[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AN EXAMINATION OF FEDERAL FLOOD MAPS
IN A CHANGING CLIMATE
=======================================================================
JOINT HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS
AND OVERSIGHT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 27, 2020
__________
Serial No. 116-70
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
39-836PDF WASHINGTON : 2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
ZOE LOFGREN, California FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma,
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois Ranking Member
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon MO BROOKS, Alabama
AMI BERA, California, BILL POSEY, Florida
Vice Chair RANDY WEBER, Texas
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas BRIAN BABIN, Texas
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
KENDRA HORN, Oklahoma ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
BRAD SHERMAN, California MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
JERRY McNERNEY, California PETE OLSON, Texas
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
PAUL TONKO, New York MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
BILL FOSTER, Illinois JIM BAIRD, Indiana
DON BEYER, Virginia FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida GREGORY F. MURPHY, North Carolina
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois VACANCY
BEN McADAMS, Utah
JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania
VACANCY
------
Subcommittee on Environment
HON. MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey, Chairwoman
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas,
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas Ranking Member
PAUL TONKO, New York BRIAN BABIN, Texas
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois JIM BAIRD, Indiana
BEN McADAMS, Utah FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania GREGORY F. MURPHY, North Carolina
------
Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight
HON. BILL FOSTER, Illinois, Chairman
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina,
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee Ranking Member
DON BEYER, Virginia ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
C O N T E N T S
February 27, 2020
Page
Hearing Charter.................................................. 2
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Mikie Sherrill, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 11
Written Statement............................................ 12
Statement by Representative Roger Marshall, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 13
Written Statement............................................ 14
Statement by Representative Bill Foster, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Investigations and Oversight, Committee on Science, Space,
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.................. 15
Written Statement............................................ 16
Statement by Representative Ralph Norman, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 17
Written Statement............................................ 19
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Chairwoman,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 19
Written Statement............................................ 21
Witnesses:
Mr. Michael Grimm, Assistant Administrator for Risk Management,
Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security
Oral Statement............................................... 23
Written Statement............................................ 26
Mr. Mark Osler, Senior Advisor for Coastal Inundation and
Resilience, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce
Oral Statement............................................... 36
Written Statement............................................ 38
Mr. Ryan R. Branfort, PLS, GISP, Senior Vice President, Wilson &
Company, Inc., Engineers & Architects
Oral Statement............................................... 49
Written Statement............................................ 51
Mr. Chad Berginnis, CFM, Executive Director, Association of State
Floodplain Managers
Oral Statement............................................... 59
Written Statement............................................ 61
Discussion....................................................... 83
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Mr. Michael Grimm, Assistant Administrator for Risk Management,
Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security....................................................... 96
Mr. Mark Osler, Senior Advisor for Coastal Inundation and
Resilience, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce.................................... 128
Mr. Ryan R. Branfort, PLS, GISP, Senior Vice President, Wilson &
Company, Inc., Engineers & Architects.......................... 141
Mr. Chad Berginnis, CFM, Executive Director, Association of State
Floodplain Managers............................................ 145
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Statements submitted by Representative Suzanne Bonamici,
Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 154
Letters submitted by Representative Suzanne Bonamici,
Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 158
Report submitted by Representative Suzanne Bonamici, Subcommittee
on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 178
Document submitted by Representative Roger Marshall, Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives........... 208
Summary submitted by Representative Ralph Norman, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 210
Presentation submitted by Mr. Ryan R. Branfort, PLS, GISP, Senior
Vice President, Wilson & Company, Inc., Engineers & Architects. 212
Study submitted by Mr. Chad Berginnis, CFM, Executive Director,
Association of State Floodplain Managers....................... 219
Summary submitted by Mr. Chad Berginnis, CFM, Executive Director,
Association of State Floodplain Managers....................... 242
AN EXAMINATION OF FEDERAL FLOOD MAPS
IN A CHANGING CLIMATE
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2020
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Environment,
joint with the Subcommittee on
Investigations and Oversight,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 2:58 p.m.,
in room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mikie
Sherrill [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Environment]
presiding.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Sherrill. This hearing will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recess at
any time. Good afternoon, and welcome to the Environment
Subcommittee's first hearing of 2020. This is my first hearing
since taking over the Subcommittee Chairmanship from my
colleague and friend Mrs. Fletcher. I'm looking forward to
continuing the bipartisan work of this Subcommittee with
Ranking Member Marshall on issues related to the environment,
climate change, and weather research, issues that are critical
to New Jersey, and to the country. This is also a joint
Subcommittee hearing with the Investigations and Oversight
Subcommittee, and I'd like to welcome my fellow Chair, Dr.
Foster, and Ranking Member, Mr. Norman. I assume they will be
here shortly.
The focus of today's hearing is painfully salient in New
Jersey, a historically flood-prone State. New Jersey is a place
where both coastal and inland communities have unfortunately
had to deal with extensive flooding events, and, as a result,
actively invest in understanding and mitigating these flood
risks. In my district, towns such as Pequannock, Little Falls,
Woodland Park, Pompton Lakes, and Wayne, that experience some
of the most extreme flooding, work hard to protect their
residents with measures like home buyouts, elevations, dredging
waterways, and even flying drones to proactively identify flood
hazards in rivers. They appreciate that the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP) is a critical part of providing this
protection to communities, and are committed to partner with
you to get the science underlying the FEMA (Federal Emergency
Management Agency) flood mapping process right.
Assessments of flood risks today must consider that
climate change is accelerating rates of sea level rise, intense
heavy rains, and other extreme weather events, creating
flooding patterns distinct and more damaging than norms of the
past. And it's not just New Jersey and coastal communities, as
Ranking Member Marshall knows too well. Inland States faced
billions of dollars of damage from extreme wet conditions
consistent with climate change last year, with a similar
forecast just released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) for the coming year for the Mississippi
River and Great Plains Basin.
The FEMA flood maps are intended to determine insurance
rates for 1 year ahead, and set building standards for the
floodplain. Despite this intention, the reality is that
homeowners and local governments continue to use the maps to
make both short and long term decisions like buying a home,
choosing a mortgage, and planning adaption measures to deal
with future flooding events. Given the public need, we must
ensure that the most up-to-date science of predicting flood
risk is accessible in a centralized, accurate, and easy to
understand way. While we are primarily focused today on
supporting inter-agency efforts in Federal flood mapping, I
also want to emphasize the importance of incorporating on the
ground community feedback into the FEMA flood mapping process.
My understanding from local officials and constituents in
my district is that providing such input can be onerous,
expensive, and frustrating. We have, for example, a case in
Pequannock where scientific models adopted by an approved FEMA
cooperating technical partner in New Jersey had not been
admitted into a remapping appeals process, and instances of
delays and resolutions that put homeowners and our communities
in a flood map limbo, affecting their ability to sell homes,
make improvements to their property, and move forward on
important municipal planning decisions.
I believe this local expertise is critical to getting the
science of our flood maps right, and want to understand how we
can best support FEMA's efforts to partner with communities not
only in New Jersey, but across the country to incorporate local
scientific expertise efficiently, and in a common sense way. In
this hearing I hope we can have a constructive conversation
about how agencies can leverage their unique capabilities and
local information to improve the science and communication
around flood risk. While FEMA is the expert in administering
disaster aid, and mitigating risk on the floodplain, science
agencies like NOAA are hard at work collecting data on flood
prone environments, developing state-of-the-art models, and
generating forecasts, maps, and other communications. I hope
that we can find inter-agency synergies that improve the
science and get it out there into communities, where it is
sorely needed.
And science is only one part of the solution, as the other
communities of jurisdiction working hard on flood mitigation
know well. In fact, this morning I submitted a statement for
the record to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
for their Member Day Hearing outlining my district's priorities
related to the development of the Water Resources Development
Act, or WRDA, which included the need to address flood risk. I
am pleased to welcome our distinguished panel to today's
hearing. They will provide the perspective of both the Federal
Government and on-the-ground experts.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Sherrill follows:]
Good afternoon, and welcome to the Environment
Subcommittee's first hearing of 2020. This is my first hearing
since taking over the Subcommittee Chairmanship from my
colleague and friend, Ms. Fletcher. I am looking forward to
continuing the bipartisan work of this Subcommittee with
Ranking Member Marshall on issues related to the environment,
climate change, and weather research; issues that are critical
to New Jersey, and to the country. This is also a joint
Subcommittee hearing with the Investigations & Oversight
Subcommittee, and I would like to welcome my fellow Chair Dr.
Foster and Ranking Member Mr. Norman.
The focus of today's hearing is painfully salient in New
Jersey, a historically flood-prone state. New Jersey is a place
where both coastal and inland communities have unfortunately
had to deal with extensive flooding events, and as a result
actively invest in understanding and mitigating these flood
risks. In my district, towns such as Pequannock, Little Falls,
Woodland Park, Pompton Lakes, and Wayne that experience some of
the most extreme flooding, work hard to protect their residents
with measures like home buy-outs, elevations, dredging
waterways, and even flying drones to proactively identify flood
hazards in rivers. They appreciate that the National Flood
Insurance Program is a critical part of providing this
protection to communities and are committed to partner with you
to get the science underlying the FEMA flood mapping process
right.
Assessments of flood risk today must consider that climate
change is accelerating rates of sea level rise, intense heavy
rains, and other extreme weather events, creating flooding
patterns distinct and more damaging than norms of the past. And
it's not just New Jersey and coastal communities, as Ranking
Member Marshall knows too well; inland states faced billions of
dollars of damage from extreme wet conditions consistent with
climate change last year, with a similar forecast just released
by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for the
coming year for the Mississippi River and Great Plains basin.
The FEMA flood maps are intended to determine insurance
rates for one year ahead and set building standards for the
floodplain. Despite this intention, the reality is that
homeowners and local governments continue to use the maps to
make both short- and long- term decisions likebuying a home,
choosing a mortgage, and planning adaptation measures to deal
with the future flooding events. Given the public need, we must
ensure that the most up to date science of predicting flood
risk is accessible in a centralized, accurate, and easy-to-
understand way.
While we are primarily focused today on supporting inter-
agency efforts in federal flood mapping, I also want to
emphasize the importance of incorporating ``on-the-ground''
community feedback into the FEMA flood mapping process. My
understanding from local officials and constituents in my
district is that providing such input can be onerous,
expensive, and frustrating. We have, for example, a case in
Pequannock where scientific models adopted by an approved FEMA
Cooperating Technical Partner in New Jersey have not been
admitted into a remapping appeals process. And instances of
delays in resolutions that put homeowners and our communities
in a flood map limbo, affecting their ability to sell homes,
make improvements to their property, and move forward on
important municipal planning decisions. I believe this local
expertise is critical to getting the science of our flood maps
right, and want to understand how we can best support FEMA's
efforts to partner with communities, not only in New Jersey but
across the country, to incorporate local scientific expertise
efficiently and in a common-sense way.
In this hearing, I hope we can have a constructive
conversation about how agencies can leverage their unique
capabilities and local information to improve the science and
communication around flood risk. While FEMA is the expert in
administering disaster aid and mitigating risk on the
floodplain, science agencies like NOAA are hard at work
collecting data on flood-prone environments, developing state-
of-the-art models, and generating forecasts, maps, and other
communications. I hope that we can find interagency synergies
that improve the science and get it out there into communities
where it is sorely needed.
And science is only one part of the solution, as the other
committees of jurisdiction working hard on flood mitigation
know well. In fact, this morning, I submitted a statement for
the record to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
for their Member Day hearing outlining my district's priorities
related to the development of the Water Resources Development
Act, or WRDA, which included the need to address flood risk.
I am pleased to welcome our distinguished panel to today's
hearing. They will provide the perspective of both the federal
government and on-the-ground experts.
Chairwoman Sherrill. The Chair now recognizes Dr. Marshall
for an opening statement.
Mr. Marshall. All right. Thank you so much for holding
this joint Subcommittee hearing, Chairwoman Sherrill and
Chairman Foster. As you said earlier, this is the first time
the Environment Subcommittee has convened since you were
appointed, Chairwoman, so let me welcome you as well to the
Subcommittee, and I look forward to working with you as well.
I want to express my appreciation for this Committee's
focus on improving our preparedness in a changing climate. We
have held hearings of all kinds of extreme weather. From
windstorms, to hurricanes, to weather prediction models, policy
that helps protect lives and property is a responsibility that
should be at the top of every Member of Congress's priority
list. Today's hearing is another chance to discuss a type of
extreme weather event, and how we are preparing to lessen the
damage and effects it causes. Flood events occur in every State
and territory, and cause an average of 80 deaths per year. It's
easy to see how coastal areas, like Florida or New Jersey, are
susceptible, but these events also have a great impact on
agriculture, food, supply, and crop insurance for inland States
like Kansas.
In 2019 Kansas saw one of the worst years of extensive
flooding, with at least $15 million of infrastructure damage,
and $3.8 million in Federal flood insurance claims. It's
impossible to gauge just how much damage this has caused on
topsoil loss, land realignment, and other factors that affect
the day to day life of the agriculture community. What we do
know is that 13 dams were damaged, and well systems were
overwhelmed so much that trucks are still delivering up to
40,000 gallons of clean water every day to Northeast Kansas.
But as the saying goes, from challenges come opportunity.
The Kansas Department of Agriculture, already underway
with a project to map the State's floodplains with 2D
technology, has used the 2019 floods as a way of validating
their models, and getting trust among communities. They have
also spread more awareness of the State's Base Flood Elevation
(BFE) Portal, a collaborative project that allows users to draw
a polygon for their property, and see BFE value, as well as the
approximate lowest adjacent grade value-based on LIDAR (Light
Detection and Ranging). This type of tool is extremely helpful
because it gives property owners an idea of their chances to
obtain a Letter of Map Revision before they spend money on a
surveyor.
I look forward to hearing Mr. Ryan Branfort's testimony on
how similar technologies and services, along with geospatial
data, can help improve the flood mapping of FEMA and other
Federal agencies. I also look forward to hearing from all our
witnesses on the progress of the USGS (United States Geological
Survey) 3D Elevation Program, or 3DEP, as it moves forward with
the goal of completing a nationwide LIDAR mapping by 2023. 67
percent of the Nation has been completed, and more than 600
different applications will benefit from this enhanced
elevation data, including flood risk management and precision
agriculture. And now I'd like to enter this document into the
record showing organizations that support 3DEP.
Chairwoman Sherrill. Without objection.
Mr. Marshall. The idea that a Federal program can satisfy
multiple needs and be used in so many different ways is what
every program should strive to achieve. If we are going to
spend millions of taxpayer dollars in a multi-year coordinated
effort, I hope the final result is not a simple one trick pony.
I want to again thank our witnesses for being here, and I look
forward to hearing your testimony. Thank you, Madam Chair, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Marshall follows:]
Thank you for holding this joint Subcommittee hearing,
Chairwoman Sherrill and Chairman Foster. I believe this is the
first time the Environment Subcommittee has convened since you
were appointed Chairwoman, so welcome to the subcommittee and I
look forward to working with you.
I want to express my appreciation for this Committee's
focus on improving our preparedness in a changing climate. We
have held hearings on all kinds of extreme weather--from
windstorms to hurricanes to weather prediction models. Policy
that helps protect lives and property is a responsibility that
should be at the top of every Member of Congress' priority
list.
Today's hearing is another chance to discuss a type of
extreme weather event and how we are preparing to lessen the
damage and effects it causes.
Flood events occur in every state and territory and cause
an average of 80 deaths per year. It's easy to see how coastal
areas like Florida or New Jersey are susceptible, but these
events also have a great impact on agriculture, food supply,
and crop insurance for inland states like Kansas.
In 2019, Kansas saw one of the worst years of extensive
flooding with at least $15 million of infrastructure damage and
$3.8 million in federal flood insurance claims. It's impossible
to gauge just how much damage this has caused on topsoil loss,
land realignment, and other factors that affect the day to day
life of the agriculture community.
What we do know is that 13 dams were damaged and well
systems were overwhelmed so much that trucks are still
delivering up to 40,000 gallons of clean water every day to
northeast Kansas.
But as the saying goes: from challenge comes opportunity.
The Kansas Department of Agriculture, already underway with a
project to map the state's floodplains with 2D technology, has
used the 2019 floods has a way of validating their models and
gaining trust among communities.
They have also spread more awareness of the state's Base
Flood Elevation Portal, a collaborative project that allows
users to draw a polygon for their property and see BFE value,
as well as the approximate lowest adjacent grade value based on
LiDAR.
This type of tool is extremely helpful because it gives
property owners an idea of their chances to obtain a Letter of
Map Revision before they spend money on a surveyor.
I look forward to hearing Mr. Ryan Branfort's testimony on
how similar technologies and services, along with geospatial
data, can help improve the flood mapping of FEMA and other
federal agencies.
I also look forward to hearing from all of our witness on
the progress of the USGS 3-D Elevation Program, or 3DEP, as it
moves forward with the goal of completing a nationwide LiDAR
mapping by 2023. 67% of the nation has been completed and more
than 600 different applications will benefit from this enhance
elevation data, including flood risk management and precision
agriculture.
The idea that a federal program can satisfy multiple needs
and be used in so many different ways is what every program
should strive to achieve. If we are going to spend millions of
taxpayer dollars in a multi-year coordinated effort, I hope the
final result is not a simple one trick pony.
I want to again thank our witnesses for being here and I
look forward to hearing your testimony. Thank you Madam Chair
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes
the Chair of the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight,
Dr. Foster, for an opening statement.
Mr. Foster. Thank you, Chairwoman Sherrill. The nuts and
bolts of the National Flood Insurance Program are something
that we've spent countless hours on in the Financial Services
Committee, the other hat I wear around here. You know, there
are a lot of factors that go into the insurance side of the
program that we won't get into today, but I'm very glad that
the Science Committee is taking a look at the whole Federal
enterprise of flood prediction and decision support tools. This
is one of those policy topics where the scientific inputs and
outputs have a direct impact on the daily lives of millions of
Americans. If we don't prioritize accuracy, precision, and
granularity in the mapping and forecasting of flood hazards,
and make the investments necessary to get the data to make
those predictions accurate, then insurance requirements that we
apply on American businesses and homeowners will never be fair.
And the changing climate adds an uncontrollable variable
into the quest for quality maps. The National Flood Insurance
Act became law in 1968. Back then, anthropogenic climate change
was not really a part of the public discourse, and Federal
policymakers saw the global climate as static. It made sense to
create a program that would evaluate risk and designate
premiums on a, you know, simple 1-year annual outlook because
it was believed that the climate in 2020 would look more or
less like that of 1968. But now we know better. Global
concentrations of carbon dioxide in the air have risen from 320
to 400--to over 400 parts per million. And setting aside the
influence of methane and the other greenhouse gases, which are
roughly 30 percent of the other heat-trapping gases in the
atmosphere--yields a situation where global temperatures have
already gone up about 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1968. And
the incidence of--and severity of flooding has increased as a
result, and by no means are flood risks limited to coastal
zones.
Extreme rainfall events are driving record river overflows
and urban flooding throughout the Midwest. Last May Illinois
Governor Pritzker had to activate the Illinois National Guard
to address the historic flood conditions. Illinois farmers saw
so much hardship that, as a result, the USDA (United States
Department of Agriculture) issued an agricultural disaster
declaration. And it's not just homes, businesses, and farms
that are being affected. Last week I visited Strategic Air
Command and Offutt Air Force Base, which flooded badly last
spring, and the cleanup there is estimated to cost almost $1
billion dollars.
We can't ignore the fact that climate change is here
today. It's affecting our homes and our livelihoods, and the
Federal Government needs to deploy new tools to address it. So
I look forward to the hearing today about the opportunities to
use the most advanced technologies and models to evaluate
present day flood risk so we get an answer that's more accurate
and more detailed than the status quo. You know, there are
advancements in LIDAR, lower cost flood sensors, drones,
artificial intelligence, algorithms can all help FEMA--make the
FEMA map more accurate, and perhaps lower the cost of producing
it. Perhaps there are also ways to leverage new applications
for flood evaluation and prediction using the existing network
of earth monitoring satellites and supercomputers, such as
Aurora, which is being built in my district at Argonne National
Lab.
The hydrology and climate data products put out by Mr.
Osler's team at NOAA are first-rate, but maybe there are more
effective ways to leverage those and improve those resources.
Yes, there'll be tough questions anytime FEMA makes changes to
their methods that affect the rates that people pay under the
National Flood Insurance Program, and we're not going to
resolve all those issues today, but I think we can all agree
that a sophisticated scientific foundation is the best place to
start.
And I also want to thank--to think about the art of the
possible for providing forward-looking decision support tools
that will help property buyers understand their flood risk over
the life of a 30-year mortgage. FEMA's flood maps are an
insurance product that aren't really designed to show future
conditions. We need to acknowledge that people may be counting
on FEMA's maps for things that they weren't meant for. And we
need to acknowledge that homebuyers want to make informed
decisions about future flood risks when they take on a
mortgage, and also that most homebuyers can't afford to pay for
a fancy private mapping firm in order to do that.
Thank you to all of our witnesses for making time today,
and I look forward to a productive conversation. I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Foster follows:]
Thank you, Chairwoman Sherrill.
The nuts and bolts of the National Flood Insurance Program
are something I've spent a lot of time on in the Financial
Services Committee. There are a lot of factors that go into the
insurance side of the program that we won't get into today. But
I'm glad the Science Committee is taking a look at the whole
federal enterprise of flood prediction and decision support
tools. This is one of those policy topics where the scientific
inputs have a direct impact on the daily lives of millions of
Americans. If we don't prioritize accuracy, precision and
granularity in mapping and forecasting flood hazards, the
insurance requirements we apply to American businesses and
homeowners will never be fair.
And the changing climate throws a curveball into the quest
for quality maps. The National Flood Insurance Act became law
in 1968. Back then, anthropogenic climate change was not yet a
part of the public discourse and federal policymakers saw the
global climate as static. It made sense to create a program
that would evaluate risk and designate premiums on a simple
one-year annual outlook, because it was believed that the
climate in 2020 would look more or less like 1968.
But now we know better. Global concentrations of carbon
dioxide in the air in 1968 were 320 parts per million. Today we
are at 413. Setting aside the influence of methane and other
greenhouse gases--that's 30% more heat-trapping gases in the
atmosphere. Global average temperatures have gone up by 1.4
degrees Fahrenheit since 1968. The incidence and severity of
flooding has increased as a result, and by no means are flood
risks limited to coastal zones.
Extreme rainfall events are driving record river overflows
and urban flooding in the Midwest. Last May, Governor Pritzker
had to activate the Illinois National Guard to address the
historic flood conditions. Illinois farmers saw so much
hardship as a result that USDA issued an agricultural disaster
declaration. My hometown of Naperville saw the DuPage River
overflow and swallow parts of the riverwalk. And it's not just
homes and businesses that are being affected--just last week I
visited Offutt Airforce Base which flooded last spring and the
cleanup is estimated cost almost one billion dollars.
We can't ignore the fact that climate change is here today,
it is affecting our homes and our livelihoods, and the federal
government needs to deploy new tools to address it.
I look forward to hearing today about the opportunities to
use more advanced technologies and models to evaluate present-
day flood risk that is more accurate and more detailed than the
status quo. Advancements in LIDAR, lower cost flood sensors,
drones, and artificial intelligence can all help FEMA map more
acreage more effectively, and perhaps at a lower cost. Perhaps
there are ways to leverage new applications for flood
evaluation and prediction using the existing network of earth
monitoring satellites and supercomputers like Aurora, which is
being built at Argonne National Lab as we speak. The hydrology
and climate data products put out by Mr. Osler's team and NOAA
are first-rate, and maybe there are more effective ways to
leverage those resources. Yes, there will tough questions
anytime FEMA makes changes in their methods that affect the
rates that people pay under the National Flood Insurance
Program. We can't resolve all those issues today, but I think
we can all agree that a sophisticated scientific foundation is
the best place to start.
I also want to think about the art of the possible for
providing forward-looking decision support tools that will help
property buyers understand their flood risk over the life of a
30-year mortgage. FEMA's flood maps are an insurance product
that aren't designed to show future conditions. We need to
acknowledge that people may be counting on FEMA's maps for
things they weren't meant for. We need to acknowledge that
homebuyers want to make informed decisions about future flood
risks when they take on a mortgage--and also that most
homebuyers can't afford to pay a fancy private mapping firm in
order to do that.
Thank you to our witnesses for making the time today and I
look forward to a productive conversation. I yield back.
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes
the Ranking Member for the Subcommittee on Investigations and
Oversight, Mr. Norman, for an opening statement.
Mr. Norman. I want to thank all the witnesses, thank you,
Chairwoman Sherrill and Chairman Foster for having this
meeting. This is near and dear to my heart. I'm a real estate
developer who has developed property dealing with flood maps
residentially, commercially. Also dealt with it on the wetland
credits, with regulations that are out of the roof that seven
years, generally, to deal with the Corps, which hopefully we
can make some suggestions and improvements.
But we're here today to discuss how flooding impacts
property owners, and the ways that flood hazards and risks are
communicated to the public, which is a big part of it. We will
examine the science and data that FEMA and NOAA leverage to
generate and distribute Federal flood products, the steps being
taken to incorporate future flood hazards into these products,
and the tools and technologies that exist to help property
owners, coastal managers, and community stakeholders better
understand and evaluate their flood risk.
Flooding is both the most common and most costly natural
disaster in the United States. Floods have caused more than
$155 billion in property damage over the last 10 years, and
nearly 4,000 deaths since 1950. Roughly 75 percent of all
Presidential disaster declarations are related in some manner
to flooding. In my home State of South Carolina, flooding is an
even greater concern. A significant percentage of all South
Carolina lands fall within floodplains designated as special
flood hazard areas by FEMA. And although it ranks 23rd in total
population, South Carolina is ranked seventh among all States
in coastal flooding vulnerability, with roughly 400,000 people
at risk of inland and coastal flooding throughout our State.
Addressing our Nation's flood risks requires buy-in from
Federal, State, local, and community stakeholders, not red tape
and useless bureaucracy. Recognizing this, in 2018 Governor
McMaster established the South Carolina Floodwater Commission
to develop recommendations to alleviate and mitigate flood
impacts to the State. Under the leadership of its Chairman,
Retired Major General Tom Mullikin, this commission, unique for
our State, took a realistic and a hands-on approach to mitigate
flooding in our State. The recommendations offered by this
extraordinary committee are the cornerstone of my home State's
fight against extreme weather events. In recognition of their
achievement, I offer to submit their report for the
Congressional Record as an example to be admired and followed
nationally.
Yet in spite of these valiant efforts I recognize that
South Carolina alone cannot solve our Nation's flooding
challenges. That's why I'm pleased to see that FEMA, NOAA, and
the USGS are making positive strides in confronting this issue.
They're working collaboratively to improve our understanding of
flood hazards and risks, and how best to communicate these
risks to State and local communities, and also the general
public, which needs to be informed. I encourage them to
continue to improve and expand their inter-agency coordination
to ensure that Federal flood products are accurate, reliable,
and comprehensible to the communities, like those in South
Carolina, who rely on them for planning, zoning, and land use
management.
Preparedness is critical to combatting the challenges that
flooding presents, but proper preparation means taking steps
now to improve our resilience to flood hazards and mitigate
present and future flood risks. I look forward to learning more
today about what FEMA and NOAA are doing to improve Federal
flood mapping, and how they are leveraging modern technology to
gain a more accurate and granular understanding of flood risks
and hazards in South Carolina and throughout our Nation.
Flooding events presents a great challenge, but through
collaboration and coordination between all levels of
government, community stakeholders, and private sector experts,
it's a challenge that we can overcome, and we can be
successful. I again want to thank the witnesses for taking the
time to be here today. Thank you, Chairwoman Sherrill, and I
yield back
[The prepared statement of Mr. Norman follows:]
Thank you, Chairwoman Sherrill and Chairman Foster, for
convening this hearing, and thank you to the witnesses for your
testimony this afternoon.
We are here today to discuss how flooding impacts property
owners and the ways that flood risks and hazards are
communicated to the public. We will examine the science and
data that FEMA and NOAA leverage to generate and distribute
Federal flood products, the steps being taken to incorporate
future flood hazards into these products, and the tools and
technologies that exist to help property owners, coastal
managers, and community stakeholders better understand and
evaluate their flood risk.
Flooding is both the most common and most costly natural
disaster in the United States. Floods have caused more than
$155 billion in property damage over the last ten years and
nearly 4,000 deaths since 1950. Roughly 75% of all presidential
disaster declarations are related to flooding.
In my home state of South Carolina, flooding is an even
greater concern. A significant percentage of all South Carolina
lands fall within floodplains designated as ``Special Flood
Hazard Areas'' by FEMA. And although it ranks 23rd in total
population, South Carolina is ranked seventh among all states
in coastal flooding vulnerability, with roughly 400,000 people
at risk of inland and coastal flooding throughout the state.
Addressing our nation's flood risks requires buy-in from
Federal, state, local, and community stakeholders, not red tape
and useless bureaucracy. Recognizing this, in 2018, Governor
McMaster established the South Carolina Floodwater Commission
to develop recommendations to alleviate and mitigate flood
impacts to the state.
Under the leadership of its Chairman, Retired Major General
Tom Mullikin, this Commission, unique to our state, took a
realistic and hands-on approach to mitigate flooding in our
State. The recommendations offered by this extraordinary
Committee are the cornerstone of my home state's fight against
extreme weather events.
In recognition of their achievement, I offer to submit
their report for the congressional record as an example to be
admired and followed nationally. Yet in spite of these valiant
efforts I recognize that South Carolina alone cannot solve our
national flooding challenges.
That's why I'm pleased to see that FEMA, NOAA, and the USGS
are making positive strides in confronting this issue. They are
working collaboratively to improve our understanding of flood
hazards and risks, and how best to communicate these risks to
state and local communities, and the general public. I
encourage them to continue to improve and expand their
interagency coordination to ensure that Federal flood products
are accurate, reliable, and comprehensible to the communities,
like those in South Carolina, who rely on them for planning,
zoning, and land use management.
Preparedness is critical to combatting the challenges that
flooding presents. But proper preparation means taking steps
now to improve our resilience to flood hazards and to mitigate
present and future flood risks.
I look forward to learning more today about what FEMA and
NOAA are doing to improve Federal flood mapping, and how they
are leveraging modern technology to gain a more accurate and
granular understanding of flood risks and hazards in South
Carolina and throughout our Nation.
Flooding events present a great challenge. But through
collaboration and coordination between all levels of
government, community stakeholders, and private sector experts,
it is a challenge that we can overcome.
I again want to thank the witnesses for being here today. I
look forward to your testimony.
Thank you, Chairwoman Sherrill. I yield back the balance of
my time.
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you. We are honored to have the
full Committee Chairwoman, Ms. Johnson, here with us today. The
Chair now recognizes the Chairwoman for an opening statement.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much, and good
afternoon. The FEMA flood mapping process is not a topic this
Committee has explored very deeply in the past. Our friends in
the Financial Services Committee work hard to look after the
authorizations and policy changes that the program needs, and
they stay very busy doing it. But, as with so many Federal
programs, there is an opportunity here for the Science, Space,
and Technology Committee to make sure innovative technologies
and cutting-edge strategies for analysts are being put to work
for the good of the taxpayer. When we leverage the best
available science, we can help make government programs perform
better, deliver services quicker, and save money.
In the case of dealing with flooding, this country may
need all the help it can get. By all objective measures, the
severity and frequency of flooding is on a significant upward
trend. The National Flood Insurance Program reached its maximum
authority to borrow money in order to cover ratepayers' claims
in September of 2017, and, for the first time, the Treasury
canceled a $16 billion debt. This happened in just time--just
in time for the Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria, which
delivered unprecedented damages in Texas, Florida and Puerto
Rico, as well as several neighboring States. FEMA had to borrow
another $6.1 billion in order to address the heavy losses from
these disasters. I will note that these communities are still
healing from the 2017 hurricane season today. Even the best
insurance can't fix the physical and emotional devastation
caused by a flood that takes your home or your business.
It is time to think creatively about how to help get
better technologies for flood mapping, evaluation, and
prediction into the marketplace. FEMA is working on a process
called Risk Rating 2.0 that will incorporate new data points,
modeling strategies, and enhanced granularity in order to
provide a more accurate picture of flood risk. It would be
beneficial if the process would also allow FEMA and its
contracting partners to update its maps in a more timely
fashion. FEMA will need to talk to Congress if it needs support
or resources to make Risk Rating 2.0 a success. It's always
worth asking the question of what research and development
capabilities are available to an agency when it embarks upon an
ambitious project like Risk Rating 2.0. I hope that the Science
and Technology Directorate at the Department of Homeland
Security is playing a role in this process.
The resources we have at other agencies like the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, also need to
be deployed to their greatest potential. NOAA's capabilities
for Earth observation and predictive modeling along coastlines
are unparalleled. NASA (National Aeronautics and Space
Administration) Earth Sciences and the U.S. Geological Survey
have observational capabilities that we want to make sure are
in that mix as well. As climate change continues to move the
goalposts for flood risk, we need to make sure that all Federal
science agencies are coordinating closely in order to deliver
information to taxpayers that can help them make sound
decisions and keep themselves and their families safe.
Texas has--had a bad year for flooding in 2017. I know
Oklahoma had a tough year with flooding in 2019. Ranking Member
Lucas and I both understand that no region in the country is
immune to flood risk, and that an ounce of prevention is worth
a pound of cure. I look forward to working with the Members of
both sides of the aisle, and with the administration, on
strategies to leverage all our scientific capabilities to
address the challenges associated with increased flooding.
I want to say as an aside, early last year I had a meeting
of my entire COG area, the Council Of Governments area, in
North Texas, which is generally thought of as an inland area,
which included FEMA and all the other agencies at every level
of government, and we all decided we would work together to
prevent, because prevention is so much better than having to
pay for it afterwards. So I hope we will continue that, and
thank you, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]
Good afternoon and thanks to all our witnesses for being
here. The FEMA flood mapping process is not a topic this
Committee has explored very deeply in the past. Our friends in
the Financial Services Committee work hard to look after the
authorizations and policy changes that program needs, and they
stay very busy doing that.
But as with so many federal programs, there is an
opportunity here for the Science, Space, and Technology
Committee to make sure innovative technologies and cutting-edge
strategies for analysis are being put to work for the good of
the taxpayer. When we leverage the best available science, we
can help make government programs perform better, deliver
services quickly, and save money.
In the case of dealing with flooding, this country may need
all the help it can get. By all objective measures, the
severity and frequency of flooding is on a significant upward
trend. The National Flood Insurance Program reached its maximum
authority to borrow money in order to cover ratepayer claims in
September of 2017 and for the first time, the Treasury
cancelled $16 billion of debt. This happened just in time for
Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria, which delivered
unprecedented damages in Texas, Florida and Puerto Rico, as
well as several neighboring states. FEMA had to borrow another
$6.1 billion in order to address the heavy losses from these
disasters. I will note that these communities are still healing
from the 2017 hurricane season today--even the best insurance
can't fix the physical and emotional devastation caused by a
flood that takes your home or your business.
It is time to think creatively about how to help get better
technologies for flood mapping, evaluation and prediction into
the marketplace. FEMA is working on a process called Risk
Rating 2.0 that will incorporate new data points, modeling
strategies and enhanced granularity in order to provide a more
accurate picture of flood risk. It would be beneficial if this
process would also allow FEMA and its contracting partners to
update its maps in a more timely fashion.
FEMA will need to talk to Congress if it needs support or
resources to make Risk Rating 2.0 a success. It's always worth
asking the question of what research and development
capabilities are available to an agency when it embarks upon an
ambitious project like Risk Rating 2.0. I hopethat the Science
& Technology Directorate at the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) is playing a role in the process.
The resources we have at other agencies like the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) also need to be
deployed to their greatest potential. NOAA's capabilities for
earth observation and predictive modeling along coastlines are
unparalleled. NASA Earth Sciences and the U.S. Geological
Survey have observational capabilities that we want to make
sure are in the mix as well. As climate change continues to
move the goalposts for flood risk, we need to make sure that
all federal science agencies are coordinating closely in order
to deliver information to taxpayers that can help them make
sound decisions--and keep themselves and their families safe.
Texas had a bad year for flooding in 2017. I know Oklahoma
had a tough year with flooding in 2019. Ranking Member Lucas
and I both understand that no region of the country is immune
to flood risk--and that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound
of cure. I look forward to working with Members on both sides
of the aisle and with the Administration on strategies to
leverage all our scientific capabilities to address the
challenges associated with increased flooding.
I yield back
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you, Madam Chair. At this time
Dr.--if there are any Members who wish to submit additional
opening statements, your statements will be added to the record
at this point. And at this time I'd like to introduce our
witnesses. First I'll turn it over to Dr. Marshall, who will
introduce his witness, Mr. Branfort.
Mr. Marshall. All right. Thank you again, Chairwoman
Sherrill. It's an honor and a privilege to welcome a
constituent of mine as a witness today. Mr. Ryan Branfort is a
Senior Vice President at Wilson and Company, Incorporated,
Engineers and Architects, where he manages the Surveying,
Mapping, and GIS (Geographic Information System) Division. More
importantly, though, he is a Kansas State University graduate.
With a staff of nearly 100 individuals, his division
performs work for a variety of Federal, State, municipal, and
private entities. He's held nearly every type of position in
the Surveying and Mapping Division, including field surveyor,
party chief, CAD (Computer Aided Design) technician, GIS
specialist, photogrammetrist, that's a new one, and various
supervisory positions, giving him a well-rounded background in
the field. He's spent the last 15 years as part of the
company's executive leadership team, and served six years on
Wilson and Company's Board of Directors.
Wilson and Company itself has nearly 500 employees in 15
offices across nine States, but I'd also like to point out that
Mr. Branfort is based in the Salina office, which is less than
a five minute drive from my district office, so it's nice to
have a constituent and a workplace neighbor here in D.C. Thank
you, Mr. Branfort, for making the trip up here, and taking the
time to testify. With that, I yield back, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you, and thank you, Mr.
Branfort.
Next we have Mr. Michael Grimm, who serves as the
Assistant Administrator for Risk Management at the Federal
Insurance and Mitigation Administration within FEMA. Under Mr.
Grimm's direction, the Risk Management Directorate produces
data, modeling, and programs that inform the public of national
disaster risk. The Risk Management Directorate manages the risk
mapping, analysis, and planning, a risk map program, within the
National Flood Insurance Program, as well as other programs
that prioritize Federal investments and resilience projects,
and help to implement standards. Mr. Grimm has previously
directed both FEMA's disaster mitigation programs and its
Individual Assistance Division.
Prior to joining FEMA, Mr. Grimm worked in several other
governmental positions, including with the city of Fort
Collins, Colorado, the State of Wyoming, and the United States
Geological Survey National Research Program. He holds a Master
of Science in Earth Resources from Colorado State University.
That's a little far afield from my home State of New Jersey,
but welcome.
Next we have Mr. Mark Osler, who serves as Senior Advisor
for Coastal Inundation and Resilience at the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA. Mr. Osler works to
coordinate and advance coastal flood science at NOAA, and
improve decisionmakers' ability to prepare for and respond to
ongoing changes affecting coastal communities. He also advises
NOAA leadership on coastal research, applied science, and
policy strategy. He's focused on improving inter-agency
coordination and strengthening partnerships with non-Federal
organizations. Prior to joining NOAA, Mr. Osler worked in the
private sector for 17 years. He received a Master's Degree in
Coastal Engineering from the University of Delaware, and we're
happy to have you here today.
Our final witness is Mr. Chad Berginnis. Mr. Berginnis has
served the Executive Director for the Association of State
Floodplain Managers (ASFPM) since 2012. Prior to this, he
served in several other roles at ASFPM in--and in floodplain
management at the State and local level in Ohio. He has also
worked in private sector hazard mitigation. In all, he has been
working in floodplain management for nearly 30 years. As
executive director for AFS--ASFPM, Mr. Berginnis works with
Federal agencies and Congress to advocate for policies dealing
with flood risk, water management, and natural disaster
resilience. He also develops tools for local decisionmakers,
and works with professional associations, ASFPM chapters, and
private sector partners. Mr. Berginnis holds a Bachelor of
Science in Natural Resources from Ohio State University, and is
a certified floodplain manager. Thank you all for being here
today.
As our witnesses should know, you will each have 5 minutes
for your oral testimony. Your written testimony will be
included in the record for the hearing. When you all have
completed your spoken testimony, we'll begin with questions.
Each Member will have 5 minutes to question the panel, and I
ask your help in--as you see you're getting closer to your 5
minutes, starting to wrap up your answer so everyone has
opportunities. And so we will start today with Mr. Grimm.
TESTIMONY OF MR. MICHAEL GRIMM,
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR RISK MANAGEMENT,
FEDERAL INSURANCE AND MITIGATION ADMINISTRATION,
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Grimm. Good afternoon, Chairman Foster, and Chairwoman
Sherrill, Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Members Norman and
Marshall, and Members of the Committee. My name is Michael
Grimm, and I'm the Assistant Administrator for Risk Management
for the Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration. Thank
you for the opportunity to testify today about the flood
insurance rate maps (FIRMs), and the steps FEMA is taking to
help communities better understand the hazards posed by
catastrophic flooding. As millions of American families have
unfortunately experienced firsthand, flooding is the most
common and costly natural disaster in the United States. Over
the past 10 years, floods alone have caused over $155 billion
in property damage. 98 percent of counties have experienced a
flooding event.
The most prevalent cartographic tool used to help
communities understand their flooding risks are the flood
insurance rate maps, or flood maps, and they provide the
backbone of effective floodplain management. Flood maps are
used for a variety of purposes. While most often associated
with determining flood insurance premiums in the National Flood
Insurance Program, flood maps also play a fundamental role in
establishing land use, zoning, and building standards. Flood
maps help communities ensure that development and
infrastructure are constructed to protect lives and property.
The local adoption of minimum NFIP standards has resulted in
$100 billion in losses avoided over the past 40 years.
Since the inception of the NFIP in 1969, our Nation has
invested approximately $10.6 billion in inflation-adjusted
dollars for flood mapping. Although the type of data needed to
create dependable flood maps has remained relatively consistent
over the past 50 years, the tools and technology used to gather
and share this information has changed substantially. For
instance, paper-based flood maps have become digitally
accessible to millions of Americans, and the traditional
surveying methodologies have been replaced with more accurate
and cost-saving techniques. One example is LIDAR technology,
which has allowed FEMA and its partners, such as NOAA, to map
flood hazard zones with increased efficiency and accuracy by
measuring landscapes with laser-based surveying methodologies
from aircraft.
The modernization of techniques has made digital flood
maps more adaptable and easier to update. As conditions change,
flood maps require maintenance. With current resources, FEMA is
able to validate 20 percent of our inventory annually to ensure
that maps meet current standards. Working with States and
communities, we must prioritize which maps should be updated in
accordance with the highest risk or need, and then work with
our partners to begin the cyclical process anew.
While maintaining current flood maps is critical, we're
still far from completing the initial job of mapping the entire
nation. FEMA and State and local partners have historically
prioritized limited mapping resources for areas with the
greatest population levels and flood insurance policies on the
assumption that these places represent the highest risk. While
this approach has produced accurate and detailed maps in
counties and communities with higher population levels, the
unfortunate consequence is that many areas with potential for
future development remain unmapped.
Despite the progress we've made in modernizing the flood
mapping process, there's still ample opportunity for continuous
improvement. One of the most notable opportunities concerns the
timeline for production of new flood maps. Although due process
and careful deliberation is vital to ensure both the map's
accuracy and buy-in of local partners, the extent of procedures
necessary to comply with current law can result in a situation
in which new maps have technically expired by the time they're
approved and publicly available. The development of a new flood
map takes 7 years on average to complete. That juxtaposes
present statutes, which require FEMA to re-assess flood maps
every 5 years in order to qualify as current.
Another data concern often raised regarding current flood
maps is lack of consideration about future conditions and sea
level rise. These are important factors for a variety of
reasons, as exemplified by the acceleration of daily tidal
flooding in more than 25 Atlantic and Gulf Coast cities. While
maps do not currently reflect the ways in which flood risks may
change in the future, FEMA strongly encourages communities to
incorporate anticipated future conditions into their projects
and planning. For example, FEMA is actively coordinating with
New York City through FEMA's Cooperating Technical Partners
Program to pilot non-regulatory flood products that address
future flooding scenarios. The intent is to ensure that today's
designs address tomorrow's risks by integrating future sea
level rise data into building code requirements and floodplain
management.
Improving the production of flood maps within the context
of changing conditions and expanding nationwide flood insurance
coverage is a strategic priority of FEMA. Through an initiative
known as the Future of Flood Risk Data, FEMA aims to provide a
comprehensive picture of the country's flood hazards through a
graduated risk analysis. The more--this more holistic
understanding of present and future risk can serve as a basis
for a range of both regulatory and non-regulatory products.
Presently flood insurance rate maps are a binary representation
of a single flood hazard, the 1 percent chance annual flood. As
a result, FIRMs can give a false impression to communities
outside the of the special flood hazard area that they have
little or no flood risk. Graduated risk analysis could more
effectively inform decisionmaking and drive action.
FEMA looks forward to closely coordinating with our
congressional and Federal partners to improve this process, and
thank you for the opportunity to testify and discuss this
important aspect of our mission.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grimm follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you so much. And I have to
apologize, I will be leaving shortly, the vote schedule upended
my day a little bit. Fortunately, this is, as I mentioned, a
very critical issue for my district, so I have two of my
district directors here. I have Kellie Doucette and Jill
Hirsch, and I look forward to hearing about your testimony and
reviewing it afterwards. Thank you again.
Next we have Mr. Osler.
TESTIMONY OF MR. MARK OSLER, SENIOR ADVISOR
FOR COASTAL INUNDATION AND RESILIENCE,
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Mr. Osler. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Sherrill, Chairman
Foster, Ranking Member Marshall, Ranking Member Norman, and
Members of the Subcommittees. Thank you for inviting me to
testify. Part of NOAA's core mission is to protect lives and
property, and enhance the national economy. We do this by
providing environmental information and predictions to the
public. From real time observations, to daily weather and water
forecasts and warnings, to climate monitoring, and sea level
rise analysis, NOAA's products and services provide vital
information to the public. These insights are underpinned by
cutting edge research, collaborative external partnerships, and
thousands of dedicated scientists across the Nation. To carry
out our important mission in a changing world, NOAA has
recently launched strategies to optimize our use of unmanned
systems, artificial intelligence, and cloud computing to ensure
that our work remains at the forefront of innovation.
Our Nation has a special challenge along our coasts. Our
coasts are economic drivers. Coastal counties produce more than
$8 trillion of goods and services annually, and employ 56
million Americans. If our coastal counties were combined to be
an individual nation, it would rank third in the world in GDP
(Gross Domestic Product). This economic engine along our coasts
is increasingly at risk. Water levels are rising. We observe
more frequent flooding during high tides, even in the absence
of storms, Great Lakes water levels are at record heights, and
increased development along our coasts mean the impact of
coastal hazards are more costly than ever.
NOAA is at the forefront in the national response to these
challenges. We deliver an array of water level and mapping
services, which include NOAA's comprehensive inland flood
watches and warnings, together with real time hurricane surge
forecasts and warnings, which provide a comprehensive picture
of flooding and real time impacts, which enable life saving
evacuation decisions. NOAA also supports coastal decisionmakers
through platforms like Digital Coast, which include our sea
level rise viewer, empowering communities to incorporate future
risk within their long-range planning and capital improvement
investments.
And all of these products and services themselves are
built on underlying data which NOAA produces to determine where
the land and water are in relation to one another, and how they
are changing over time. NOAA builds and maintains the National
Spatial Reference System, which defines latitude and longitude
and elevation for the Nation. We're currently hard at work
modernizing this system to improve measurement accuracy. NOAA
also maintains our Nation's long-term network of tide stations.
These stations provide tidal datums, historic water levels, and
track rising sea levels.
In order to deliver our mission, NOAA works with and
supports many agencies, including FEMA. For example, NOAA
actively participates in the Federal Inter-Agency Floodplain
Management Task Force, FEMA's community rating system task
force, and provides experts to participate in FEMA's Technical
Mapping Advisory Council (TMAC). NOAA's working together with
the U.S. Geological Survey, the Army Corp of Engineers, and
FEMA to provide integrated real time and forecast flood
inundation maps along our Nation's streams and rivers, and
during natural disasters NOAA has pre-scripted mission
assignments in place which enable FEMA to request NOAA's
support with emergency weather forecasting, aerial and
underwater surveys that are used to identify hazards, and
accelerate response and recovery.
There's a lot of talk these days about resilience, the
ability to anticipate, adapt, withstand, and evolve from any
disruption. The science involved in predicting and mapping
environmental information is complex. We must continue to
support the research and observations which enable these tasks.
However, we must also respect the fact that even the best
science and mapping will not increase safety and reduce
economic loss without a clear understanding of how the public
understands risk. Local decisionmakers must be supported in
discovering for themselves how the relevant science relates to
their local priorities and values to their culture, to their
history, and to the future they wish to forge for themselves.
NOAA is proud to join together with FEMA and myriad
partners in and outside of government to enhance our scientific
understanding and participate in this shared engagement with
the public about the risks that we face today and in the
future. Thank you for the opportunity to be in dialog together
today. I look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Osler follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Bonamici [presiding]. Thank you for your testimony. I
now recognize Mr. Branfort for 5 minutes for your testimony.
TESTIMONY OF MR. RYAN BRANFORT, PLS, GISP,
SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, WILSON AND COMPANY, INC.,
ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS
Mr. Branfort. Thank you, Chairwoman Sherrill, Chairmen
Foster and Norman, and especially to Dr. Marshall, for this
opportunity. I am a licensed surveyor, practicing
photogrammetrist, and GIS professional, and I'm honored to
present my piece on how GIS spatial data technology and
services can improve FEMA flood mapping and better serve the
American people.
Our changing, evolving climate, sea level rise,
subsidence, and other natural phenomena affects flooding and
impacts American property owners, taxpayers, and FEMA, as the
custodian of the National Flood Insurance Program. As a Kansan,
I can tell you these phenomena also affect American
agriculture, crop insurance, and our food supply. America is
blessed with a vibrant, capable, and qualified private sector
geospatial community that provides an extraordinary array of
data technology and services that contribute to our quality of
life. I'd like to share with you today some thoughts on how
these technologies can be used to predict future flood rather--
future flood mapping, rather than mapping past flood results.
This would significantly save lives, protect property, improve
building practices, and save tax dollars.
I've got a few slides here that show some of the
technologies and examples of state-of-the-art geospatial
technologies that are available to assist FEMA. Now, this first
slide is several examples of--you've heard talk about LIDAR,
which is Light Detection and Ranging. There's elevation data
collected with a new laser system. Next slide, please. Oops, I
can turn it here. The USGS 3DEP Elevation Program, or 3DEP, is
satisfying the growing demand for consistent, high quality
topographic data and other three-dimensional representations of
natural and constructed features, primarily using LIDAR. Among
the leading applications that benefit from 3DEP is flood risk
management.
While FEMA has been the leading contributor to 3DEP, apart
from USGS itself, the program is not coming close to the $146
million per year that is needed to complete the mapping of the
project and implement an 8-year update cycle. As my second
slide slows--shows here, about 67 percent of the Nation has
been mapped under 3DEP, but many areas still need elevation
data. Before the 3DEP implementation, the average elevation
data for the Nation was 30 years old. In the areas that are
white, this area--this data's still being used.
Coastal mapping--if you'd read Chief Justice Roberts's
dissenting views in the Supreme Court's decision in
Massachusetts vs. EPA, he noted the Plaintiffs did not submit
mapping to document the shoreline that it was losing. In fact,
as the National Academy pointed out, there are at least 22
different Federal, State, and local definitions of shorelines.
It's noted a single nationally accepted and consistent U.S.
shoreline does not exist, and the use of inconsistent shoreline
definitions between maps, charts, GIS outputs, and other
products leads user to--to--leads to user confusion and ill-
informed decisionmaking.
This map shows subsidence across the country. This is--
there's natural and anthropogenic subsidence in many areas of
coastal and inland America. In many studies, this is ignored or
discounted. This map shows there are portions of our nation
that are extremely vulnerable to subsidence, and other regions
where there's no data at all. Coastal areas, such as Houston,
that experience extreme subsidence, are vulnerable to flooding.
Rural inland areas, such as the San Joaquin Valley in
California, experience subsidence due to groundwater
extraction. This next slide shows the San Joaquin Valley, where
the extreme subsidence occurs. There's also--this slide here
shows the Atlantic coast, Jersey Shore, subsidence occurring.
NASA's beginning a program, the very small-scale National Land
Level Change Map, to monitor subsidence change.
For inland bathymetry, the Army Corps of Engineers has
reservoirs that are 50 years old. Sediment buildup has greatly
reduced the capacity of these reservoirs. As this slide shows,
there's other areas--the same could be said for other lakes and
inland waterways. We need bathymetric mapping and surveying of
sediment monitoring to measure the capacity, and to be able to
more accurately forecast flooding. For structures inventories,
it is essential that all FEMA maps show structures. FEMA should
investigate means for presenting flood risks to individual
homeowners based on their elevations to their lowest adjacent
grades, or lowest floor elevations. LIDAR technology in
particular is ideal for determining these elevations.
In conclusion, I want to commend FEMA for the--for doing
the best job possible. It is a difficult job. I hope the
constructive recommendations I've put forward today will be
accepted, and the program provide an even greater service to
our Nation. I thank you for the invitation to present, and I'll
be looking forward to questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Branfort follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you for your testimony. I now
recognize Mr. Berginnis for 5 minutes for your testimony.
TESTIMONY OF MR. CHAD BERGINNIS,
CFM, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
ASSOCIATION OF STATE FLOODPLAIN MANAGERS
Mr. Berginnis. All right. Thank you, Chairwoman, Chairman
Foster, Ranking Member Marshall, Ranking Member Norman, and the
Members of the Subcommittees for holding this important
hearing, and inviting the Association of State Floodplain
Managers to testify. I am Chad Berginnis, Executive Director of
ASFPM, whose 20,000 members include many of the boots on the
ground State and local officials that use flood maps thousands
of times each day to help guide development within their
communities.
If we measured success in how we managed flood risk by
total losses in the Nation, we're not doing so well. In the
past decade our conservative estimate is the Nation's
experienced an average of $17 billion in flood losses annually.
This is up from $10 billion annually in the 2000s. Why is this
happening? There's a number of reasons, but the fact remains
that far too many headlines repeat a familiar theme, people
didn't know that they were at risk. For many years our members
at the State and local level have been concerned they simply
don't have enough data to inform property owners about flood
risks, to guide development, to plan for emergencies, or
prioritize flood mitigation actions.
In areas we have basic information, like the 100- and 500-
year flood data, we don't have information on other flood
hazards or future conditions. These data are not available when
development's occurring, and then we actually are building
tomorrow's flood problems today. Think about this example. A
subdivision is proposed in a community in an area that was
previously agricultural. Because the small stream running
through the property was never identified as a floodplain,
homes are built, and then, because there's now a risk, it
becomes a priority for FEMA mapping. A floodplain is identified
after the fact, and now everybody's upset. Community officials
and property owners then fight like heck to dispute the map,
almost always to make sure that the mandatory purchase of flood
insurance doesn't kick in.
Another variation of this problem in a coastal area would
be where revised flood maps come out, and let's say the flood
elevations are actually lower than existing maps due to new
modeling techniques. Because the maps don't include future
flood conditions, however, local officials are stuck applying
land use and building standards too low, given that the home
will likely be there for 100 years or more. Future flood maps
will eventually come out, and even if they just reflect the
effect of sea level rise, property owners will face the same
dilemma, why didn't they know about--when they built the home,
and why didn't the community protect its tax base by building
more resiliently?
The fact is we have a lot of work to do to fully implement
the National Flood Mapping Program as envisioned by Congress
when it was authorized in 2012. The program requires the
identification and mapping of the 100 and 500 year in flood
areas, areas of present and future population, future flood
conditions, residual risk zones, and requires the inclusion of
other relevant data from Federal agencies. In short, the
expectation set by Congress reflects how we the people already
view the FEMA flood mapping products as the authoritative
source of flood hazard information.
FEMA should continue to lead this effort. At the time
Congress passed the National Flood Mapping Program, I recall
testifying to Congress about the status of flood mapping in the
country. Then we were talking a lot more about quality issues
in FEMA's existing map inventory. Fortunately, FEMA's made good
progress on that. The overall quality of the existing inventory
has improved significantly, and the quality of the maps coming
out today, by using advanced techniques and technologies is
quite good.
However, we do what we measure, and while FEMA has made
progress on the quality of mapping inventory, there's been
little or no progress on expanding that inventory to map the
Nation as the law requires. The fact is only 1/3 of our
streams, rivers, and coastlines in the country are mapped. No
appreciable mapping has occurred of future conditions, and
while there's been some mapping of residual risk areas in the
country, the data's not being reflected on FEMA's flood maps,
and it's generally not publicly available. We can sympathize
with FEMA's dilemma, because to fully implement the vision of
the National Flood Mapping Program--because Congress must
appropriate those resources to get the job done.
Earlier this month ASFPM released our updated cost
analysis for fully implementing the National Flood Mapping
Program. A copy of that has been included with our testimony.
While the costs are large, the cost of inaction and flood
losses are much larger. The cost to get the job done is less
than the cost of 6 months of flood disasters occurring in the
United States. By investing in flood mapping now, we can avoid
the increasingly large bill for unwise development decision and
disaster losses later.
In closing, I want to mention that our written testimony
identifies some key points--or key inputs into flood models and
flood mapping. Please understand that having accurate flood
maps to make the country more resilient requires not only a
resourced and functioning National Flood Mapping Program, but
we must also have accurate information establishing rainfall
frequencies, probable maximum precipitation estimates, create
and maintain a robust network of stream gauges, and have tools
to help our coastal and inland floodplain managers to be more
effective, such as the digital coast website. Our testimony
identifies several recommendations for you to take action.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Berginnis follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you all for your testimony. I know we
all appreciate your expertise. Before we proceed to questions
from the Members, I'd like to bring the Subcommittee's
attention to five documents we have received in preparation for
this hearing. The documents all speak to the importance of
improving science inputs into Federal flood mapping and
resilience efforts.
The first is a statement from Dave Rosenblatt, the Chief
Resilience Officer and Assistant Commissioner for Climate and
Flood Resilience at the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection. The second is a letter from Dr. Rachel Cleetus and
the Union of Concerned Scientists' Climate and Clean Energy
Program. Third we have a statement from the Association of
State Dam Safety Officials. And fourth is a report from
Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and
International Affairs titled ``Improving Coastal Resilience
Toward a New National Flood Hazards Reduction Program''. And,
finally, we have a letter from CoreLogic, Inc., a corporation
that provides risk analysis and other intelligence information
to clients. Without objection, I'll place these documents in
the record.
And at this point we will begin our first round of
questions. The Chair recognizes herself for 5 minutes.
Well, thank you again to all the witnesses for being here
today. According to the fourth National Climate Assessment,
projected increases in inland flooding over the coming century
is estimated to result in an average annual damages of $1.2 to
$1.4 billion each year by 2050, and, as a result of sea level
rise, coastal storms and high tides have already amplified
coastal flooding and erosion. The Pacific Northwest, and my
home State of Oregon, which I noticed on your map, Mr.
Branfort, didn't have a lot of green in your LIDAR mapping, we
have a challenging history of flooding. Some as a result of
early snowpack melt, increased precipitation in warm
temperatures in the spring. The mighty Columbia River, in fact,
completely engulfed the community of Vanport in 1948. It
crested 15 feet higher than the floodplain, jeopardized the
livelihoods of thousands of residents. Then, in 1996, I
remember this one, the Willamette River flooding saturated the
region, resulting in evacuations, mudslides, and significant
property damage.
In rural Columbia County in 1996 and 2007 there was
serious flooding from the Nehalem River in Vernonia. It
destroyed homes and schools in 2007, and then they had another
major flood in 2015. And just earlier this month Oregon
declared a state of emergency in several counties as a result
of flooding that had already occurred this year. We can only
expect that these events will become more extreme and more
frequent with the climate crisis.
So, first, according to the National Academies report from
last year titled ``Framing the Challenge of Urban Flooding in
the United States'', FEMA mapping methods for river and coastal
flood hazards do not currently consider distinctive urban flood
hazards. So, Mr. Berginnis, how could FEMA better address the
growing urban flood risk?
Mr. Berginnis. Urban flood risk is a topic that's evolving
very significantly. Actually, when I go out and talk to our
chapters, one of the things that has struck me over the last
couple years is almost everybody says, you know, it's one thing
we design our infrastructure for one to two inches of rain an
hour, but we're seeing rainfall events that give you three to
four inches in a half hour. How do we deal with that? And the
National Academies study is one of three studies, actually,
that came out in the last 12 months or so. There's also one by
the University of Maryland, and the ASFPM Foundation just
released a report a couple weeks ago on that.
And I mention those because they're exploring different
dimensions on it right now, in the practitioner community,
there actually isn't a lot of agreement on how we address urban
flooding. There's a couple takeaways that we have, I think, on
the practitioner's side. One, the Federal Government can
probably provide tools and resources, but there is a clear
preference of not having something that emerges from the
Federal Government that's regulatory. So--because a lot of the
storm water management and the land use management associated
with urban flooding is really done at that local and----
Ms. Bonamici. Sure. It varies a lot, I'm sure, from----
Mr. Berginnis. Yeah, exactly.
Ms. Bonamici [continuing]. Area to area.
Mr. Berginnis. So that would be--I would say that would be
about the area of consensus right now, is kind of tools and
resources, but not regulatory.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. And, Mr. Osler, how could Federal
science agencies, including NOAA, help FEMA better incorporate
climate trends into urban flood risk assessments?
Mr. Osler. I think one of the key areas where we can
collaborate, I think, more closely is that we seek connections
in the day to day at the practitioner level, but
organizationally we have a greater need to be directed, I
think, to have direct linkages. A lot of our programs between
FEMA and NOAA are complementary, and they have grown up in
recognition of each other, and yet that is a--that's people
just paying attention to good government, as opposed to a
strict mandate of how that linkage should happen and might
happen.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. I'm going to get another question
in. The climate crisis is changing the frequency and intensity
of flooding. Floodplains are no longer as static as perhaps
they were when the National Flood Insurance Program was created
in 1968. So, Mr. Berginnis, is focusing on whether a property
is or is not in the 100-or 500-year floodplain an accurate use
of the best available science, or is the 1 percent annual
chance flood the most appropriate indicator of high flood risk
areas today?
Mr. Berginnis. Well, again, there's a lot of debate, and,
interestingly, there is a trend that we're starting to see some
communities, especially those that are feeling the effects of
climate change, moving to a higher standard, such as the 500-
year flood elevation. Most recently Houston and Harris County
have done that. The city of Austin is doing that temporarily,
until they get new flood maps that reflect the current
conditions.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. And I'm going to try to set a
good example and yield back the balance of my time. I have an
additional question I'll submit for the record. Next I
recognize Mr. Gonzalez for 5 minutes for your questions.
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you, Madam Chair, and for your
consideration on the timeliness. So thanks for this hearing.
I'm also on the Financial Services Committee, so we've sort of
wrestled with this issue in that Committee. Good to see it
here. It's obvious to me that this needs to be done in
collaboration. It's clear to me that we have to better adapt to
a changing climate, and take proactive steps that ensure
Americans are protected from harm. One way to do that is to
make sure that we're not building new homes or businesses in
areas that have the potential to be wiped out.
I'd like to start with Mr. Grimm. In your testimony you
highlighted the significant increase in annual flood losses
since the 1980s. In your estimation, what percentage of today's
NFIP costs are associated with repetitive loss properties?
Mr. Grimm. Repetitive loss properties create a significant
drain on the National Flood Insurance Program. You know, those
are the properties that flood repeatedly. Many of them are
outside of the floodplain, which causes the issue around the
mapping program, in terms of getting to mapping beyond the
binary line. I'll have to get back to you on the exact
percentage that is the drain on--the number of claims on the
program. It is significant. What I'd like to draw the attention
to, though, is on the mapping program, moving away from the
binary in and out nature of our flood maps.
Mr. Gonzalez. Yeah.
Mr. Grimm. As one of the Members pointed out, in 1968,
when the maps were originally designed to be an insurance tool,
many communities, and States, and local governments have moved
well beyond that. We have to move away from that to a graduated
risk analysis so that we can address those areas that flood
outside of the current flood mapped area.
Mr. Gonzalez. Can an individual today build a property in
a flood prone region and expect to be eligible for insurance
coverage from NFIP?
Mr. Grimm. In a participating community in the National
Flood Insurance Program, flood insurance is available for
anybody inside a special flood hazard area or outside of the
special flood hazard area.
Mr. Gonzalez. I mean, it seems to me that this sort of
behavior should be discouraged. I mean, the way I look at this,
from a climate standpoint or an energy standpoint, is we're
very early stages with respect to what'll probably be a multi-
decade energy transition, unless somebody can tell me that they
can make steel, cement, plastic, or ammonia without fossil
fuels. I have no idea how to do that at scale without them, and
so I think we're very, very early stages, and so adaptation has
to be central to the discussion and mitigation. And I don't
know that we spend enough time on that, frankly, with respect
to the flood program, but--talking about energy issues period
is just the realities of where we are currently at in the
energy transition, and what it's going to take, and how long
it's going to take to get there. I think multi-decades, at
minimum.
I'll stick with you, Mr. Grimm, for my last question. As
you noticed in your testimony, in 2015 TMAC recommended FEMA
incorporate future flood hazard conditions. To this date,
however, FEMA continues to only look at current risk. What
specific steps is FEMA taking to incorporate this change, and
what have been the biggest barriers to seeing it through?
Mr. Grimm. Sure. Yeah, FEMA continues to consider all the
recommendations of the Mapping Advisory Council around future
conditions. They recommend, for non-regulatory products,
looking at future conditions. To date we've done a number of
pilot efforts. I mentioned one in my oral testimony, that we're
currently working with New York City on sea level rise. We've
also done a few others around the Nation, on the West Coast, as
well as some inland areas, and some erosion--future erosion
potential.
As I mentioned--I think as Chad mentioned, there's 3.5
million miles of streams in the United States. We've only
mapped 1.1 million miles. Our resources and the decisions that
we've had to make around--with State and local governments is
to focus those resources in those higher risk areas that we
are--have made the assumption on insurance policies and
population, therefore, there are certain things that we have
not been able to directly attack, in the sense of future
conditions on every flood map. What we do is we look to our
partners, such as NOAA, and the Sea Level Rise Viewer, and
other technologies. Chad also mentioned, and Mark mentioned,
the Atlas-14, and keeping that up-to-date so that we can
incorporate the appropriate data and technologies, in
particularly around the Sea Level Viewer.
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you, and I yield back.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Lamb from
Pennsylvania for 5 minutes for your questions.
Mr. Lamb. Thank you, gentlemen, for being with us. We
found out last year that the Army Corps of Engineers, their
flood risk management efforts, just in the Upper Ohio River in
my district--this was in 2018--prevented an estimated $1.11
billion in flood damages, and historically, kind of in the
modern era, they estimate that to be $36 billion just for the
Ohio. Anyone who's been to Pittsburgh knows we have three
rivers that converge at the city of Pittsburgh, and, if you
look at it, all told, it's potentially more than $100 billion.
A lot of it from the reservoirs that they built, you know, 100
years ago, in the 1920s.
Does FEMA--I'll start with you, Mr. Grimm, if that's OK.
Does FEMA look at these steps that are being taken by the Army
Corps historically, and on an annual basis, to prevent flooding
damage as part of your assessment of--and creation of the flood
maps? Do you--I guess do you work with the Corps and take into
account their research and work, and their actual efforts on
the ground?
Mr. Grimm. Yeah, thank you, sir. We absolutely do. The
Corps is, in fact, one--a very, very close partner. I currently
have somebody from the Corps actually sitting outside my office
who's on detail for 6 months, and we're coordinating on
residual risk in the National Levee Data base, and other
projects. When a project is constructed, FEMA absolutely works
with the Corps of Engineers and State and local partners, and,
when appropriate, we incorporate those structures into our
flood mapping program, and the resulting flood maps.
Mr. Lamb. OK. So if they could do--like, let's say that
next year in Western Pennsylvania the Corps could only do 80
percent of the work that they did this year, you know, because
of less personnel and less budget. You know, they couldn't work
on the reservoirs as much, or locks and dams, or whatever--all
the stuff that they do. Would that make it maybe harder to plan
for future floods, or you would have to think that there might
be more financially? You know, that $1 billion money saved
figure might get a little higher if the Corps is doing less
work, would you agree on that?
Mr. Grimm. Yeah. So, in order to have a Corps of Engineers
structure reflected on the flood insurance rate map, it has to
meet certain engineering standards that it reduces risk. So, as
those structures progress and get completed, they get
incorporated into the maps. If there's something that's, for
example, under construction, but not providing protection yet,
we would not recognize that on the flood map, so any slowdown
in work would, as a result, may not be reflected.
Mr. Lamb. OK. That's helpful. And I was referring to the,
you know, President's budget again this year offers to cut 22
percent from Army Corps' overall budget, which, regardless of,
you know, where they say that would come from, I think we can
all assume it would lead to a slowdown in a lot of projects and
ongoing construction, so I'm happy to hear you say that's
important to your work, and we'll do what we can to restore, or
even grow that funding.
The last thing--I just wanted to ask Mr. Branfort, you
mentioned working with the Corps as well, which is obviously,
you know, they're very important to our region for a lot of
reasons, but, you know, we have these huge and historic
reservoirs on the upper parts of our rivers, especially up on
the Allegheny. I was not familiar with the terms that you used,
and if you could just repeat the--I keep wanting to say
Ba'athification, which is a word from the Iraq War, but was----
Mr. Branfort. Bathymetric.
Mr. Lamb. Bathymetric, OK. So is that something that the
Corps is already doing at reservoirs like we have on our
rivers, or you're saying it's something they should be doing in
the future----
Mr. Branfort. It is happening on some of the reservoirs--
--
Mr. Lamb. OK.
Mr. Branfort [continuing]. And river, yes.
Mr. Lamb. But it could be----
Mr. Branfort. Primarily----
Mr. Lamb [continuing]. To a greater----
Mr. Branfort. Historically it's been on navigable rivers,
is where we've done that, and then the--dredge it to keep the
river channels open, but it has been occurring over the last
several years on a number of reservoirs to monitor sediment
buildup.
Mr. Lamb. OK. Is--would it be fair to say that the older a
reservoir is, the more likely it should undergo that kind of
analysis?
Mr. Branfort. That would make the most sense.
Mr. Lamb. Like these 100-year-old ones?
Mr. Branfort. Yeah.
Mr. Lamb. OK. And is it--essentially what you're saying
that the sediment builds up over time on the sides and bottom
so it's--you're sort of squeezing water----
Mr. Branfort. You have less capacity--yes. We've seen--the
one example I had up with the map was Cochiti Reservoir in New
Mexico, where the upper reaches are filled in 70 feet of
sediment vertically.
Mr. Lamb. And do they--does the Corps contract with firms
like yours to do that work, or do they just do it themselves?
Do they contract----
Mr. Branfort. Both.
Mr. Lamb. OK, both. OK. Excellent. Thank you, gentlemen.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. I now recognize Dr. Babin from
Texas for 5 minutes for your questions.
Mr. Babin. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you all for
being here, your expert witness testimony. I appreciate the
opportunity to have this discussion on flood mapping, which
happens to be of great importance to my district in Southeast
Texas. I represent the 36th District from Houston over to
Louisiana. Southeast corner of Texas has been hit many times
over the last few years.
The accuracy and consistency of flood mapping is critical
in my district, carrying tremendous impacts on communities and
homeowners. It is important to realize that these maps cannot
be done on a one-size-fits-all approach, and that the data that
they're based on is critical to having accurate maps. I
represent a community down in Hardin County, for example,
Hardin County, Texas, which just went through an arduous
process of redoing their flood maps with FEMA. Long story
short, the new flood maps were almost drawn with the data from
1975, instead of using the more recent data from 2010. This
mistake was fixed by the community, but had it not been caught
by local water control improvement district, it could've had a
very significant detrimental impact on the community.
So, Mr. Grimm, I have other counties that are using flood
maps that are based on data from 20 to 30 years ago, and while
different counties have maps like Hardin County, using up to
date data based on aerial surveys and extensive studies, what
is the determination for who is getting updated maps? Please,
sir.
Mr. Grimm. Sure, thank you, sir.
Mr. Babin. Yes, sir.
Mr. Grimm. So FEMA works with--this is a shared
responsibility, No. 1. This is a responsibility that--working
with the local government, working with the State government,
and the Federal Government, and all the partners, to work
through the process of the mapping. We start the mapping
process with what's called a discovery meeting, where we get
together at the local level and bring everybody to the table to
talk about what needs to be studied, what areas are at risk,
and what areas we need to extend the mapping to. It's a
conversation that takes some time. We then go into the data
collection phase of that process, and eventually we get through
the data collection and producing the flood map. It then goes
through a process of public review, and----
Mr. Babin. That.
Mr. Grimm [continuing]. It's----
Mr. Babin. When you say public review, are you talking
about that individual county, or city, or----
Mr. Grimm. Yeah.
Mr. Babin [continuing]. Metropolitan area?
Mr. Grimm. Yeah.
Mr. Babin. The reason I'm asking this is because Hardin
County, for example, they're scared to death. These new flood
maps, they want to have input from the county, and they want to
have transparency. So go ahead, resume. Thank you.
Mr. Grimm. Yeah. Yes, sir, I couldn't agree with you more.
Mr. Babin. Yeah.
Mr. Grimm. I mean, the--FEMA wants community and county
input and review to be partners in this process. It is--we
believe it is a shared responsibility, and we cannot do it
without that conversation to happen. And, you know, I will
commit to you that I am glad to reach out to our regional
office and ensure that is happening. I am----
Mr. Babin. Really appreciate----
Mr. Grimm. --Region Six Office, I am confident that they
do that, and I'd be glad to loop back with our regional folks
to extend that.
Mr. Babin. That would be wonderful. And so I'm going to go
on to you, Mr. Osler. Let's talk about the Atlas-14 approach.
What is the methodology of this approach, and are there any
arbitrary standards to this approach?
Mr. Osler. Thank you, sir. So Atlas-14, for the room, is a
product by NOAA that helps to understand the statistical
frequency of rainfall in different parts of the Nation. One
thing that's important to know, there is no steady authorized
stream of funding for Atlas-14. It is not a funded, supported
product by NOAA, despite its critical contribution to this
discussion across the Nation. And so, what you asked about
methods, that changes. That--there is a pool funding mechanism
to fund Atlas-14, where local municipalities or States
essentially pass the hat to create the funding to trigger
NOAA's uptake of an update to Atlas-14, typically at the State
level.
And so the approach, then, is state of the science, state
of the measurements, that--whenever that update has been made.
But if you look across the Nation, it's a patchwork coverage
now in the degree to which those data are up to date or not.
Mr. Babin. OK. Thank you. I have a few seconds left. Mr.
Branfort, one of the slides you showed earlier zoomed on a
specific area outside of Houston that I recognize as Burnet
Bay, which is in my district. Firstly, I'd like to know if this
site was chosen for a reason other than its proximity to
Johnson Space Center, and secondly, other than knowing where we
might lose land mass where businesses or houses have been
developed, what is the value of knowing where land subsidence
is occurring? Obviously comparing images taken years ago to
present images shows a change, but does this data help predict
where subsidence might take place elsewhere in the country?
Mr. Branfort. You know, first of all, that image is
selected because that is a significant area of subsidence. It's
just the amount of subsidence that's occurring there. We have
very little data nationwide as--we--monitoring subsidence
nationwide, it's just the areas we've known where it's occurred
and, you know, watched it. I don't think that that gives us a
forecasting tool for where--when it happened in other places.
One of the major problems with subsidence is it's gradual over
a larger area, which takes down the survey control that you use
to typically monitor elevation data, and it takes down the
whole area, so you can get a broader, more accurate map over
the area.
Mr. Babin. All right, thank you. I have other questions,
but I'm out of time, so thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lamb [presiding]. Recognize Mr. Tonko for 5 minutes.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all of
the--my colleagues that--who have helped work on putting this
hearing together, and we thank all of our witnesses for their
time and expertise that's shared today.
As we have heard over and over again, floods are the
primary culprit of natural disasters in the U.S., causing over
$190 billion in damages last decade. This damage total has been
increasing due to climate change driven extreme weather events,
raising concern amongst homeowners and investors about the
safety and security of their property. The tool they must rely
on to assuage those concerns, however, seems broken. FEMA's
flood insurance rate maps, or FIRMs, are meant to identify
statistically likely flood risk. However, they have done a poor
job of doing that lately.
External estimates show that about three times as many
people live in serious flood risk as are shown on FEMA maps,
and these findings were sadly affirmed a few years back during
Hurricane Harvey. Eighty percent of the high-water rescues
during Harvey, 80 percent, were outside the 500-year flood
plan--floodplain. So, to repeat, the Federal tool designed to
predict even the slightest possibility of flood risk failed to
predict 80 percent of the flood risk when they needed it most.
No one should accept this failure rate, and we must improve our
flood maps for the sake of American homeowners, business
owners, and investors.
So, Mr. Berginnis, you highlight one major strategy to
improve our FEMA maps, simply finish mapping elevations. And I
agree with you that we must finish this critical task, however,
do you believe that accurate elevation data are enough to
predict flood damage from these extreme storms, such as
Hurricane Harvey?
Mr. Berginnis. In finishing the job, one of the things
that I think's a credit to Congress, in 2012, is recognizing
the fact that we use flood maps in a lot of different ways, and
have different types of flood hazard areas, so not just a
statistical floodplain, but residual risks, future conditions.
And so, when we talk about finishing the maps, we're also
talking about adding those things that currently are not on the
flood map, so it's actually doing both, and we think at least
that's a good start, because one of the other aspects, and we
mentioned this in our written testimony, is that other Federal
agencies and States are producing unique products, but one of
the problems right now is that while FEMA has developed a good
online tool that can layer data, there is not good connectivity
to those State or other Federal resources. FEMA had recently
been able to work to get COBRA (Coastal Barrier Resources Act)
maps that now interface with that, and so we think that FEMA's
going in the right direction, but it's not there yet.
Mr. Tonko. OK. And I--thank you for that. And it's
important that we recognize the widespread need for these
climate data products. Climate data do more than predict
temperatures. They save billions of dollars and thousands of
lives. This administration is actively putting citizens at risk
by decimating critical budget items needed to collect data
critical for flood prediction. It looks to cut the USGS and
NOAA, agencies that collect the data needed to predict future
rainfall, stream flow, and floods, by 40 percent and 24 percent
respectively. It zeroes out NASA's Earth science missions that
monitor global climate. So I appreciate all of the work that is
being done to improve our flood maps despite these backward
views, however, we should demand that American scientists are
given every tool available to do this job right for the
American people.
I'm just curious too, with our agencies represented, is
there a discussion about climate change, and the impact on
flood mappings?
Mr. Grimm. Absolutely. Climate is changing. FEMA is
addressing climate in our program areas. We have incorporated
sea level rise curves into our Mitigation Grant Program, in our
benefit-cost analysis for use in grant awards, into our
planning guidance for--to States and local governments for
addressing mitigation planning at the national level. Most
recently we released the National Mitigation Investment
Strategy, which is to bring the whole community together to
align our investments, including around future conditions.
Mr. Tonko. And NOAA would do the same thing? Do you
discuss climate change?
Mr. Osler. Not only discuss it, sir, but NOAA's--one of
NOAA's core missions is to research and monitor our----
Mr. Tonko. Well, then----
Mr. Osler [continuing]. Changing climate.
Mr. Tonko [continuing]. My question--obvious question is
how does that not percolate to the top of the executive branch?
If we have climate impacting a lot of this mapping and data
assimilation, why do we not accept the concept of climate
change? OK. I yield back.
Mr. Lamb. Last round. I think, for me, I just have one
broad question that I'd like to throw out to each of you. As
the science for identifying flood hazards evolves, FEMA's flood
mapping program updates its engineering and mapping standards,
including the models that are used. The standards are
published, vetted, peer reviewed, and updated regularly to
ensure that they're aligned with current best practices. Every
5 years FEMA re-assesses the studies behind each flood map to
see if the data and models that were used to create it meet
current standards. Despite this, current best practices do not
always grant accurate results in a nation with a rapidly
changing climate and rising sea levels, with change in some
areas occurring faster than 5-year intervals. So I think that's
uncontroversial, and more or less what we heard today.
For each of you that would care to comment, I think the
closing question we have is what sources of data require
improved data collection and/or additional funding? So national
rainfall frequency data, stream gauge data, tidal gauge data.
In other words, if you were sort of designing your wish list
data set, or dream data set, what would it include, and any
suggestions for how we could get it to you? Maybe starting with
Mr. Grimm?
Mr. Grimm. Sure. I think you read off the list, honestly.
You know, when we're pulling data together to make a flood map,
you know, you're putting together four buckets, four elements,
to a flood map, the topographic data, so that LIDAR, that 3DEP
Program, right, it's a critical element to what we do. We
cannot produce accurate flood maps without accurate elevation
data. Then you move into the hydrology and hydraulic areas, in
terms of how much water falls. That's my buddy here, NOAA
Atlas-14, and the hydraulics, and advancements in technology on
automated mapping techniques, for example, that the private
sector often develops.
Then you move into the base mapping, and, you know, the
streets, the infrastructure, and collecting all of that data.
You know, looking down the row here, there's a lot of folks who
are collecting this data, and a lot of agencies that collect
this type of data that, without it, FEMA won't be able to
advance and move technology forward, and have accurate data to
produce an accurate flood map. One--and one thing I want to
say, we want to move away from risk identification of that
binary line. We want to move into graduated risk analysis and
true flood management of multi-frequency hazards, including
future conditions.
Mr. Lamb. Thank you. Mr. Osler?
Mr. Osler. Thank you. Mr. Grimm nailed it, in terms of the
typical ingredients of Earth science data that are needed to
map floods, and so I would double down on that statement about
foundational information. Where's the ground, where's the
water? How are those changing, both water from the ocean and
from precipitation? I would note on the sea level rise front we
maintain just over 200 authoritative water level gauges which
were--have been installed, in some cases, for over 100 years,
and these have been the harbingers of sea level rise, and help
us actually track and understand rates of change on the ground.
The purpose of those gauges, when they were initiated, was
not to track changing climate, but to help marine commerce, and
that mission remains strong today. However, there are
significant gaps now that sea level rise is affecting every
part of our coastline, and changing water levels on the Great
Lakes. So we have gaps in our ability to accurately, and in
real time, predict seal level change impacts in the areas in
between those gauges, so we're talking seriously about
revolutionizing the ability to model and fill in those gaps so
that we can help provide even more detailed information.
Mr. Lamb. Thank you. Mr. Branfort?
Mr. Branfort. Definitely--both of them referred to the
3DEP elevation-based model. There is a significant portion of
this country, about a third of the country--Mr. Grimm referred
to digital copies of paper maps, where the old paper maps have
been converted to a digital format, but they're still--they
were low accuracy to begin with, and been converted, and then
we've had massive changes since then, so the base 3DEP
elevation data for the Nation is a starting point for all----
Mr. Lamb. That's the key. And, last, Mr. Berginnis?
Mr. Berginnis. And maybe, being last, I could say all of
the above. But the one thing I do want to point out, and it was
from Mr. Osler's testimony, while 3DEP, while stream gauging,
the Flood Mapping Program, all have ongoing programs,
authorities, requirements, and funding, Mr. Osler pointed out
something I think that's key, and that is our precipitation
frequency information that Atlas-14--currently there's no
mandate, and there's no sustained funding at all. That is a
huge problem, because that's a key input into flood maps.
Mr. Lamb. Thank you all. Before we bring this to a close,
I want to thank the witnesses for testifying. The record will
remain open for 2 weeks for additional statements from the
Members, or any additional questions the Committee may ask of
the witnesses. The witnesses are now excused, and the hearing
is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m., the Subcommittees were
adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Appendix II
----------
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]