its
ways in economic computer modeling that determines insurance
rates and will let--not let the regulatory governmental
organizations see their proprietary information of what goes
into those computer models and, therefore, what they are
charging in rates. And of course, if you are in a higher-hazard
area for storm, hurricane, whatever it is--floods--the rates
are going to be much higher.
And I'd like any comment that you all have of prying open
the can of these computer models by insurance companies to
determine if these are accurate rates that they are charging.
Dr. Hooke. I'd like to comment on that. And it's a little
piece of responsiveness and a little piece of shabby self-
interest.
So, the insurance problem, as you know, is an extremely
complicated one. And the insurance companies don't come in a
single flavor, do they? I mean, we've got reinsurance, and
we've got property and casualty, and we've got commercial and
different things. And the way they--and then we've got states
who are taking on some of the insurance and--you know,
proposals floated to have the Federal Government do the same
thing. So, it's worth discussion.
It--from the standpoint of a bystander, it has similarities
to the healthcare debate, you know, and where the insurance
will come from and what all that means and, you know, how we
might live healthier lifestyles and reduce health costs and all
the rest of that. So, I see some similarities.
So, this is a very important topic. And I think you've
said, extremely well, that we have to get it right, we have to
keep working on it, because if I'm a homeowner and I'm trying
to live where I've lived the last 10 years, and suddenly I
can't get insurance because it's no longer available, that's a
catastrophe as bad as if the hurricane actually hit, isn't it?
So, it's a terrible thing.
The shabby part: So, the American Meteorological Society,
which might not be the organization that you think of as doing
this, has had a couple of dialogues between the Commerce
Department, particularly, and the insurance industry over the
last 10 or 15 years. And we would be very interested in hosting
a similar kind of dialogue now.
Now, I'm looking around the meeting and I see people with
IQs in three digits, and we all know that there are enough
meetings already. But, I think that such a meeting, which the
AMS would be willing to host and provide kind of a neutral
ground for insurers and the government, the way we have in the
past, would be useful toward resolving some of the issues that
you bring up. And in fact, you might have enough convening
power that if people knew you were going to be present at this
meeting, even for a small period, it would be electrifying, in
terms of the response.
Senator Nelson. Well, thanks to all of you for a most
illuminating panel. We are very appreciative.
Does the staff have any further questions? OK.
Thank you. Good afternoon.
The meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:40 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Prepared Statement of Hon. Tom Udall, U.S. Senator from New Mexico
I would like to thank Chairman Rockefeller for holding this
important hearing. In recent weeks and months natural disasters have
dominated news broadcasts and left many of our loved ones, friends, and
citizens with damages and injuries.
In New Mexico widespread and intense drought has left farms,
grassland, and forests dry and vulnerable. Already this spring, New
Mexico has experienced dozens of wildfires. Almost daily new fires are
identified and responses are organized. All of New Mexico's Federal,
state, and tribal land managers are on alert fighting to contain
wildfires through wick response and safe management.
I commend these local and Federal officials who have coordinated
efforts across the state, resulting in what the public has recognized
as well organized and productive responses to the fires.
As the skies remain clear and the land continues to dry, we can
surely expect more fires and the associated difficulty for New Mexico's
landowners and citizens. Already the USDA has recognized the hardship
weighing on producers in New Mexico and is responding with the
appropriate disaster assistance.
With severe weather and a troubled economy, this is a difficult
time for all Americans. I again thank Chairman Rockefeller for keeping
the preparedness for natural disasters a focus of this Congress, and I
urge my colleagues to remember the value of preparedness and quick
response as we enter the FY12 Appropriations debates.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mark Warner, U.S. Senator from Virginia
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to include this
statement in the record, at this most difficult time.
Just last week, on April 27 and 28, tornados and other severe
weather tore through the southern United States, including Virginia. In
addition, Virginia faced several other severe storms earlier in the
month and had tremendously affected areas including Goochland, Halifax,
Pulaski, Rockingham, Shenandoah, Smyth, Washington and other Virginia
counties.
Although the evaluation of damage is still underway, initial
reports coming out of Virginia show that the weather was responsible
for the tragic loss of at least five lives and damage of more than 400
homes and other buildings. Furthermore, as of Friday, at least 6,000
people were still without power. Trees are still downed and countless
acres of farmland are damaged. At this critical moment we must keep in
mind the needs of all Americans affected by this severe weather, and do
all that we can to help them restore their livelihoods.
Virginia has suffered from natural disasters as have all states.
The challenge is that the government has limited resources and natural
disasters typically occur with less than ideal warning. We need to find
the best ways to combine State, Federal, and private sector resources
to become aware of, plan for, and recover from natural disasters. The
question is, how best to use our resources? As a former Governor, I
believe technology can be a large part of the solution, whether we
focus on improving early warning systems or tasks such as building an
interoperable public safety network. We should focus on leveraging our
best-available technology to protect our citizens and make the most of
the planning opportunities.
The leaders at all levels of government must highlight the need for
a renewed and increased focus on improving our emergency preparedness
measures. In the aftermath of previous national disasters such as
Hurricane Katrina and the unexpected recent earthquakes and tsunami in
Japan, many Americans still wonder whether local, state, and Federal
Governments will be prepared to offer assistance when they need it the
most.
Mr. Chairman, as we work to provide support for those affected by
recent severe weather, we must be relentless in preparing for the next
event. I look forward to working with you and other colleagues to
ensure that we do all that we can to plan for natural and other
disasters and respond appropriately one strikes.
Thank you.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV
to William H. Hooke, Ph.D.
Question 1. Throughout your career, including during your tenure as
Deputy and Acting Chief Scientist of NOAA, you have focused on
determining the most effective policies to reduce the negative societal
impacts from natural disasters. Can you tell me some of the key
recommendations that you have provided to Congress in the past for
reducing the harm to the citizens and the economy of the United States
caused by natural disasters?
Answer. There were several:
1. With Max Mayfield, former director of the National Hurricane
Center, I supported the establishment of a new Federal agency,
which would be an analog to the National Transportation Safety
Board, but for natural disasters. The concept is described more
fully in a paper Gina Eosco and I published in the Bulletin of
the American Meteorological Society: it is on the web at http:/
/journals.ametsoc.org/toc/bams/87/6.
2. I have supported the call of the Association of State
Floodplain Managers for a No Adverse Impact policy with respect
to floodplain land use and building codes, as described in much
greater detail on the ASFPM website. See, for example the
material at: http://www.floods.org/index.asp?menuID=349&first
levelmenuID=187&siteID=1.
3. I have supported the recommendation of the National Academy
of Sciences National Research Council The Impacts of Natural
Disasters: A Framework for Loss Estimation, published in 1999
and online at: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6425
to the effect that the U.S. Department of Commerce should keep
track of U.S. losses to natural hazards.
4. I have recommended that the U.S. Department of Commerce
offer resources to the private sector to maintain business
continuity in the face of hazards, and that it develop formal
coordination mechanisms (analogous, say, to fisheries
management councils) with the private sector for this purpose.
Question 2. Which of these recommendations have been implemented to
date?
Answer. None.
Question 3. In your opinion, what are the main obstacles to the
implementation of these recommendations?
Answer. The first two would require Federal funding (although they
would reduce hazard losses and therefore increase incomes and tax
revenues by amounts many times larger than their cost). Some
conservatives might choose to argue that these measures constrain
individual freedoms, though again this objection is more rhetorical
than substantive.
Question 4. The National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program was
created in 2004, but to date has received little funding--just $7.5
million out of the total $71.5 million authorized. What is the greatest
challenge we face in minimizing damage from windstorms?
Answer. Building codes and zoning that would require safer
construction techniques (such as roof straps and other measures--these
are inexpensive but not cost free), including construction of safe
rooms and/or tornado shelters (these are more expensive, and will not
save property but will save lives). However, for those most part, these
measures are the province of the states, not the Federal Government.
The Federal Government could require that state and local governments
take such measures in order to receive Federal disaster assistance.
The greatest challenge, however, the fundamental challenge, is that
we although we know how to reduce wind damage, it always comes at
greater cost, and this means a tradeoff between safety and
affordability, especially for lower-income families.
Question 5. With limited resources, what windstorm risk reduction
activities should the government prioritize?
Answer. The primary activities should be those that provide
information that states, counties, and cities can use to estimate their
risks and consider wind hazard reduction options.
Question 6. You have mentioned the tension between funding for
research on short-term projects rather than for long term priorities.
Your fellow witness, Dr. Kiremidjian, has described the results of the
33-year focus on earthquakes provided by NEHRP. If long-term funding
were available, what projects would you undertake that you currently
cannot?
Answer. Phased-array radar development and implementation; an
expanded U.S. Weather Research Program; and social-science research
into the economic value of warnings, the communication of risk and
warnings, the behavior of society in the face of risk, and other social
factors contributing to natural disaster reduction.
Question 7. While we know that mitigation saves lives and money,
you bring up the excellent point that we have no standardized way to
know how much disasters cost, let alone how much we might save. What
should we be measuring and who should be measuring it?
Answer. We should be measuring loss of life, injuries, property
damage, and business disruption. The Department of Commerce should
maintain the records, but work with FEMA and state and local agencies
to gather the data. See the NAS/NRC report cited above: http://
www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6425.
Question 8. You suggest in your testimony that warning systems are
crucial for helping those in danger save themselves. The Administration
recently announced an overhaul of the color-code terrorism alerting
system. Do you think it is appropriate to develop and use a universal
alerting system for incidents of all kinds, or does it make more sense
to keep alerting systems separate?
Answer. Universal warnings lead to public confusion, especially
where the desired behavior (e.g., shelter in place vs. evacuate; seek
higher ground (flooding), versus go to the basement (tornadoes) differs
depending on the hazard. However, complicated separate warning systems
require frequent public drills and programs to educate and build
awareness in order to be effective.
Question 9. Have you had a chance to review the new terrorism
system to determine any applicability to natural disasters?
Answer. No, I have not.
Question 10. What specific steps should the Federal Government
pursue to communicate messages in a more timely and efficient manner?
Answer. Hazard watches and warnings are relatively well executed.
However, getting the information that last mile to people who are out
and about, or home asleep, or otherwise oblivious or unaware of the
threat they face, is the problem. What's needed are not only good
warnings, but pre-positioning of shelters and programs to build public
situational awareness, especially of the actions they should be taking.
Children need to know what to do. Adults who are separated from their
children need to know those children are being protected. And as
society changes, new social research is needed to track the
implications for warning systems.
Question 11. How can social media sites be leveraged to provide
more timely information?
Answer. I'm afraid I don't have expertise in this area.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
William H. Hooke, Ph.D.
Question 1. In your statement you mentioned that $800 million is
needed to launch the Joint Polar Satellite System. Dr. Lubchenco stated
in a recent NOAA budget hearing that there will be at least an 18-month
gap in polar satellite coverage. How will this 18 month gap impact
weather forecasting and modeling?
Answer. There will be a real deterioration in the accuracy of
forecasts and warnings. I've been told that this will degrade such
forecasts to the lower quality that existed twenty years ago. In
today's society, it's not enough to have a few hours' notice of a
tornado or other hazard. Emergency managers and others need several
days' notice of increasing threat in order to begin mobilizing. It's
essential that the forecasts over such an interval of several days be
giving a consistent message of decreasing or increasing threat.
Oscillations back and forth between ``threat'' or ``no threat'' in the
run-up a few days prior to the threat compromise preparation, the
entire warning process, and public safety, and increase false alarms.
Question 2. Washington State will be disproportionately affected by
the gap in satellite coverage. Do you propose any alternate weather
prediction methods during that time to protect human life, property and
economies?
Answer. I know of no available measures that will compensate for
this gap.
Question 3. Are there privately owned, or international satellites
that can help fill this gap in coverage?
Answer. None that I know of.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Roger F. Wicker to
William H. Hooke, Ph.D.
Question 1. Last week five southern states, including Mississippi,
experienced devastating tornadoes that resulted in hundreds of lives
lost and extensive property damage. Early warning systems alerted those
in danger to the threat an average of 24 minutes prior to tornadoes
touching the ground. However, many residents in southern states do not
have safe escape options to fit that timeframe. What research is being
conducted to improve advanced warning systems for tornadoes?
Answer. The Senator raises an excellent question, which goes at the
heart of the issue. The simple fact is that 24 minutes of warning does
not provide adequate lead time for those in harm's way. The entire
approach of the National Weather Service, and emergency managers at
both state and local levels, is aimed at a comprehensive strategy for
managing tornado risk. That strategy begins years in advance in
tornado-prone areas, through efforts to build awareness and support
building codes that strengthen homes against tornado damage, provide
for safe rooms within those homes, or underground tornado shelters
offering quick access, provide education in the public schools, and all
the rest. It continues at the beginning of each tornado season with
special efforts designed to build public awareness. From this point on,
the effort focuses on outlooks and warnings. The goal is to begin to
let the affected public know as much as several days in advance that a
state (like Mississippi) or an extended region will be at higher-than-
normal tornado risk for the next few days. Then, as time passes, the
subsequent outlooks, watches, and warnings then seek to refine the area
and the time interval at risk, right down to the actual tornado warning
itself. The basic principle is that the public can't be expected to
maintain a high state of alert all the time, but rather only for brief
periods.
Research is currently underway at NOAA, and at universities
sponsored by NSF and NASA, to improve every link of this chain, from
characterization of the areas at climatological risk, to the 3-5-day
forecast, to forecasts the morning of, to the radar detection of the
tornadoes. Emphasis is primarily on the physical development of and/or
presence of the tornado. Big-ticket research items include the
numerical modeling of warm-season weather, the adaptation of JPSS data
for this purpose, and the development of phased array radars. More
support is needed for social science, especially the communication of
tornado risk. We ought to be as disciplined in our approach to how we
warn as we are to the quality of those forecasts themselves
Question 2. How is science being used to better protect citizens
and property from catastrophic events such as those that occurred last
week?
Answer. As indicated above, the science is directed at extending
the time horizon; improving the accuracy of tornado outlooks, watches,
and warning; and the communication of those warnings to the public.
Question 3. There are several Federal agencies that support
national weather prediction and natural hazard preparedness. There is
also a great deal of research on natural hazards that is carried out by
academic institutions and the private sector. How are efforts by the
Federal Government utilizing resources available through academic
institutions and the private sector? In what ways could this be
improved?
Answer. NOAA and the National Weather Service provide some academic
research funding themselves, and also work with NASA and NSF to
coordinate that academic funding and ensure that research progress is
translated into societal benefit. Much of this is accomplished through
means such as the U.S. Weather Research Program. However, this program
is funded at levels much below what had originally been envisioned.
More resources for this program could accelerate the societal benefit
substantially, at modest cost.
Question 4. Can the government leverage resources through academic
and private entities to advance natural hazard preparedness while
saving costs to the American taxpayer?
Answer. The reality is that virtually all of this academic work is
accomplished only through the use of Federal funding from NOAA, NASA,
and NSF. There's very little opportunity for additional leveraging
here.
Question 5. Hurricane Katrina devastated thousands of homes in
Mississippi and Louisiana. Following the storm there were disputes
regarding wind versus water damage to coastal properties and how
residents should be compensated for their losses by insurers of wind
versus the National Flood Insurance Program for flood damage. These
disputes have been litigated for years in the courts, further delaying
recovery of the Gulf Coast. Does the proper science and technology
exist today that could tell us, with reasonable certainty, wind speeds
and storm surge levels during a hurricane that could allow for a better
understanding of how these perils impacted coastal properties? In other
words, can reliable scientific data be collected to better assess wind
and water property damage following a hurricane?
Answer. Another excellent question, and one highlighting an
opportunity before the Senate to improve national policy. The answer to
the question itself is regardless of the level of science and
technology, it will always be possible, in a certain class of cases, to
distinguish between wind versus water damage to coastal properties. But
regardless of the level of that science and technology, there will
always be an additional class of cases where the prior cause will be in
dispute. It will be possible, by improving the science and technology,
to shift slightly, the class of homes at issue, but not by very much.
There is an analogy here to a similar problem many of us face every
day. At my work, phone service is provided by an Internet provider.
That provider uses cabling and other infrastructure that belongs to the
building where we rent our office space. Then the phone lines are
linked to a carrier (Verizon in our case, I believe), once they reach
the street. Sometimes our phone service goes down. Often it's clear
whether the problem rests with our VOIP, the building, or the outside
phone service. But not always. Then we're in dispute with all three as
to where the problem lies.
So, fundamentally, we have created a problem with regard to
insurance coverage by our policy decision to separate flood insurance
from wind insurance. My understanding of the history of this is that
flood insurance was thought to be inherently difficult for private-
sector insurers to handle because flood events are rare but when they
do happen they impact every home in a large area. Home insurance got
its start 100 years ago when the primary cause of home loss was fire,
which would occur relatively frequently, but only affect a home here or
there. This allowed for actuarial approaches to work well. However,
with the rise of private-sector reinsurance, the industry is much
better equipped today to handle flood loss.
Recognizing this, some property and casualty insurers have begun to
offer to their customers, at a premium, insurance against flood and
wind under a single policy. For the homeowner or business owner, this
represents an alternative to the National Flood Insurance Program.
[Something similar is happening in health care, where those who are
able and willing can attain a higher level of patient service.]
I thank the Senator for these thoughtful questions and the chance
to discuss the issues they raise. Working together, scientists,
forecasters, emergency managers, homebuilders, insurers, and the
general public can reduce the risks tornadoes pose. These issues matter
to me and to the American Meteorological Society, and we would be happy
to discuss them further if that would be helpful.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV
to Robert Ryan
Question 1. In my own state of West Virginia, flash floods are a
too common event, and they cause tremendous harm including loss of
life, homes, and jobs. But I also understand that NOAA has been able to
improve the lead time available for flash flood warnings from an
average of 10 minutes to about 75 minutes. Can you explain to me how
this came about? Specifically, what technological changes were made to
allow the greater lead time?
Answer. There have been two significant advances that have lead to
the increase in flash flood warning lead time. The nationwide use of
the government/taxpayer funded NWS Doppler radars has allowed
meteorologists to ``integrate'' the water in storms and especially
thunderstorms and to accurately measure rainfall rates. The second
significant advance has been in utilizing the highly accurate
geophysical measurements now unavailable of stream and river basins and
drainage areas to then give us a way of estimating the flooding
potential for certain rainfall rates. The NWS Advanced Hydrologic
Prediction Service (http://water.weather.gov/ahps/) is now providing
operational river and stream flood guidance to local NWS offices. This
combined with the integration of input from various NOAA/NWS forecast
centers (Storm Prediction Center, HPC-Hydrometeorological Prediction
Center and local NWS WFO (Weather Forecast Office)) have provided the
significant increase in flood accuracy and advanced warning. The public
response to these warnings, especially for flash flooding events that
are extreme, life threatening and may only occur once in 20 or 50 years
is still as much a social science issue as a meteorological issue.
Question 2. While certainly the improvements that have made to date
are extremely important, we should never be complacent. In your view,
what more should be done in the coming years at the Federal level to
ensure that we have a system in place to provide the public with as
much notice as possible, and the best opportunity to keep families and
homes and businesses safe?
Answer. We have to make sure that the basic structure we have in
place of fundamental, critical funding for the NOAA/NWS operations from
satellites, to weather radars, ground based observations, super
computers and support for applied and fundamental research is never
compromised or degraded. If we agree that one of the fundamental
purposes of any government is the protection of the lives and property
of its citizens, few government organizations do that day in and day
out to the extent and value that we taxpayers receive from our Nation's
weather services and NOAA/NWS. Funding for one of the most critical and
economically beneficial segments of our government should never be
unnecessarily reduced or endangered for political purposes.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Robert Ryan
Question 1. As a prominent meteorologist who recognizes the need to
incorporate social science research into natural hazards risk reduction
measures, is there value in cellphone and other novel early warning
system communications technology?
Answer. Given the still unpredictable nature of earthquakes any
mobile warning is not feasible but there is great value in mobile
warning systems for tsunami. As we saw in the tragic tsunami in Japan,
in some areas a tsunami may follow an undersea earthquake in a matter
of minutes. The time for warning and action is a similar time scale to
warning and action with tornadoes. Communication of the warning and
importantly, what action to take, though the use of smart phones and
other mobile devices I believe can have life saving value. NOAA/NWS is
working with FEMA on a program called IPAS (Integrated Public Alert and
Warning System) recently outlined to over 200 attendees at the just
concluded AMS conference on broadcast meteorology and Weather Warnings
and Communication. Here is an outline of the program presented to the
broadcast meteorologists: http://ams.confex.com/ams/39BROADCAST/
webprogram/Paper188896.html.
Question 2. Do you see this type of warning system as a way to save
lives in the event of a natural disaster in the United States?
Answer. Most definitely. My answer above with the example of the
joint NOAA/NWS/FEMA program does address this.
Question 3. As you stated that the communication of severe weather
warnings, by both traditional and new media, is critical to saving
lives and reducing economic damage. You also indicated that how a
message is sent is just as critical as the information it contains
about severe weather. What are the specific gaps in the current
communications used to inform the public that are preventing critical
information from reaching individuals?
Answer. The false alarm rate for tornado warnings is still about 70
percent. That is 70 percent of the time a ``tornado warning'' is not
followed by an actual tornado. The warnings are based primarily on
detection of rotation in the thunderstorms sometimes 1000s of feet
above the ground that may not produce a tornado or an observation of a
funnel cloud which also often may not led to the funnel reaching the
ground as a tornado. The critical information is still the risk/
severity of the event whether it is the tornado warning, a hurricane
warning, flood warning etc. which better communicates the magnitude/
risk of the event. The tornado warning siren network in many states is
an effective way of sounding an alarm or risk but many feel it is
overused by emergency managers and could be made more selective with
the current NWS warning capabilities to only sound sirens for those
communities in the path of possible tornadoes rather than entire
counties which cover thousands of square miles. Over warning may lead
to public complacency in the face of a great risk from say an EF3 or
EF4 or EF5 tornado, as opposed to a slight risk from a small EF0
tornado. The entire weather enterprise community (NWS, broadcasters,
emergency managers, social scientists) need to work together to more
effectively communicate the level of risk through all media using
common language to help the public make the best weather and life
threatening weather related decision. There are now a multitude of ways
of communicating critical weather information and weather warnings to
the public. There is a gap in communicating the actual risk and what
action individuals should take. About 40 percent of the public still
does not know the difference between a weather ``watch'' and a
``warning''. We as a community should seriously look at the words and
terminology we use to communicate risk to facilitate best
decisionmaking.
Question 4. Has there been success in improving disaster warnings
so that more individuals choose to follow instructions on how to stay
safe during the emergency?
Answer. I think the public outreach/education efforts of both NWS
and private partners (local broadcasters, emergency managers, media
such as The Weather Channel) have been very helpful in having the
public understand any danger and take action. Efforts to reach out to
our young people though school programs are very beneficial. Students
often will learn what to do in weather emergency at school and go home
to ``educate'' their parents. The issue of what we say to have everyone
make the correct choice, weather related decision when the weather
threat may be a once in a lifetime experience (a Joplin tornado, a
``Katrina'', a ``Blizzard of 96'' etc.) is a challenge. Again
meteorologists, trained as physical scientists, may not always be the
best at effective communication. A social science based program at NCAR
called WAS*IS http://www.sip.ucar.edu/wasis/ has been very successful,
bringing NWS forecasters to summer workshops to better understand
social and communication science issues and should be further supported
and expanded.
Question 5. How are agencies collaborating with the media to ensure
that we continue to develop and employ the best possible methods to
reach United States citizens during a natural disaster? If agencies and
media are not collaborating in this way, why not? Do you see value in
this type of collaboration?
Answer. I have just returned from the recent joint AMS (American
Meteorological Society) Conference on Broadcast Meteorology and Weather
Warnings and Communication. It was 3 days of excellent collaboration
and communication between and among weather communicators and Federal
employees primarily NOAA/NWS. It was one of the best and most
productive conferences I have attended since my first broadcast
conference in 1972. I believe many of the papers and recorded
presentations will be available soon. The complete program is still
available here: http://ams.confex.com/ams/39BROADCAST/webprogram/
1STORMWARN.html.
Joint conferences such as this and the Annual Meetings of
professional and scientific societies and organizations such as the
AMS, AGU, NWA (National Weather Association) and regular local and
regional workshops and meeting foster very productive communication and
understanding across all sectors (academic, public and private) of the
weather enterprise. This spirit of communication, partnership and
shared goals is greater now than at any time in years past and in my
professional experience.
Question 6. Would you please explain how weather forecasts
available to American citizens will change without polar-orbiting
satellite capabilities? For example, how will the weather on the
nightly news differ, when we are missing a polar orbiting satellite?
Answer. The loss of data from polar orbiting satellites is a loss
of critical data. The loss of any data, given the current capabilities
of the weather forecasting science and process will harm, and decrease
the accuracy of the forecast. The advances we are seeing in increased
lead times for life threatening weather may be ended and lead times
reduced rather than extended. The risk is too great, the cost of
maintaining polar orbiting weather satellites too low to stop a program
which is an integral part of the weather forecast/warning process.
Question 7. How will warning times for severe weather differ when
we are missing a joint polar satellite?
Answer. Warning times can only decrease. There is no way warning
times can be extended, perhaps by life saving minutes, if data from
satellites is lost or the program terminated or interrupted.
Question 8. Does the type of storm or region affect the forecasting
and modeling impact?
Answer. The more data we have and usually the bigger the storm, the
better the forecast. Thus a small storm or shower moving in from the
Pacific Ocean into the northwest U.S. can be harder to forecast (few
surface observations in the ocean other than weather satellite
soundings) than a large storm moving across the center of the country.
The current weather forecast system, as I may have mentioned, may be
thought of as a three legged stool. One leg is fundamental science-
understanding of the physics of the atmosphere/ocean/Earth system; one
leg is data and the third leg computer power to solve the mathematics
and equations that describe the system we are forecasting. The loss of
data or computer power, even as we understand more of the fundamental
science will decrease the accuracy of the forecast. The ``models'' are
only as good as the data and computer power necessary to give us some
answers to the question, ``What will tomorrow's weather be?''
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Roger F. Wicker to
Robert Ryan
Question 1. Last week five southern states, including Mississippi,
experienced devastating tornadoes that resulted in hundreds of lives
lost and extensive property damage. Early warning systems alerted those
in danger to the threat an average of 24 minutes prior to tornadoes
touching the ground. However, many residents in southern states do not
have safe escape options to fit that timeframe. What research is being
conducted to improve advanced warning systems for tornadoes?
Answer. I have given thought to Senator Wicker's questions and
waited to respond after the recent terrible Joplin tornado and other
severe weather. This has been an exceptional year of tragic and deadly
weather events with a huge human and economic toll. My responses
follow.
The primary tool for issuing current warning is the national
network of NWS Doppler radars. Research is underway at the National
Severe Storm Laboratory (NSSL) on the next big step in weather radar
technology the Phased Array Radar: http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/research/
radar/par.php which many researchers believe may increase warning times
by 10-15 minutes. Any national coverage of PAR is probably 10-15 years
away.
Private sector companies are also now developing new detection
systems looking at intracloud lightning flash rates as an indicator of
developing severe storms with possible tornadoes. http://
weather.weatherbug.com/weatherbug-professional/products/total-
lightning-network.
Question 2. How is science being used to better protect citizens
and property from catastrophic events such as those that occurred last
week?
Answer. ``Protection'' has to be a combination of best forecasts
and warnings, best communication and best decisionmaking by the public.
This means we as a community really need to bring in social science
expertise into the weather forecasting/warning and communication
process. Programs such as WAS*IS at NCAR http://www.sip.ucar.edu/wasis/
and the University of Oklahoma program ``Social Science Woven into
Meteorology'' http://cimms.ou.edu/sswim/index.htm are examples of
increasing use of social science expertise within the physical science
of meteorology and forecasting. These programs should continue to be
actively and increasingly supported and used to learn how to better
communicate life threatening warnings to the public and importantly
learn more about how and why people make weather related decisions.
Interestingly some recent research indicates that more than 50 percent
of our citizens do not know the difference between weather ``watch''
and a ``warning'' and tornado warnings are too often ignored perhaps in
part due to the ``crying wolf'' syndrome of a ``false alarm'' rate for
tornado warnings of still over 60 percent http://news.msu.edu/story/
8505/&topic_id=13.
The ``Weather Enterprise'' is working cooperatively, following a
number of the recommendations of recent NRC reports to ensure that all
sectors (public, private, academic) work together to best serve the
public and advance the service of meteorology to the public and the
economy. A coming example: http://www.ametsoc.org/MEET/fainst/
2011summercommunity.html.
Question 3. There are several Federal agencies that support
national weather prediction and natural hazard preparedness. There is
also a great deal of research on natural hazards that is carried out by
academic institutions and the private sector. How are efforts by the
Federal Government utilizing resources available through academic
institutions and the private sector? In what ways could this be
improved?
Answer. A number of examples are given in my answer to question 2.
The NWS should involve the academic and private sector from the
beginning in consideration of new products, warning and communication
tools. In the past, it has appeared that the NWS was adopting tools/
systems that have been more rapidly developed and utilized by the
private sector. Examples are from use of icons on the Internet to the
many new methods of mobile communication. The move from pure digital/
deterministic forecasts to methods of communicating probability and
uncertainty (as example there is no easily available public forecast
product for type of winter precipitation (rain, snow, sleet, freezing
rain) during the past winters severe winter weather along the East
Coast) should be lead by NWS as called for in the recent NRC report.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11699&page=R1
Question 4. Can the government leverage resources through academic
and private entities to advance natural hazard preparedness while
saving costs to the American taxpayer?
Answer. I think through the response of the NWS/NOAA to the above
NRC report and efforts by the American Meteorological Society in
establishing the entities such as the Board on Enterprise Communication
http://www.ametsoc.org/boardpges/cwce/docs/BEC/index.html, efficient
use of government funds and resources is being accomplished. The
efforts of the AMS in establishing a number of workshops bringing
together leaders from the academic, private and public sectors has
helped foster true partnerships to benefit the common goals of service
to the public and economy. NWS/NOAA should continue to be open
participants in these efforts by the AMS, NCAR, NWA and other
independent scientific organizations.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV
to Anne S. Kiremidjian, Ph.D.
Question 1. You cite as a positive example of Federal research and
development the creation of a wireless structural monitoring system to
provide more robust damage detection to buildings and other
infrastructure. How are these sensors currently inserted into
infrastructure? And would it be possible to retrofit buildings with
this technology?
Answer. The main advantage of wireless structural monitoring
sensors is that no cables need to be installed up and down a structure.
As a result, these sensors can be placed at key locations on buildings
by simply attaching them to vulnerable components or at places where we
expect to see the highest damage. Thus, mounting the sensors is
relatively easy and cost effective (cost savings can be as much as 30
percent with a wireless system in comparison to a wired system). Given
these characteristics, they are particularly well suited for placing
them on existing buildings.
Question 2. How is this information generally collected and who
uses the data?
Answer. For large facilities, it would be the facility manager or
his/her designate who will have access and collect the information onto
a local computer. Our challenge is currently interpreting the data in a
reliable and robust way that the owner can use to make decisions.
Presently, we can issue first alerts immediately after a major event
such as an earthquake that the structure may be in imminent danger of
collapsing, thus requiring occupants to evacuate. These systems can
provide the equivalent of red, yellow and green alerts that reflect the
degree of danger of buildings or other structures. The technology
currently exists to transmit this information to cell phones, PDAs,
laptops or dedicated computers. The alert can also be connected to a
warning system that sounds an alarm. We envision that these systems
will be first deployed on critical facilities and gradually over time
to other structures.
Question 3. Japan, which is widely considered the most prepared
nation in the world when it comes to seismic hazards, has suffered
greatly from the March earthquake and tsunami event. A similar threat
faces the Pacific Northwest from the Cascadia fault. The U.S.
Geological Survey reports that in the next 50 years there is a 14
percent chance of a massive magnitude 9 earthquake and tsunami in the
Pacific Northwest, similar to the tragic events of this March. What
would happen to the Pacific Northwest if an earthquake and tsunami
event similar to that of Japan occurred along the Cascadia fault?
Answer. As you have stated, our Pacific Northwest is particularly
vulnerable to large earthquakes and tsunamis. The most recent study of
the Cascadia subduction zone has shown that it is capable of a
magnitude 9 earthquake with a high potential for generating a tsunami.
The last major earthquake has been estimated to have occurred
approximately 300 years ago on January 26, 1700 and ruptured 1000km
segment of the subduction zone similar to the earthquake of March 11,
2011 in Japan.\1\ Moreover, the January 26, 1700 event caused a very
large tsunami that swept across the Pacific.\2\ The recurrence of these
events is highly uncertain and can range between 200 and 700-1,300
years. The fact that there has not been such an even since then makes
it more likely to occur within our lifetime--a characteristic that the
Japanese scientists appear to have ignored.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ John J. Clague (1997). Evidence for large earthquakes at the
Cascadia Subduction Zone, Rev. Geophys. 35(4), 439-460. Doi:10.1029/
97RG00222.
\2\ Natural Resources, Canada. http://
earthquakescanada.nrcan.gc.ca/histor/15-19th-eme/17
00/1700-eng.php.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An earthquake of magnitude 9 can be truly devastating to all
coastal cities and towns starting from Mendocino, California all the
way to our border with Canada. We can expect damage to unreinforced
masonry structures, lightly reinforced concrete structures built prior
to 1979, single family dwellings that are built on cripple walls (i.e.,
the foundations are simple 1, to 2, high 4"x4" columns sitting on top
of concrete base supporting the base-beams, with poor connections
between the columns and the beams), and pre-cast concrete and tilt-up
structures. In addition, a large number of the bridges especially in
Oregon and to a lesser extent in Washington and California will be
damaged; underground water, sewer and gas pipelines are likely to
rupture in numerous locations leaving residents without water and
contaminating ground water; there will be damage to power transmission
lines and communications lines, limiting rescue operations and stopping
functionality of all facilities. With water lines broken, there is also
the potential for fire spread typically ignited because of leaking oil
or gas. We have seen these scenarios with every past earthquake. What
has varied is the degree to which these occur.
What will be even more devastating is the tsunami that can occur
with very high likelihood if a magnitude 9 earthquake occurs. Damage to
coastal towns and villages will be extensive as there are no tsunami
walls built in any of the three states that are exposed. Depending on
the time of warning (which in this case could be in of the order of 20
minutes to 1 hour depending on location) the number of casualties will
be very large because people just cannot evacuate in such a short time.
While most of these regions have tsunami evacuation plans, whether the
evacuations will be effective will greatly depend on the height of the
tsunami and the speed with which it reaches the coastal areas and
travels inland. Recent efforts in Oregon and Washington to provide
vertical evacuations (these are in buildings that can sustain the
tsunami forces and are tall enough not to be completely engulfed) have
sadly been abandoned due to state budget shortfalls and cuts leaving
tens of millions of people highly exposed to the tsunami treat. The
losses will be in the hundreds of billions of dollars. A study of
potential losses should be initiated and corresponding mitigation
action should be undertaken.
Question 4. I read that you have recently been working on
earthquake risks to transportation systems. How would our Nation's
infrastructure fare during a significant earthquake?
Answer. How our transportation systems will fare is very region
dependent. In California, the Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
has been systematically upgrading and retrofitting bridges in the state
to meet higher earthquake design levels. However, there will be some
damage to bridges. Bridges at present are designed for life safety and
not for functionality. This design criterion allows for bridge to have
minor damage under moderate earthquake, moderate damage under a severe
earthquake, and can have extensive amount of damage but should not
collapse under a great earthquake (such as the one in Japan). Thus the
expected damage and loss.
In addition to California, Oregon's and Washington's transportation
departments have engaged in seismic retrofitting activities. These,
however, were commenced only recently and most likely have not been
completed. Similar variations in transportation resiliency also exist
in states that are exposed to hurricanes and tornados. To the best of
my knowledge, Florida is at the forefront in their transportation
system upgrade for hurricanes. I am not sure about Texas and other Gulf
states. The problem throughout the United States, however, is that we
have a large number of infrastructure components that have gravely
deteriorated and are vulnerable under every-day loads posing a serious
threat without an extreme event. With an extreme event, the problem is
even greater.
Damage to bridges is only part of the concern. When a bridge or a
section of a road is damaged to the extent that it is either closed or
traffic on it is reduced, key transportation links may be severed
hampering rescue operations and interfering with the recovery process.
Functionality of the system is defined as the ability to travel from an
origin to a destination in a reasonable amount of time. Based on our
recent study, we estimated that closure of bridges and roads due to
damage will cause significant increase in travel time that will result
in losses that are of the same order as the losses from direct damage
to bridges (see also response to Senator Cantwell below4). Requirements
for functionality following an earthquake or a hurricane will bring
transportation system in line with building performance based
earthquake engineering design approaches (PBEE). Current design takes
only damage to components into consideration. PBEE strives to increase
the resiliency of the entire system and not just the components.
Question 5. While any one disaster may directly affect just a small
corner of the globe, the response is frequently worldwide. You have
described the benefits of the Japanese investment in earthquake
research. How has the world community benefited from American research?
Answer. U.S. research supported by NSF, NIST, USGS and FEMA has
resulted in numerous developments that are being used by other
countries. For example, seismic design codes particularly for
reinforced concrete, (ACI 318-08, Building Code Requirements for
Structural Concrete, American Concrete Institute) have been adopted by
earthquake prone countries throughout the world. It is the main reason
why the damage from the Chile earthquake in 2010 was relatively small.
Probabilistic seismic hazard mapping was first developed in the U.S.
(in fact at Stanford) and is now being used virtually be all earthquake
prone regions of the world. The Applied Technology Council (an
organization that is part of the Structural Engineers Association of
California) developed some of the first methods for regional earthquake
damage and loss estimation. In addition to translating these methods to
other hazards, such as hurricanes and tornadoes, these methods have
resulted in important technologies that enable insurance and
reinsurance companies from around the world to assess their risks from
extreme events. Furthermore, Japan, China, Taiwan, Chile, Mexico and
Italy are a few of the countries that have adopted these methods for
their internal risks assessment. These methods are also being used by
the Global Earthquake Model (GEM)--an international consortium funded
by the insurance and reinsurance industry to develop an open source
earthquake risk model. Seismic retrofit strategies and methods for
multi-story steel moment frames that were developed shortly after the
1994 Northridge, California earthquake with funding from FEMA have been
adopted by Japan and other countries in the world. The performance
based seismic design paradigm that has emerged as a result of our
research in the past 10 years through the three NSF funded earthquake
research centers is currently being considered by other countries in
Europe, Asia and South America.
There are also many technological advances invented in the U.S.
that are being adopted in other countries but are yet to be implemented
in the US. Wireless structural monitoring systems are being used for
variety of purposes in Germany, Italy, France, China, Singapore and
Korea. These systems were first developed in the U.S. and sadly enough
are still to be implemented in our country. Fiber reinforced concrete
was also invented in the U.S. (my colleague Professor Mike Lepech is
one of the pioneers in the field) and is now used extensively in Japan
for seismic retrofitting of high-rise concrete structures. China and
several European countries are also quickly adopting these materials
and technologies. Again, we are yet to use them and include them in our
practice. You may raise the question of why we are so slow in adopting
our own innovations. There many factors why, but the most important
ones are: first lack of investment from industry--it is cheaper to
build with existing methods and materials even if it has been
demonstrated that in the long run it may be more cost effective to use
the new materials; and the second one is fear of potential litigation.
Question 6. What can we learn from Japanese preparedness that we
can apply to our own country? Are there things that the Japanese do
that we aren't?
Answer. Following the 1995 Kobe earthquake, Japan invested several
billion dollars in instrumentation, research and preparedness. The
extensive instrumentation has enabled them to study the earthquake
phenomenon in far greater detail than before that earthquake. In
addition to instrumentation for seismic ground motion, they also placed
instruments in variety of structures to enable them to study the
behavior of structures when subjected to severe ground shaking.
Moreover, they built the largest shaking table in the world to test
full scale buildings (up to four stories). These tests have enabled
them to understand not only the motions that buildings experience, but
also how non-structural components perform and how people react to such
motions. I am not advocating that we build such a facility as it is
prohibitively expensive. However, we have directly benefited from their
investment through our joint collaborative projects (typically
supported by the NSF program on Network for Earthquake Engineering
Simulation (NEES)). While I am not advocating to build large testing
facilities here in the US, we can greatly benefit from the extensive
amount of data that they have collected from the March 11 event. Such
events are extremely rare and these types of data have never been
collected until now.
Japan has also engaged in systematic retrofitting of structures
that are considered to be particularly vulnerable. For example, there
are thousands of weakly reinforced concrete structures (those built
prior to 1979--prior to a major design code change) both in Japan and
throughout the United States. Their vulnerability is well understood
and structural engineers have brought it to the attention to local and
state officials, but there has been little action in the U.S. to
systematically retrofit them. Only few owners have taken the initiative
to upgrade their vulnerable structures. An ordinance combined with
incentives should be seriously considered.
Another area where Japan has been taking a systematic action is to
renovate and upgrade the lifeline systems--water, sewer, power, gas,
communications and transportation systems. Even if damage to buildings
is minimal, if the lifelines are not functioning, a community cannot
survive. We have seen our lifelines fail under normal operating
conditions due to deterioration. Damage due to a large earthquake can
be truly devastating.
Japan had built tsunami walls that showed to be ineffective with
the March 11 event. They had initiated vertical \3\ evacuation
strategies before the earthquake and the tsunami; however, they had not
gone far enough in their implementation. Oregon had initiated vertical
evacuation studies jointly with Japan, but these have been suspended
due to state and local government budget cuts. It is imperative that we
review our tsunami evacuation plans and provide for vertical
evacuation. Much of the technology is available for designing such
structures and they can be made cost effective if combined with other
uses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Vertical evacuation facilities refers to structures that can
withstand a tsunami and can provide shelter to people who live in the
vicinity of the structure. Typically, when people try to reach higher
ground, roads may be blocked and reaching high ground on foot may not
be feasible. However, if tall structures are present in close
proximity, they can climb the four or five stories in less than 15
minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although there are still many people living in shelters after the
Japan earthquake, Japan has been able to care for their citizens
reasonably well. We can learn and greatly improve on what they did. A
team of social scientists sponsored by the Earthquake Engineering
Research Institute (EERI) looking into these issues has just returned
from Japan and we are likely to learn a great deal from their findings.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Anne S. Kiremidjian, Ph.D.
Question 1. Japan has created an early earthquake warning system,
which gave its citizens over a minute warning prior to the earthquake
in March, a critical amount of time for people to find safety. Does the
United States have a similar warning system as far as warning time,
accuracy and communications technology?
Answer. The United States does not have a widely installed
earthquake warning system. Researchers at in the West Coast have been
working on the development of such systems for the past decade. Much of
the technology is available but we are well behind in implementation.
Question 2. Is such a system feasible in the United States?
Answer. Yes it is and a prototype earthquake warning system is
presently being considered in Coachella Valley, CA. In addition,
several fire stations in the San Francisco Bay Area also have
earthquake warning systems. Japan has demonstrated that it is feasible
and has gone ahead and implemented it. The United States is seriously
lagging behind in this respect.
Question 3. The Japanese earthquake warning system was able to send
text messages to Japanese citizens before the earthquake, enabling
citizens to seek shelter. Could the United States have this capability?
What efforts are underway to create or test the feasibility of a
similar system in the United States?
Answer. The United States has the necessary technologies to
implement such a system. In general, a comprehensive early earthquake
warning system should consist of two types of warnings. The first is
that an important earthquake will occur within the next 5 to 30
seconds. The warning should include the potential size and location of
the event. This will give an opportunity for individuals to take cover,
have back-up generators be started in critical facilities such as
hospitals (particularly in their operating rooms), stop high speed
trains, slow down traffic on bridges or outright close bridges, prepare
emergency personnel to ready for their response and so on. The second
part of the alarm system should be tied to the response of structures--
buildings, bridges, pipelines, chemical plants, etc. These systems will
issue a warning immediately after the event. The warning can alert
occupants that they need to evacuate a building that is in imminent
danger of collapsing, for example. It can also alert emergency
personnel which buildings have been severely damaged or have collapsed
so that they can focus their response to those structures. The
technology for both warning stages is presently available. It is a
matter of funding and implementation.
Question 4. Is there adequate funding for tsunami and earthquake
warning system research proposed in the FY12 budget?
Answer. Not even close. The total research budget of the National
Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program is in the order of $130M that
includes geosciences, engineering, social and economic issues, and
response and preparedness. Only a small fraction is likely to be spent
on tsunami research. This amount, however, does not include funding
that may be given to NOAA for this purpose.
Question 5. In addition to earthquake warnings, tsunamis can be
detected using tsunami buoys offshore. At the time of the Japanese
earthquake and tsunami, there were at least three United States tsunami
buoys classified as inoperable. How does the earthquake/tsunami warning
system work with tsunami buoys to predict natural hazards and warn
citizens?
Answer. According to Eble and Stalin (2007) \4\ ``the Deep-ocean
Assessment and Reporting of Tsunamis (DART) real time tsunami buoy
system is comprised of two parts--the Bottom Pressure Recorder (BPR)
and the accompanying surface buoy with its related electronics. The BPR
resides on the ocean bottom and monitors water pressure. Data are
transmitted from the BPR to the surface buoy'' and then transmitted to
ground systems via IRIDUM satellites4. The data is then used with a
computer model to predict the water height which is compared to normal
levels. If two readings of the water height exceed what is considered
normal height, then the monitoring continues for a minimum period of 3
hours. The system will revert to infrequent readings of data if for 3
hours there are no anomalies observed. As long as readings indicate
that normal water levels are exceeded, data will be collected
(typically 4 minutes of 15 second observations followed by one-minute
average values). The data and a numerical model are then used to
forecast the propagation of the tsunami wave height. Moreover, site-
specific tsunami inundation models are used to estimate the area that
will be affected by the forecasted tsunami. These estimates are
continuously updated as new data becomes available. Tsunami guidance is
then issued.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Marie C. Eble and Scott E. Stalin (2007). Description of Real-
Time DART System Messages, Report by the U.S. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory,
Engineering Development Division, 7600 Sand Point Way, Seattle, WA
98115.
Question 6. With some buoys inoperable, how were predictive
capabilities impacted? Please answer in terms of accuracy and warning
time.
Answer. I am not qualified to give you specifics in terms of
accuracy and warning time. This question should be addressed to the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Pacific Tsunami
Warning System who operates the tsunami system. Based on my limited
understanding, there are approximately 26 instruments in the Pacific
Ocean and the model utilizes those to update the tsunami height
continuously. How the results are affected will depend on which
instruments were inoperable and where they were located. This is one
reason why in general we would like to have dense instrumentation.
Instruments do malfunction when exposed to extreme weather conditions
and with dense networks we can greatly reduce the error of tsunami
height and time of arrival forecasts.
Question 7. You identified a need to develop a ``performance-based
earthquake engineering (PBEE) design tools to enable rapid and
widespread adaptation of advanced design methods.'' Is the United
States on track to develop these tools?
Answer. Provided the NEHRP program is funded, we will continue to
make progress in that direction. We have the knowledge, intellectual
capacity and expertise to achieve this goal.
Question 8. Has your research group collaborated with economists to
model the average annual cost of earthquake damage with and without
PBEE tools? If so, what is the cost of preparedness compared to the
potential cost of damage without PBEE?
Answer. While I have collaborated with economist throughout my
career to answer similar questions, we have not addressed this specific
issue. However, PBEE will address an issue that is totally ignored in
current seismic codes that require life safety design only. With PBEE
we will be designing structures to different requirements for
functionality. For example, a hospital will need to be designed so that
it is fully operational immediately after an earthquake without
interruption. This means that it should not have any structural,
contents or non-structural damage (these are partition walls,
elevators, mechanical equipment, etc.). Another example is a large
manufacturing facility will need to be functional within 5 to 10 days
depending on what the owner specifies. The consequence of this design
is that there will be minimal loss from business interruption.
You may ask why we are interested in minimizing losses from non-
functionality of facilities. We conducted a study to estimate the
losses from damage to transportation systems in the San Francisco Bay
Area. Two types of losses were estimated. The first is the loss from
direct damage to bridges and the second is increase in travel time due
to the closure or reduction in lanes of damaged bridges. The second
type of loss is what we call functionality loss. The results show that
functionality losses can exceed direct losses from damage to
structures. The figure below shows annual probability of loss
exceedence for direct, functionality and total losses. For example, at
the .004 annual probability, the direct structural loss is $1 Billion
and the operational (or functionality) loss is $1.2 Billion.
Figure 11 Annual risk curves of the transportation network in five
counties in the San Francisco Bay area.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Stergiou, E. and Kiremidjian, A. (2009), Risk Assessment of
Transportation Systems with Network Functionality Losses, Structure and
Infrastructure Engineering, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 111-125.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Roger F. Wicker to
Anne S. Kiremidjian, Ph.D.
Question 1. Last week five southern states, including Mississippi,
experienced devastating tornadoes that resulted in hundreds of lives
lost and extensive property damage. Early warning systems alerted those
in danger to the threat an average of 24 minutes prior to tornadoes
touching the ground. However, many residents in southern states do not
have safe escape options to fit that timeframe. What research is being
conducted to improve advanced warning systems for tornadoes?
The response to this question is developed by Professor Anne
Kiremidjian, Stanford University and Professor Kishor Mehta, Texas Tech
University. Both are members of ASCE.
Answer. Tornado warning systems have been in existence for some
time and they are deployed in most if not all tornado prone areas.
Tornadoes can be identified as being formed 20 to 30 minutes prior to
reaching a populated area and typically a tornado warning will be
issued about 15 to 20 minutes before it reaches a populated region.
According to local accounts, tornado warnings were issued during the
recent tornadoes in the Midwest (Jeremy A. Kaplan, April 28, 2011,
FoxNews.com). These are operated by the National Weather Service of the
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). In order
to provide more accurate potential of tornado occurrence, the National
Weather Service uses surface observation, radar data, satellite,
airplanes, and balloons that are launched twice daily. Data from these
observations are used to measure the atmospheric changes and are used
in a computer model to predict the storms. Radar imagery is used to
note the formation of a vortex that is the beginning of a tornado
leading to a warning. The greatest difficulty is to predict the path
and the intensity with accuracy. Typically a wide area is reported with
the warning to provide a more inclusive warning.
There are several reasons why warnings may not have been effective
in the recent tornado events. The most common is complacency and
inaction by individuals when hearing a tornado warning. This problem is
often due to coarseness in tornado path identification. As stated
previously, when a tornado warning is issued, it covers a broad area
and as a result, some of the locations that received warning are
unaffected leading people to ignore subsequent warnings. Currently
researchers are pursuing projects in improving technology to more
narrowly predict the path of a tornado. An example of a project is
VORTEX2 in which almost 100 scientists spent 6 weeks in the field in
2010 and 2011 chasing tornado producing thunderstorms to measure a wide
variety of meteorological data. Analysis of data gathered in this
project will result in to improved understanding and potential
improvement in prediction including intensity of tornadoes. National
Weather Service will need to educate and train NWS office personnel to
improve in issuing warnings, thus limiting the number of false alarms
and increasing public confidence in the credibility of the warnings.
Question 2. How is science being used to better protect citizens
and property from catastrophic events such as those that occurred last
week?
The response to this question is developed by Professor Anne
Kiremidjian, Stanford University and Professor Kishor Mehta, Texas Tech
University. Both are members of ASCE.
Answer. Providing shelters for people who do not have basements or
are in mobile homes is a long recognized problem. Providing shelters
for the general public can be achieved at several levels.
a. On the individual household level, basements have shown to
provide adequate safety against tornadoes. The problem is that
with construction costs increasing as well as by tradition many
areas in the country build houses directly on the ground
without any basements. In addition, about 30 percent of the
population lives in mobile homes that is most vulnerable to all
natural hazards, not just tornadoes. However, solutions other
than basements do exist. There are safe rooms that can be built
inside residence that are relatively inexpensive. Federal
Emergency Management Agency has published a booklet, Taking
Shelter from the Storm: Building a Safe Room Inside Your House,
FEMA 320, which is available on FEMA website. This booklet
contains construction details for eight different safe room
modules for a combination of various construction materials.
Several manufacturers have developed modules that are
commercially available and vendoers or builders can install
them. Builders can also build safe room on-site in a new home
or retrofit in an existing home. Affordability, of course is
always a question, and government subsidy may be justified if
no other solution can be provided.
b. In schools, nursing homes and other public buildings where
people have difficulty moving rapidly it is possible to build a
large safe room using criteria given in Design and Construction
Guidance for Community Safe Rooms, FEMA P-361, second edition,
August 2008. These guidelines can also be used for construction
of safe room in manufactured home park or for a community. They
need to be strategically located within 10 minute distance of
populated areas. To make these cost effective, they should
serve a dual purpose. For example, a local library can be built
to be sturdy enough to resist a large tornado and can house
several hundred local residents when a warning is issued.
Existing buildings may not be strong enough to resist a severe
tornado and may need to be strengthened needing subsidies from
local, state or the Federal Government since that can be an
expensive process. The expenditure, however, is well justified
given that these structures will result in saving of lives.
c. Reduction of property damage in tornadoes is a challenge.
Vast majority of tornadoes are not severe. Only 10 percent of
tornadoes out of approximately annual 1,200 tornadoes are rated
as severe (EF-3, EF-4. EF-5). Of these, 2 to 3 percent are
catastrophic causing majority of fatalities. However, we
continue to see property damage even in EF-1 and EF-2
tornadoes. There are several reasons for this level of damage.
Residential structures are generally not designed by engineers.
Building codes and standards have improved over the years
though the requirements are not enforced by localities. Also,
we do not have cost effective way of retrofitting residential
structures. In commercial buildings wind borne debris in
windstorms break window glass which leads to extensive damage
to the interior and furnishings not to mention business
interruption. In most parts of the country there is no
requirement of debris resisting glazing. Institute of Building
and Home Safety (IBHS, an insurance industry organization) has
recently constructed a large wind tunnel facility where a
typical two-story house can be tested. There is very little
ongoing research in academic institutions for retrofitting and
damage mitigation. Providing funds for Windstorm Hazard
Mitigation program will build government and private
partnership with the ultimate goal of reducing property damage
and also injuries and fatalities.
d. The insurance and construction industries, research and
development institutions, and the government can work together
to promote windstorm damage mitigation measures. It is
envisioned that every dollar invested in a meaningful
mitigation measure has potential of saving the country four
dollars. Innovative approaches are needed to develop
construction criteria for new construction and retrofitting
existing buildings that are cost effective. This would be a
long term solution to mitigate damage in windstorm and other
natural hazards and save money for the country.
There are several Federal agencies that support national weather
prediction and natural hazard preparedness. There is also a great deal
of research on natural hazards that is carried out by academic
institutions and the private sector.
Question 3. How are efforts by the Federal Government utilizing
resources available through academic institutions and the private
sector? In what ways could this be improved?
The response to this question is developed by Professor Anne
Kiremidjian, Stanford University.
Answer. Weather prediction is not my specialty and thus my comments
will be addressed to natural hazards preparedness in general. To the
best of my knowledge, various Federal agencies have utilized academic
resources in the following ways:
a. Engaging academics and private sector individuals who are at
the forefront of various disaster related research and
development to serve as consultants on key issues. For example,
FEMA's engaged jointly academics and private industry in the
development of natural disaster assessment software called
HAZUS-MH (http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/hazus/
hz_overview.shtm) was developed by a team comprised by
academics and private industry personnel. HAZUS currently has
earthquake, hurricane winds and flood loss estimation
capabilities and is used by variety of local and state
governments in addition to FEMA to project potential losses.
Another example is the study initiated by FEMA following the
January 17, 1994, Northridge California earthquake to evaluate
the problem of the joints in steel moment frames and to develop
technologies for retrofitting all existing steel moment frames
that are in earthquake prone areas. The results of these
investigations have been adopted in the latest International
Building Codes and are part of the current seismic design
requirements of structures.
b. Workshops are organized on annual basis (sometimes several
times per year) to identify technologies that can be
implemented or further developed. These workshops are usually
intended as technology transfer mechanisms.
c. Support for technology transfer to industry is provided by
the National Science Foundation through the Small Business
Innovation Research (SBIR) program. Similar programs are
available through other Federal agencies, but those are
typically not for disaster related research. Small business
loans are usually ineffective in this industry because they
require personal guarantees for all loan amounts and the
business model does not justify the expenditures. While the
National Institute for Standards and Technology has had a
successful Technology Innovation Program (TIP) I am not aware
that any of the projects supported through that program are
specifically disaster related. Some of the technologies may
eventually be used for disaster purposes.
Are these sufficient? In general, adaptation of disaster-related
advanced technologies is extremely slow in the U.S. I have seen other
countries, notably Japan and most recently China take developments from
the U.S. and adopt them on large scales, while we are still sitting and
waiting for funding or acceptance by industry. For example, a new
material developed by one of my colleagues, Professor Michael Lepech
from Stanford, is being adopted both in Japan and in China for
earthquake resistant retrofitting of vulnerable reinforced concrete
structures. Why are these countries willing to rapidly commercialize
such research and development efforts and we are not? They are willing
to put the financial resources in the implementation of these
technologies and have minimal concerns about possible litigation.
Adaptation in the U.S. is hampered by lack of resources for developing
proof of concept projects. An added problem is the unwillingness of
both professionals and owners to accept new technologies even if they
are more cost effective over existing proven methods. Part of the
problem is the high cost of litigation that can result from potential
failures.
How can we improve? Perhaps the best way to accelerate the
acceptance of new technologies is to enable demonstration project.
Other nations invest far more (relative to their GDP) in disaster
research and development than we do in the US. For example, Japan spend
several billion dollars after the January 17, 1995 Kobe, Japan
earthquake in installing instruments, tsunami early warning system,
development of evacuation plans, retrofitting vulnerable structures,
etc. The fact is that there are many technologies that if implemented
can result in great reduction of losses. Some of those are simple
things that people can do, while others require significant financing.
What we are lacking is a plan for resiliency against natural disasters
and then implementation of this plan. In the study that I cited in my
testimony related to disaster mitigation strategies, we demonstrated
how communities that were provided funding by FEMA through ``Project
Impact'' greatly increased their disaster resiliency. Reinstatement of
this program will be highly beneficial to our country.
Question 4. Can the government leverage resources through academic
and private entities to advance natural hazard preparedness while
saving costs to the American taxpayer?
Answer. The simple answer is yes. We have some of the best
researchers and private industry professional. These include
geoscientists, atmospheric scientist, engineers (structural,
geotechnical, earthquake, wind, and flood engineers), computer
scientists, and practitioners from the respective industries. A plan
should be developed on how to implement existing technologies to
greatly reduce future losses from natural disasters and increase
community resilience. There should also be a plan for developing
technologies that are currently lacking. The National Research Council
study has identified some key elements of the research needs. The plan
that is needed, however, is to identify all currently existing viable
technologies that can be implemented today and to have a specific step
by step approach on how to apply these technologies. Such a plan should
assess the costs and identify an approach for cost sharing between
individuals, private entities, professionals and governments. Example
of such an activity would be a community identifying a structure that
can serve as a shelter but needs further strengthening. A community
wide effort that involves local contractors and engineers with some
funding from local, state and Federal agencies can do the retrofitting.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV
to Professor Clint Dawson
Question 1. You have mentioned the tension between funding for
research on short-term projects rather than for long term priorities.
Your fellow witness, Dr. Kiremidjian, has described the results of the
33-year focus on earthquakes provided by NEHRP. If long-term funding
were available, what projects would you undertake that you currently
cannot?
Answer. In my area, the critical needs are to study the fully
coupled atmospheric, oceanic, coastal and geo-morphological system, to
determine how storm surge is generated and propagated from the ocean
onto the shore, and how storm surge interacts with and impacts the
natural and man-made coastal environment. The goal of this research
agenda would be to identify, categorize and mitigate risk, and
hopefully convey information to govt. officials and the public in a way
that informs future coastal development, public policy and the
sustainability of coastal environments. This is a difficult problem for
several reasons. One, there is tremendous uncertainty in almost all
aspects of the problem, the uncertainty needs to be quantified and if
possible new measurement techniques designed to reduce the uncertainty.
Second, the problem is inherently multi-scale, it involves processes on
the global, regional and local climate scales (on the order of
kilometers), the basin, continental shelf and inland oceanic scales
(from kilometers to hundreds of meters), down to the sub-meter scale in
areas such as wetlands and channels. Third, we do not currently have
the ability to model these problems on present-day computers. New
computer algorithms and software will need to be developed which can
handle complex multi-physics and take advantage of new computer
architectures.
A few years ago, there was some discussion with Sen. Kay Bailey
Hutchison's staff about a proposed national hurricane initiative, which
would have created a long-term, multi-agency, interdisciplinary
research agenda for hurricane-related research. I supported this idea,
as I feel it is the kind of long-term, sustained effort which could
create new collaborative research projects and lead to significant and
far-reaching breakthroughs. At present, there is no one agency that
funds basic research in all aspects of hurricanes. The National Science
Foundation has been a welcome source of funding for my research, but
only as it pertains to the scientific computing aspects. One would
expect that NOAA would be the right agency to fund such research, but
my experience with NOAA has been that its mission is more on operations
and not basic research. Some sort of cross-cutting, multi-agency
sustained research initiative would in my opinion be the best approach.
Question 2. How have computer simulations guided policymakers in
preparing for or reacting to natural disasters?
Answer. In my home state of Texas, the results from new high
resolution forecast storm surge models being run at the University of
Texas at Austin are shared with the Texas Division of Emergency
Management, which coordinates emergency response in the event of a
hurricane approaching Texas. The results from these simulations are
used to deploy first responders and provide guidance to local officials
regarding emergency evacuations. We also collaborate with researchers
at Louisiana State University to provide information to the State of
Louisiana in the event of a hurricane approaching their coast. Our
ability to perform these high resolution studies in ``real-time'' is
due to improved computer models and computer technology which has come
on-line in the past 3 years.
Similar high resolution computer modeling studies have been used,
for example, by researchers at the University of Notre Dame and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to study all of the new levee systems
which are being built in southern Louisiana in the aftermath of
Hurricane Katrina. Similarly my group at UT Austin is working with Rice
University and public officials in the Houston, TX region to study
potential storm surge mitigation strategies for the Houston-Galveston
metropolitan area in the aftermath of Hurricane Ike. These computer
models are also being used to develop new Digital Flood Insurance Rate
Maps (DFIRMS) for FEMA, which determines which areas of the coast
qualify for Federal flood protection.
Question 3. What advances in storm system and disaster modeling are
forthcoming that will aid future decision-makers?
Answer. These are advances which are either in the works or
proposed:
1. The ADCIRC Surge Guidance System (ASGS) is being deployed at
The University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Louisiana State
University, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the
University of Texas at Austin. The ASGS is a state-of-the-art
hurricane surge forecast system which produces predictions of
storm-surge in real-time. Results from the ASGS are posted and
shared with emergency managers across several states, and with
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Future capabilities of the
ASGS will include ensemble surge modeling where a suite of
potential storm tracks can be executed simultaneously to
provide emergency managers with statistical information on the
probability of a significant storm surge event in a given
region of the coast.
2. There have been significant advances in data collection,
measurements, and instrumentation over the past 5 years,
primarily through NOAA, the USGS, and state and local agencies.
The coupling of data with computer models has led to vast
improvements in the physical descriptions of the coastal ocean
and coastal environment, and improved our ability to
mathematically model hurricanes, and has in turn provided
feedback which has led to improved data collection.
3. As we move into the future, we hope to have a better
understanding of the longer-term impacts of storm surge on
coastal ecology, wetlands, barrier islands, shorelines, as well
as on the built infrastructure, including protection systems
such as levees, buildings, bridges, ports and harbors, and
industrial complexes. This understanding we hope will guide
policymakers, government officials, and local communities to
make informed decisions about coastal development and help make
coastal communities more resilient to disasters.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Roger F. Wicker to
Professor Clint Dawson
Question 1. Last week five southern states, including Mississippi,
experienced devastating tornadoes that resulted in hundreds of lives
lost and extensive property damage. Early warning systems alerted those
in danger to the threat an average of 24 minutes prior to tornadoes
touching the ground. However, many residents in southern states do not
have safe escape options to fit that timeframe. What research is being
conducted to improve advanced warning systems for tornadoes?
Answer. This is not my area of expertise.
Question 2. How is science being used to better protect citizens
and property from catastrophic events such as those that occurred last
week?
Answer. There are several Federal agencies that support national
weather prediction and natural hazard preparedness. There is also a
great deal of research on natural hazards that is carried out by
academic institutions and the private sector.
Question 3. How are efforts by the Federal Government utilizing
resources available through academic institutions and the private
sector? In what ways could this be improved?
Answer. In my field, the Federal Government agencies that I
interact with are the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, FEMA and to a
lesser degree NOAA. The USACE uses our computer models (developed in a
partnership with 3 academic institutions) to study levee designs for
hurricane protection systems along the Gulf coast. FEMA uses our model
to design flood insurance rate maps for coastal states. NOAA is
evaluating our model for forecasting storm surge. Essentially these
agencies are utilizing resources which were initially paid for by
several agencies, including the National Science Foundation. I think
this is a great example of basic research eventually becoming useful to
the larger scientific community and the Federal Government. One
difficulty has been sustaining funding so that we can see the research
through to its fruition. That is, once a computer model is developed,
getting it to the point where it can be used by a non-expert is
difficult. This is one area where interaction with private industry can
be helpful, specifically consulting companies which have expertise in
software engineering and commercialization. Finding the right mix of
financial support is often difficult however.
Question 4. Can the government leverage resources through academic
and private entities to advance natural hazard preparedness while
saving costs to the American taxpayer?
Answer. Yes and they do. For example, we work at the request of the
Texas Division of Emergency Management during hurricane events to
provide them with storm surge forecasts for storms approaching Texas or
Louisiana. This is in addition to what is provided by the National
Weather Service. We utilize computer resources available on our campus
funded by the NSF and the State of Texas. We use computer models
developed under federally-funded research, but the state doesn't pay us
directly to do these forecasts. We do this as a public service and
consider it part of our outreach.
Question 5. Hurricane Katrina devastated thousands of homes in
Mississippi and Louisiana. Following the storm there were disputes
regarding wind versus water damage to coastal properties and how
residents should be compensated for their losses by insurers of wind
versus the National Flood Insurance Program for flood damage. These
disputes have been litigated for years in the courts, further delaying
recovery of the Gulf Coast. Does the proper science and technology
exist today that could tell us, with reasonable certainty, wind speeds
and storm surge levels during a hurricane that could allow for a better
understanding of how these perils impacted coastal properties? In other
words, can reliable scientific data be collected to better assess wind
and water property damage following a hurricane?
Answer. For the most part yes, and this has been done for all of
the U.S. hurricanes since 2005. Our computer models have simulated
Katrina, Rita, Gustav and Ike. We can match measured water levels over
80-90 percent of the affected areas of the coast to within .5 meter,
and often within .1 meter. This work has been peer-reviewed and
published (except for Ike which is still underway). We are in a much
better position than we were 6-7 years ago with respect to predicting
flooding. Also, there have been significant efforts at instrumentation
in these regions for obtaining better measurements of water levels,
wave heights and wind velocities. There are still a few areas where we
see errors between measurements and model results, particularly near
certain types of coastal structures, and in wetlands and marshes. These
areas need further investigation. There is also still work to be done
on predicting the impacts of wave overtopping on coastal structures
during a hurricane. But wave overtopping is generally restricted to the
area right at the shoreline.